JehuDVD Reviews

The Rookie (2002)

The CU Film Critic takes on "The Rookie"

[2 March 2002]

People say `feel-good movie' like it's a bad thing. I say, if it rings true, and doesn't star Haley Joel Osment, a `feel-good movie' can be a great way to spend a couple hours.

`The Rookie' stars Dennis `Bring Me the Head of Russell Crowe' Quaid as Jim Morris, a longtime baseball fanatic whose major league hopes were dashed by some shoulder injury or another. At age thirty-seven, he coaches a high school baseball team in a Texas town that makes `King of the Hill' look like `Masterpiece Theatre.' After a game of catch, he discovers that since his shoulder surgery, he's able to pitch harder and faster than ever before (think `Rookie of the Year' but with facial hair). In order to encourage his struggling team, he promises them that if they'll buckle down and win a game or two, he'll follow suit by trying out for the major leagues.

Need I tell you how things are gonna go down?

What I'm liking about this is that it's a true story. Not being a baseball fan myself, I invited my baseball junkie father to the screening in order to get an insider's perspective. According to baseball trivia's Great One, they got everything with superb accuracy, right down to the fact that Jim Morris was a left handed pitcher. I was then treated to a tirade on the lack of attention to detail in `Field of Dreams.'

The characters, while flat, are played soulfully and with just the right script as to make us both fear and appreciate crazy old men from Texas. Every little kid in this movie is as cute- cute as a dozen baby ducks in tutus reciting `If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.'

This movie is great for those of us that sometimes need a reminder of how great our lives really are. After weeks and months of toil and mental anguish over the sport, Quaid's character finds himself watching a little league game, and remembering all the fun he'd somehow sucked out of his favorite pastime. The next day, he greets his teammates by asking, `You know what we get to do today? We get to PLAY baseball!'

`The Rookie,' much like `The Sandlot,' is a baseball movie that can be enjoyed by anyone- baseball fan or not. Also like `The Sandlot,' it reminds us that baseball was created for kids, and teaches by example by grabbing only the SECOND G-rating (in theatres) for the year 2002.

`The Rookie' gets a B. Would have been higher, but there are better baseball movies, if you want to look hard enough. Gotta be fair.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

CU's Film Critic reviews "LOTR"

[10 December 2001]

I read `The Hobbit' in fourth grade, loved it, and then proceeded to ignore the rest of the Lord of the Rings series for about 13 years.

That is, until I realized I had three days before screening the first of three new films based on the trilogy, `The Fellowship of the Ring.' Luckily, I had a little time, and knocked out the first book in exactly enough time. I finished it, in fact, roughly seventeen minutes before the screening began.

Some of you, I would imagine, have been living in a cave for the past fifty or so years, so it rests on me to give you the basic rundown of the story in question. Keep in mind, I'm not exactly a Tolkien scholar, so you'll be getting the Cliffs Notes version.

In the fantasy world of Middle Earth, there exists an ancient ring imbued with evil by the Dark Lord Sauron (imagine if Christopher Walken and Jack Nicholson had a kid who grew up listening to a lot of Danzig), which is lost, then through a series of chance conincidences, finds its way into the hands of the quiet, fun-loving Hobbit Frodo (Elijah Wood). Hobbits, you ask? Short people with fuzzy toes who would rather be eating and hanging out with their amigos than, say, slaying dragons and such (under this definition, it appears I could also be considered a Hobbit).

Whatever the case, the whole ring situation is just a bad scene all around, and someone's got to get rid of the thing. The esteemed wizard Gandalf (the guy from the `Sorcerer's Apprentice' minus the brooms), played by Ian McKellen, shows up with good news for Frodo: All they've got to do is put together a crew that can haul the ring down to what is basically hell itself and destroy the thing without going mad or becoming possessed.

The film is great not because the acting is great (though it is), not because the special effects almost caused me to soil myself (which they almost did), and not because the screenplay was virtually perfect (which it was). `The Fellowship of the Ring' works as a film because the story is just THAT entertaining.

Little gems of wisdom abound. Sauron, for example, is the Dark Lord and basically the thorn in everyone's side. The thing is, he's not really evil; when it comes down to it, he's just mean. He hates and destroys good things because they're good. But beyond that, we don't know a whole lot about his motivations.

The movie (or book, for that matter) doesn't give us any insight whatsoever about this, but we soon realize that evil or not, Sauron's not really the issue. Where instead do we see the real evil? In Frodo, his uncle Bilbo (Ian Holm), and the members of the Fellowship. Their internal corruptions and temptations are hundreds of times scarier than anything we get from the `bad guys.' Still, that's not to say the film doesn't have its share of creepy antagonists. You're gonna have to see those for yourself.

Need more reasons? Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving (yes, Agent Smith from `The Matrix' plays the benevolent Elf King- this film is every geek's dream), and Sean Astin. Above all, though, Ian Holm's screen time as Bilbo is worth the price of admission alone.

I'm not a die-hard `Rings' fanatic, so die-hards may think I'm a little too quick to applaud the `hollywood-izing' of their favorite classic. To be fair, then, `Fellowship' gets a `B+.'

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

CU Film Critic takes on "Fellowship"

[9 December 2001]

I read `The Hobbit' in fourth grade, loved it, and then proceeded to ignore the rest of the Lord of the Rings series for about 13 years.

That is, until I realized I had three days before screening the first of three new films based on the trilogy, `The Fellowship of the Ring.' Luckily, I had a little time, and knocked out the first book in exactly enough time. I finished it, in fact, roughly seventeen minutes before the screening began.

Some of you, I would imagine, have been living in a cave for the past fifty or so years, so it rests on me to give you the basic rundown of the story in question. Keep in mind, I'm not exactly a Tolkien scholar, so you'll be getting the Cliffs Notes version.

In the fantasy world of Middle Earth, there exists an ancient ring imbued with evil by the Dark Lord Sauron (imagine if Christopher Walken and Jack Nicholson had a kid who grew up listening to a lot of Danzig), which is lost, then through a series of chance conincidences, finds its way into the hands of the quiet, fun-loving Hobbit Frodo (Elijah Wood). Hobbits, you ask? Short people with fuzzy toes who would rather be eating and hanging out with their amigos than, say, slaying dragons and such (under this definition, it appears I could also be considered a Hobbit).

Whatever the case, the whole ring situation is just a bad scene all around, and someone's got to get rid of the thing. The esteemed wizard Gandalf (the guy from the `Sorcerer's Apprentice' minus the brooms), played by Ian McKellen, shows up with good news for Frodo: All they've got to do is put together a crew that can haul the ring down to what is basically hell itself and destroy the thing without going mad or becoming possessed.

The film is great not because the acting is great (though it is), not because the special effects almost caused me to soil myself (which they almost did), and not because the screenplay was virtually perfect (which it was). `The Fellowship of the Ring' works as a film because the story is just THAT entertaining.

Little gems of wisdom abound. Sauron, for example, is the Dark Lord and basically the thorn in everyone's side. The thing is, he's not really evil; when it comes down to it, he's just mean. He hates and destroys good things because they're good. But beyond that, we don't know a whole lot about his motivations.

The movie (or book, for that matter) doesn't give us any insight whatsoever about this, but we soon realize that evil or not, Sauron's not really the issue. Where instead do we see the real evil? In Frodo, his uncle Bilbo (Ian Holm), and the members of the Fellowship. Their internal corruptions and temptations are hundreds of times scarier than anything we get from the `bad guys.' Still, that's not to say the film doesn't have its share of creepy antagonists. You're gonna have to see those for yourself.

Need more reasons? Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving (yes, Agent Smith from `The Matrix' plays the benevolent Elf King- this film is every geek's dream), and Sean Astin. Above all, though, Ian Holm's screen time as Bilbo is worth the price of admission alone.

I'm not a die-hard `Rings' fanatic, so die-hards may think I'm a little too quick to applaud the `hollywood-izing' of their favorite classic. To be fair, then, `Fellowship' gets a `B+.'

Monsters, Inc. (2001)

The CU Film Critic takes on "Monsters, Inc."

[8/10 · 26 October 2001]

Whether you love or hate what's been making its way out of Walt Disney Studios for the past four years or so, one thing's for sure. Walt's gotta be rolling around in his cryogenic chamber.

Since `The Lion King,' with the exception of the `Toy Story' films, Disney's animated films have been going downhill in a hurry, on a slippery slope to the pit where we find such cartoon masterpieces as `Rock-a-Doodle' and `The Secret of Nimh 2: Timmy to the Rescue.'

That said, it would be nice for the folks at Disney to bring back the animated musical as we know it before Dreamworks' Jeffrey Katzenberg drops them with the film industry equivalent of a Stone Cold Stunner.

THAT said, the newest computer-animated film by the geniuses at Disney/Pixar is the most fun I've had at the theatre since last spring. `Monsters, Inc.' is a tale of blue-collar workers who just happen to be blessed with such distinguishing characteristics as purple fur, antennae, horns, etc.

Apparently, in the world of monsters (which may very well be Greeley, judging from various hints we're given), electrical power is all driven by one source- the screams of small children. If you've spent any time in a church-sponsored preschool, this concept won't come as a big surprise. Of course, in order to harness this power, myriad creatures are employed at Monsters, Incorporated, to enter our world through childrens' closet doors and collect these shrieks of terror to be put to use at the power plant.

As my fourteen year-old sister would say, `How cool is that?'

We get the voice of John `Walter' Goodman as James P. Sullivan (Sully, for short), an enthusiastic ogre of sorts with blue fur, a big smile, and horns. Imagine Bigfoot after two weeks at Wonka's chocolate factory, and you've got a pretty good idea.

Sully is the perpetual Employee of the Month at Monsters, Inc., spending all his free time boning up on job skills, and constantly breaking `scare records' with his patented system. His best friend and manager is Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal), a one-eyed, green gumdrop with harms and legs. Wazowski is the monster equivalent of George from `Seinfeld,' slightly neurotic but goofy enough to be fun.

When the two buddies inadvertently let a child into the monster world, catastrophe ensues. Children, of course, are considered toxic to monsters, making the job of scream collectors even more hazardous. This attracts the attention of the scheming villain Randall, voiced by none other than the devil himself, Steve Buscemi.

Cartoons, computer-generated or not, don't get much better than this. Cartoons are all about fun, and you won't have more fun at any other movie this fall. It's great. The monsters' names are Mike, George, and the like. The animation is top-notch. Shrek has nothing on this film. I sat hypnotized for a good eight minutes of the movie, captivated by the incredible detail what was given to various clumps of blue fur. A guest appearance by the Abominable Snowman made me roll out of my chair (upon presenting his guests with yellow sno-cones, he reassures them, `they're lemon.').

Also, this is Disney, so keep an eye out for cameos by characters from other films. I counted three. See if you can do me one better. `Monsters, Inc.' may not have been part of Walt Disney's vision, but I get the feeling he at least would have approved. Want one more reason to go see this movie? Five words. `Star Wars Episode II Trailer.'

It's high time a family movie makes its way to the top. I'm gonna endorse this one with an `A.'

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

CU Film Critic takes on "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back."

[17 October 2001]

Whether or not you enjoy `Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' is going to depend a lot on whether or not you enjoy director Kevin Smith. I, for one, think the guy is a genius. If you don't mind my lauding his name, read on. First, a little background for the uninitiated.

Kevin Smith's movies (Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, and now JSBSB) are a world created by the director himself, in the sense that all are interconnected by characters, plot points, and subtle references. The one constant, though, is the entity known as Jay and Silent Bob, a pair of pot dealers who have more or less spent their entire lives standing in front of the Quik-Stop convenience store. Jay (Jason Mewes) is the long-haired guy we all knew in high school, his endless stream of four-letter epithets almost endearing because the goofy guy just doesn't know any better. Silent Bob (played by director Kevin Smith), Jay's self-described `hetero life-mate' stands by without speaking a word and provides some sort of moral counterpoint for the duo.

In Smith's `Chasing Amy,' Banky and Holden (Jason Lee and Ben Affleck, respectively) created a comic book entitled `Bluntman and Chronic,' based on their real-life buddies Jay and Silent Bob. Fast-forward to `Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.'

Banky has sold the rights to his comic to Miramax pictures, leaving Jay and Silent Bob in the dark about the business deal. Jay and Bob, with help from Holden, discover via the Internet (`What's the Internet?' asks Jay) that a movie based on them is about to start production. Realizing that they won't see a dime of the money, and even more upset by their defamation on Internet message boards, they decide to truck across the country to stop the film from being produced.

It's important to note that while the comedy is crude, slapstick, and even resorts to fart jokes, it's not dumb comedy, it's satire at it's finest, reminiscent of such self-deprecating masterpieces as `Pee-Wee's Big Adventure' and `Blazing Saddles.' After the fairly serious `Chasing Amy' and the spiritually overtoned `Dogma,' we see that Smith has decided to get together with his buddies and put together one big inside joke. Fortunately, he's decided to let a few of us in on it. The viewer's enjoyment of the movie is going to depend completely on his or her knowledge of Smith's previous films and characters.

Smith's friends show up in cameos, from Chris Rock to Will Ferrell to Alanis Morrissette to Carrie Fisher to Mark Hamill (Smith is an infamous Star Wars fanatic). You can literally see a man's childhood dream coming true when at one point, Smith's Bob gets to carry on a lightsaber duel with Hamill.

Local interest: In one of the many subplots, a group of female jewel thieves bring Jay and Silent Bob to our very own Boulder, Colorado, to steal a monkey from a medical testing facility. `Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' is a comedy, and doesn't try to be anything else. The only thing I felt was missing was one of Jason Lee's inspired monologues bitterly bemoaning the state of society. Some of Shannon Elizabeth's screen time could have been cut, I felt, in favor of some trademark Smith dialogue.

Smith now intends to focus his time on more dramatic pursuits, and we are given this as the fifth and last film in his so-called `Jersey Trilogy.' The bottom line is, Smith loves his fans, and this film was created for the loyal. A fitting send-off for Jay and Silent Bob, this film gets an `A-.'

Rat Race (2001)

CU Film Critic takes on "Rat Race."

[17 October 2001]

For quite some time now, I've held that a truly good movie consists of more than just a cameo by a trendy rock band, star power, and jokes about excrement. With the recent release of `Rat Race,' this supposition has once again been proven.

It's a great idea, in theory. Take some of Hollywood's biggest comic names, and send them on a cross-country (or cross-New Mexico, as the case may be) road trip; the only necessary motivation is a hefty cash prize. Logically, it follows that hilarity would ensue.

I should point out that this formula can and does work. 1963's `It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World' starred Sid Caesar, Spencer Tracy, Milton Berle, Buddy Hackett, Jonathan Winters, Michey Rooney, and Ethel Merman, to name a few. They all went out looking for treasure, and the result was pure comedic gold.

Where did `Rat Race' go wrong? Well, for starters, instead of the biggest names in comedy, we are forced to settle for young up-and-coming pop stars, Omar Gooding's older brother, and a few stand-up comics who recently started hitting rough times. Instead of Williams, Hanks, Sandler, Tucker, and Stiller, we get Goldberg, Green, Gooding, Cleese, Atkinson, and Lovitz.

Now, that's not to say that `Rat Race' isn't a funny movie. I laughed out loud quite a few times. Taken in short segments, `Rat Race' is hilarious, just as we'd expect from a screenplay produced by a former Saturday Night Live writer. Maybe it would be great as a series of skits on a big-budget variety show, but as a movie, it falls flat on its face.

Is it worth watching? Yes, if you've got a large group of people to see it with, and you don't mind dropping six or seven bucks to slack off for a couple hours. Here are my observations, just in case you decide to give it a shot.

Vince Vieluf is funny. Seth Green and Cuba Gooding Jr. are not. Kathy Najimy is funny. Whoopi Godberg is not. Amy Smart is attractive. Rowan Atkinson is not. Jon Lovitz, for all intents and purposes, makes `Rat Race' almost worth the price of admission. If for no other reason, see the movie just to see Jon Lovitz steal Adolph Hitler's car, and your money won't have been wasted.

Sadly, though, even with the help of the fat guy from Seinfeld, Jon Lovitz can't save the movie from being anything but mediocre summer movie fare. Kathy Bates, arguably the most talented actress around, is wasted on a part reminiscent of her `Momma' in `The Waterboy.' It won't do me any good to give any background on the characters, because when it comes down to it, nothing really matters but the fact that all six contestants want to win some money. Some great characterization could have been put to use in this sort of road-trip film, but it seems that the screenwriter fell asleep on the job.

`Rat Race' gets a good solid `C.' Not good by any means, but certainly not the worst. If you can spot Dean Cain in a fun cameo, you've got my respect, and hey, who doesn't want that?

Spy Kids (2001)

CU Film Critic takes on "Spy Kids."

[17 October 2001]

Film director Robert Rodriguez named his three sons Rocket, Rebel, and Racer. Even if you're not familiar with his brand of intensely violent action films (El Mariachi, Desperado, From Dusk Till Dawn), that should tell you all you need to know about how cool the guy is. The prospect is insane: Robert Rodriguez, in my opinion one of the most talented directors of the past ten years, directing a childrens' film starring the phenomenal Antonio Banderas and Broadway's most sought after star Alan Cumming. After seeing the tralier, I figured that it was a freak accident due to obscure clauses in these gifted entertainers' contracts.

Accident or no, `Spy Kids' is one of the best family films to come around in years. I hate to sound like every other critic in town, but it's impossible to describe `Spy Kids' without mentioning `Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.' With this film, Rodriguez has looked past his previous genre in favor of a colorful, insane film that focuses on the virtues of family values and an active imagination.

Banderas and Carla Gugino star as Gregorio and Ingrid Cortez, two exemplary intelligence agents (though we never really find out who they're working for) who have given up their dangerous missions in order to raise their children, Juni (Darly Sabara) and Carmen (Alexa Vega). Gregorio and Ingrid have been relatively successful in keeping their children in the dark regarding their true occupations until they accept a risky, yet simple mission: To find several intelligence agents who have mysteriously disappeared.

Before we know it, Gregorio and Ingrid have been kidnapped by Fegan Floop (Cumming), the eccentric kids' TV show host, who plans to aid the world's takeover with a child robot army. Come on. You know it sounds like fun.

Surprisingly, `Spy Kids' is spun off from Rodriguez' segment of the Quentin Tarantino film `Four Rooms.' Apparently, this film was Rodriguez' brainchild from the beginning; not only did he direct the film, he produced it, wrote the screenplay, composed a good portion of the music, worked extensively on the visual effects, and did all the editing. Are you impressed yet?

How about the fact that he made a feature length, visual effects-heavy film with a prominent cast for only $36 million? Keep in mind that the Hollywood average is $45 million, and that the cost for a film this heavy in computer graphics and visual effects is usually upwards of $100 million. How this was done is beyond me. The sets and costumes were the best I've seen in some time, reminiscent of `Willy Wonka' and, oddly enough, `The Flintstones.'

The most entertaining aspect for me, however, was seeing Rodriguez' ardently distinctive directorial style (along with his trademark Spanish classical guitar music) employed in a film that is, above all else, for kids. The use of slow motion, distance zooms, and strobing camera angles, not to mention the jerky, quick camera movements during pivotal action scenes seemed just as comfortable here as they did in `Desperado.'

True to form, Rodriguez gives the film a healthy dose of his personal culture, and does a great job of presenting the film's Latino theme as a standard rather than a statement. Aside from Banderas and the wonderfully over-the-top Cumming, the star-studded cast includes the likes of Robert Patrick and Teri Hatcher, and features cameos by George Clooney and Cheech Marin. With all this starpower, however, it's easy to overlook the real stars of `Spy Kids'- the kids themselves.

Corny? Yeah. Goofy and mindless? Of course. But it's a LOT of fun. It presents the fantasy landscape, and expects us to believe it and get involved in the story. I'm gonna give this one a `B+.' If you're below the age of 12 or a Rodriguez fan, it's a must-see.

The Glass House (2001)

CU Film Critic takes on "The Glass House."

[17 October 2001]

Just once, I'd like to write a movie review without having to mention a dirty old man. Apparently, though, Hollywood seems to have a fixation with perverts, so I have to keep writing about them. This week's waste of time is `The Glass House,' directed by Daniel Sackheim. Leelee Sobieski is on board as Ruby Baker, a spoiled teenager from San Fernando Valley. When she and her brother are orphaned, family friends Terry and Erin Glass (Stellan Skaarsgard and Diane Lane, respectively) take them in and promise them a life of luxury in their Malibu home. When I say luxury, I mean attempted murder, drug abuse and sexual harassment. I had to laugh a little when I first visited the film's site on the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com). The viewer comments section is headlined by the quote `Atmospheric and chilling. A wonderful movie.'

Atmospheric, yes. Chilling? Not so much. Wonderful? Maybe , if you compare it to `Bio-Dome.' `The Glas House' is Daniel Sackheim's first Hollywood attempt, though he's had plenty of experience in the world of television. His previeous works have included `Judging Amy' as well as several TV movies, and it shows. Aside from the fact that the thing looks like it belongs on `Lifetime,' it's an unfortunate rip-off of such second-rate films as `The Hand the Rocks the Cradle' or `Fear.' One one hand, there are some great visuals. Glass, creatively enough, is the cinematography's constant focus, and I challenge you to find a single shot that doesn't include some form of glass or another. Breaking glass, privacy glass, Terry Glass. You know, it looks really nice, but this kind of film could use a little more subtlety. We also get a number of self-indulgent `Look, I'm a Director!' shots; i.e., a close-up shot of a dilating pupil, closet interior point-of-view, and of course, the dolly-in/zoom out `Vertigo' effect. Cliché after cliché is thrown in our faces. `Hey, she keeps sketching at the dinner table. Gotta wonder if that's gonna pay off later on.' It's Sackheim's first try, and he doesn't let us forget it. He wants badly to look like an artist, but his work is better suited to after-school specials.

Leelee Sobieski was mediocre enough, but her name is Leelee, and I'm not sure how to feel about that. After seeing her lead the Vaucouleurs against the Burgundians (as Joan of Arc) a couple years ago, I have a hard time watching her cry about being stuck in the home of a scary old Swedish guy.

Speaking of scary old Swedish guys, Stellan Skaarsgard is actually cast pretty well. Then again, anyone can be a dirty old man as long as they've got that lecherous grin. However, just because he was cast well doesn't mean he doesn't take every opportunity to overact. Even the dirtiest of dirty old men doesn't lurk in shadows and speak in hushed whispers all the time. I hereby bestow a `C-` upon `The Glass House.' Worth watching? I suppose it depends on the time and place. As I said before, `The Glass House' has `TV Movie' written all over it. Therefore, my suggestion would be to wait until a network decides to air it a few years from now. Until then, take your money and go see `Moulin Rouge' at the Basemar Cinema Saver. Quality entertainment, I tell ya.

Unbreakable (2000)

CU Film Critic takes on "Unbreakable."

[17 October 2001]

I have a newfound respect for director M. Night Shaymalan. Anybody who can give Samuel L. Jackson a bad haircut and get away with it is someone I don't want to mess with.

I walked into Shaymalan's latest directorial effort with mixed expectations. On one hand, with `The Sixth Sense,' he established himself as a gifted director with a penchant for original and surprising storylines. On the other, I knew that it was going to be difficult for him to create a follow-up to that critically acclaimed blockbuster without disappointing people.

I wasn't disappointed.

The way I look at it, the less you know about the film when you enter the theatre, the better. The movie trailers, for once, gave only the slightest glimpse into the plot- a perfect teaser to a great film. I could sit here and contrast it with the latest trailer for the upcoming Tom Hanks movie, `Cast Away.' It's a four minute long spectacle detailing the beginning, middle, climax, and final resolution of the film. Now that I've seen the trailer for `Cast Away,' I really don't need to see the film. But I digress.

`Unbreakable' stars Bruce Willis as David Dunn, a security guard who also happens to be the only survivor of a devastating train wreck. Costar Samuel L. `The Man' Jackson portrays Elijah Price, an upscale comic dealer with an extreme bone disorder who seeks to help Dunn find the answers to lifelong, haunting questions.

Really, my only complaint is that I would have liked to see more from Willis' character. Other than that, I feel it was a well-made flick, and I'm glad I get a chance to comment on the good aspects of it. The first thing I that impressed me was the cinematography. Shaymalan is really finding his niche in this aspect. Similar to `The Sixth Sense,' we get heavy shadows, brick buildings that dominate many of the shots, and a general `dark' feeling. Important to note is that I'm not talking about Tim Burton `dark' or David Lynch `dark.' Shaymalan adds his own atmosphere to his films, and I respect him for it.

The second thing I liked was the lack of dialogue. That may sound odd, but it seems to me that the entire story could have been told almost as effectively with no dialogue at all. That in itself says something about a director's ability to communicate an entire story through images, especially since there was almost no musical score to speak of.

You know what else I liked about the movie? Spencer Treat Clark. Or, as I like to call him, `The Poor Man's Haley Joel Osment.' It was obvious that Shaymalan had kept Osment in mind for the role of Willis' son, but Osment was, of course, too busy filming that pretentious waste of time `Pay it Forward.' Thus, Shaymalan was forced to come up with someone who at least resembled the goofy `I see dead people' kid. And you know what? I'm glad. Clark was a lot more entertaining to watch! Now if we can only get him to team up with Gary Busey. Then we'd have a film with not only `The Poor Man's Haley Joel Osment,' but also `The Poor Man's Nick Nolte.'

Go see this movie. It's enough to make u feel a little weirded out, but also a lot of fun. I was going to give `Unbreakable' a `B+.' After some thought, however, I decided that Samuel L. `The Man' Jackson's `Teletubbies' speech made it a little more deserving. We'll make it an `A-.'

Hannibal (2001)

CU Film Critic takes on "Hannibal."

[17 October 2001]

There are three different kinds of sequels.

First, we've got the goofy `We just made a fairly fresh, hip film that did well at the box office- Let's throw together another vaguely similar film and release it in roughly a year.' Examples of this include `Blair Witch 2,' `Home Alone 2,' and let's not forget `Skateboard Kid 2.'

Second comes the `Wow. We made something incredible to last through the ages. Let's make sure that when we put a second one together, we take it as seriously as the first.' This is where we get the really good sequels, like `The Godfather 2,' `The Empire Strikes Back,' and the New Testament.

The third kind is a little trickier. It's more like `We made a something that ended up becoming a classic. Let's be so careful in making a new one that we wait ten or more years and end up completely straying from the mood and style of the original.' Fitting into this category, right beside `Star Wars: Episode One,' we find `Hannibal.'

I won't try to compare the film `Hannibal' to the novel written by Thomas Harris, because anyone who hasn't read the book by now will most likely feel much less inclined to do so now that it's in convenient movie form. What I will do, however, is compare it to its immediate predecessor, the Academy Award winning `Silence of the Lambs.'

Whereas `Silence of the Lambs' was a chilling police procedural and psychological thriller, `Hannibal' is a carnival house of horrors full of quips and one-liners. The terror we got from `Silence' was from its understated, disturbing cerebral nature. If we derive any terror from `Hannibal,' it's due to Ridley Scott's overbearing shock value. Whereas the old Hannibal Lecter was just slightly `off' enough to make your skin crawl, the new Hannibal Lecter has become a caricature. The Joker, maybe. That said, the movie was quite entertaining. `Hannibal' is a lot more fun than `Silence' ever tried to be. Lecter's offhand comments, at times, had me laughing aloud. The film looked spectacular. The Florentine sets are some of the best I've seen. Between this and `Gladiator,' Ridley Scott's got the Italian market cornered. Well done. I loved the opera scene.

What was that opera?

The acting? You know, I don't think Anthony Hopkins has ever done a poor job in a film. In fact, without getting bored, I could watch Anthony Hopkins do nothing but knit a sweater for three hours. While he wasn't quite the same Hannibal Lecter we met in `Silence,' the acting was as good as anything I've seen. I choose to blame the script for the disloyalty to character. Gary Oldman is uncredited as Mason Verger, a vengeful victim of Lecter, seeking some good-old-fashioned Mosaic justice. Gary Oldman is quite possibly the finest actor of the last twenty years. No complaints here.

Let's get down to the real question at hand. How is Julianne Moore? Somewhere in the middle of the film, Julianne Moore's character is given a pair of brand new shoes. I believe these could have been Jodie Foster's shoes, and if so, I enjoyed seeing Julianne Moore do a impressive job of filling them. In fact, I don't think Jodie Foster could have pulled it off. As I said before, this is a completely different sort of movie- Foster would have been out of place. Moore seizes the role and makes it her own- she doesn't try to play Jodie Foster.

The rest of the cast? Absolutely fantastic. So, I'm left with a puzzle. How do I feel about this movie? We've traded a mentally disturbing film for a graphically violent one; a scary film for a shocking but fun one. Two completely different films, to say the least. `Hannibal' could easily stand alone as a popcorn thriller. I'm almost sorry that is has to sit in the shadow of `Silence of the Lambs.' `Hannibal deserves a `B-`.

You know, I could really go for some fava beans about now.

Memento (2000)

CU Film Critic takes on "Memento."

[17 October 2001]

`Along Came a Spider,' last week's commode-worthy flick, had a production budget of well over 100 million big'uns. `Memento,' which opened in Boulder this week, was made for a 12,500th of that amount. That's right. Eight thousand dollars. The beauty of this is that `Memento' turned out to be a masterpiece among the no-account strips of celluloid passing for quality film that are currently in theaters. Memento, a favorite at last year's Sundance Film Festival which has finally seen a wide US release, opens immediately with a man being shot and killed. We are then shown, in a series of flashbacks, what has just transpired. In effect, we are shown the end at the beginning, and director Christopher Nolan (`Following') takes us into a time warp where, at the end of the film, we finally see the whole picture for what it is. Paul Harvey would be proud.

Guy Pearce, aside from looking a lot like what Val Kilmer and Brad Pitt would end up with if they had a kid, stars as Leonard Shelby. Leonard suffers from short-term memory-loss, and is unable to keep a new memory for more than five minutes or so. Hence the flashbacks. We immediately discover that Leonard's wife has been murdered by `John G.,' and that Leonard is seeking vengeance. The trouble, however, is that Leonard's condition forces him to rely on scribbled notes, tattooed messages covering his body, and his Polaroid camera to remind him where he is and what he is trying to accomplish.

This is brilliant stuff. It's not necessarily a new concept; a similar idea was explored in the 1997 German film `Winterschlaefer.' The real beauty of this film is in its execution. We're given just enough information that we always lose sight of where we are at the most crucial moment. We're pulled out of the story countless times and brought into an unfamiliar place; or at least we think it's unfamiliar. Watching this movie is like HAVING short-term memory loss!

Aside from having an insanely ingenious foundation, we're given a lot to chew on while the film zigs and zags in its attempts to shake our inner detectives. Director Nolan gives us some great colorful characters, notably Teddy and Natalie (respectively, Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss, co-stars in `The Matrix'), who have both our sympathy and loathing through most of the film. I can't say enough about this movie. I don't know if I've seen this good a film since `American Beauty.' Nolan's to-the-point style of directing gets rid of all the abstract fluff that's become the ensign of low-budget indy film. `Memento' may be low-budget, but it's not cheap.

My favorite moment injects some laughs; at one point Leonard (and the audience) is brought back from a lapse into the middle of a life-or-death chase scene, and he can't remember whether he's doing the chasing or being chased. However, most of the laughs come mostly at your own expense when you realize you've completely been hoodwinked on more than one occasion.

`Memento' is the best film currently in theaters. That's not saying much, so I'll follow it up by saying that it's the best film any theater has hosted this year. The movie was originaly released in 2000, but is just now making its way out of the major cities- don't let the opportunity to see this one go by. `Memento' gets an `A.'

The Contender (2000)

CU Film Critic takes on "The Contender."

[17 October 2001]

Make no mistake; with the pre-election release of `The Contender,' Hollywood has exacted its revenge. Almost immediately following the impeachment of President Clinton, writer/director Ron Lurie went to work on the script. In a nutshell, we get the familiar story of a Washington sex scandal (involving a female democratic Vice Presidential nominee) full of circumstantial evidence, obscured truths, infidelity, partisanship and colorful characters. Jeff Bridges portrays the U.S. President Jackson Evans, Gary Oldman plays the sleazy GOP Congressman Shelly Runyon, and Vice President nominee Laine Hanson is brought to life by Joan Allen It would be a notorious understatement to say that releasing this film three weeks before a presidential election was a well thought-out move by left-wing Hollywood. The film, completed months ago, was obviously saved until this crucial political event in order to do damage to the GOP campaign. The portrayal of all Republicans as sinister McCarthy-ists and all Democrats as upstanding humanitarian patriots (despite their own personal behavior) puts this film comfortably in the category of propaganda. That said, It was still a very good movie. From appearances as Sid Vicious to Beethoven to Dracula, Gary Oldman is one of the greatest character actors of all time. This quality comes out in his incredible performance as the sleazy, manipulative Republican congressman bent on keeping Hanson out of office. Oldman, hiding his British accent flawlessly, brings believability to the stereotyped role before him. I was worried about seeing Bridges in the role of the President of the United States, afraid I would be unable to separate him from past roles such as `The Dude' in `The Big Lebowski.' I consoled myself with the thought, `Well, it's not like he's going to be bowling or eating a lot.' Wrong on both counts. He ended up being a slightly more motivated version of `The Dude,' this time in a suit. Allen has received critical praise left and right (though mostly left) for her performance, and rightfully so. Hitherto known as a supporting actress, Allen slips so comfortably into the role that we forget she's giving a performance. In fact, Lurie states in several press releases that the role of Senator Laine Hanson was written specifically for Allen. I'm not complaining; she pulled it off without a hitch. Other notable characters include Christian Slater as a young Jedi congressman who, once a Democrat, begins to lose himself to the dark side. Sam Elliot (who, oddly enough, played `The Stranger' in `The Big Lebowski' with Bridges) plays Chief of Something-or-Other Kermit Newman, and has a difficult time shaking his long-standing cowboy persona.

I don't recall much of a soundtrack, which usually means it complemented the movie well without standing out and calling attention to itself. The helicopter shots of Capitol Hill are standbys, but not used gratuitously. The sets constructed for the film, especially the room where the GOP's committee hearings are held, are memorable and tasteful. `The Contender,' overall, was nice to look at. Apart from some implausible plot developments and a character here or there that appeared to be out of place, Lurie pulls off his retaliation film effectively. I'll be surprised if it doesn't have the effect that was obviously intended. While the motivations behind the film remain questionable, `The Contender' makes you think just enough to start an argument during the drive home.

Bring It On (2000)

CU Film Critic takes on "Bring it On."

[17 October 2001]

I'll be honest. The idea of a film about high school cheerleaders initially scared me to death. I expected `Clueless' with pompoms- and I was worried that I was going to have to write yet another unpleasant review. Soon after the release of `Bring it On,' however, I heard that not only did it star my soul mate Kirsten Dunst, but that it was directed by Peyton Reed, who also created Comedy Central's `Upright Citizens Brigade.' Needless to say, my interest was piqued.

I'm pleased to say that I don't feel any dumber for having watched it. In fact, I enjoyed it. Now, this isn't to say that `Bring it On' is a life changing experience full of amazing dialogue and creative cinematography. It's not- but it is an entertaining movie that doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator. It's a satire, and watched as a satire, it's a fun film that I could probably watch a couple times.

The plot isn't exactly majestic, but does a good job of presenting the film's satirical elements while managing to slip in a few remarks about race relations. Upon being named the new cheer captain, Torrance Shipman (Dunst) discovers that her squad's last five national titles have been won unfairly; the former captain had stolen the winning routines from inner-city East Compton High. Of course, the girls of Rancho Carne (meat ranch) High School are forced to take the reigns and come up with something innovative to prove that they have what it takes to defend their title.

`Bring it On' opens with a sardonic look at suburbia's love/hate relationship with cheerleaders, which sets the tone for the rest of the movie (one colorful character refers to cheerleaders as `dancers gone retarded'). Director Reed and screenwriter Jessica Bendinger have done an admirable job of making San Diego's fictional Rancho Carne (meat ranch) High School seem at least a little bit like the high schools we all know. Without focusing too much on stereotypes and cliques that teen filmmakers seem to love these days, they have created some believable characters and managed to throw in a little love story to boot.

While the film lacks profound meaning, the entertaining parts stick with you. Early on, one of the cheerleaders breaks a leg, and a tryout is held to find her replacement. Along with presenting one of the film's significant characters, the scene is funnier than all get out. About halfway through the fim, in a surprisingly poignant spectacle, Dunst and newbie Jesse Bradford brush their teeth side-by-side. Not a word is spoken, but somehow the act of gargling and spitting corroborates a mutual crush between the two characters, and becomes one of the most memorable scenes in `Bring it On.'

Of course, it's a feel-good movie, but at least it's not a dumbed-down feel-good movie. I'll confess, my undying devotion to Kirsten Dunst may make me slightly biased. Honestly, though, I believe that the reason I enjoyed it as much as I did is that it could have been so much worse. Now that we know that Peyton Reed has the talent to keep things interesting, hopefully in the future he will tackle a more engaging subject. I give the cheerleading comedy `Bring it On' a `C+' Feel free to make that a `B' if you're a cheerleader, a fourteen year old male, or a Kirsten Dunst worshipper.

Get Over It (2001)

CU Film Critic takes on "Get Over It."

[17 October 2001]

Never again will I write a review of a Kirsten Dunst movie. She truly compromises my journalistic integrity by making me feel guilty for giving truly bad movies the reviews they deserve.

This week's movie fare is `Get Over It,' yet another Shakespeare masterpiece bastardized in the name of teen comedy. For a while, it appeared that this form of pseudo-art was being phased out of Hollywood, but apparently some stragglers remain. Director Tommy O'Haver's classic of choice was `A Midsummer Night's Dream.' He actually managed to hold things together relatively well, though the film was by no means a great one. `Get Over It' stars Ben Foster (of TV's `Freaks and Geeks') as Berke Lawrence, your average high school guy, who's been recently jilted by his longtime girlfriend Allison(Melissa Sagemiller). As a testament to the evil inherent in the mind of the ex-girlfriend, Allison wastes no time in finding companionship with new student `Striker' Scrumfeld (Shane West), the former lead singer of a one-hit-wonder boy band. In the spirit of Shakespeare, Berke's determination to win Allison back renders him impervious to the advances of his best friend's younger sister Kelly (Dunst). In order to prove his devotion to Allison, Berke auditions for the school play, `A Midsummer Night's Rockin Eve,' and, I suppose, hilarity ensues. Keeping in mind that a creative teen comedy is about as easy to come by as a CU football victory, director O'Haver was at least able to keep me awake. Halfway original sight gags and surprisingly decent acting from Foster and Colin Hanks (son of Academy-Award nominee Tom), who plays Kelly's older brother, keep the movie from going the way of `10 Things I Hate About Julia Stiles.' Surprisingly, Martin Short delivers one of his most hilarious performances, with a disturbingly accurate portrayal of a high school theatre director. His on-screen exchanges with `Little Steve' make it worth sitting through what is probably the most obnoxious title sequence in film history. R&B `artist' Sisqo, for some reason, found his way into the film, and were it not for his song-and-dance number over the ending credits, I wouldn't have minded him, oddly enough. Kirsten Dunst, of course, is reason to pay for any film. In `Get Over It,' not only does she make all kinds of cute little faces, but she sings! At first I wasn't sure that the vocals were actually hers, but with some research, I'm pleased to say that I still have nothing negative to say about her. Well, almost nothing. It's about time Kirsten Dunst moves on. She started out respectably with `Interview With the Vampire,' and she's proven her talent in legitimately artistic film with roles in `The Virgin Suicides,' `Wag the Dog,' and `Drop Dead Gorgeous.' She's actually got some talent, and starring in high school comedies with a guy whose claim to fame is a disturbingly passionate R&B ode to an undergarment. Her upcoming Charlie Chaplin project `The Cat's Meow' should get her back on track. It's gonna be a good'un.

Now, the counterpoints. I don't know where they found Shane West, but I think we should do all in our power to ensure that he is never cast in another film. Ever. In most cases, I think actors should get a second chance; of course, there must be exceptions to every rule. Write to Hollywood, contact your congressman, do whatever it takes. I refuse to watch this boy act again. Also, is there some sort of shortage of teen actors? I'm tired of seeing thirty year-olds playing high school students. Please, for the sweet love of all that is good and decent, if you're going to cast someone in a teen film, make sure they were born sometime after the Beatles' appearance on Ed Sullivan. Aspects of the film were good, and aspects of the film were bad. Overall, the film gets a middle-of-the-road `C.' Martin Short and Litte Steve both get an `A.' The beagle with the hormonal disorder gets a `B.' The script gets a `D.' Kirsten Dunst gets an `B' and her singing gets an `A.'

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

CU Film Critic Takes on "O Brother, Where Art Thou."

[17 October 2001]

Looking back on my freshman year of high school, I probably would have enjoyed Homer's `Odyssey' a sight more had it featured a character named `Wash Hogwallop.' The Coen Brothers, Joel and Ethan, have once again busted out the big guns. `Raising Arizona,' `Fargo,' `The Big Lebowski' (quite possibly the funniest film ever made) and now `O Brother, Where Art Thou?' Starring George Clooney, John Turturro, and Tim Blake Nelson, `O Brother' is a 1920's take on `The Odyssey' by Homer, albeit with wagonloads of artistic license. Absconding from the chain gang to which they were sentenced for various trivial crimes, Ulysses Everett McGill (Clooney), Pete (Turturro) and Delmar (Nelson) are on the trail of hidden loot from a bank heist years previous. In the tradition of Joel and Ethan Coen, they are beset on their way by sirens, a cyclops, the Ku Klux Klan, Baptists, and a young guitar player who has recently sold his soul to the devil.

As we've come to expect from the Coens, they've thrown out all vestiges of conventional plot in favor of glorious, off-center characters. Clooney's McGill is the goofy, but philosophical father figure, seeming to possess an educated mind uncharacteristic of a habitual criminal. His will to live is proportional to the amount of Dapper Dan Pomade remaining in his can. John Turturro is probably best remembered for his role as Jesus Quintana in `The Big Lebowski,' (though, to be fair, I feel he was overlooked by the Academy for his work in Blockbuster Video's `Beginner's Guide to the Internet'). He adds yet another nut-bar character to his repertoire with Pete, who at one point may or may not have been turned into a toad. Delmar, probably the film's least memorable character, was nonetheless given a healthy injection of hick charm by Nelson. When it comes to supporting actors, you can't go wrong with John Goodman. I'll give you the joy of meeting his character on your own- no need to give everything away. I've been waiting for weeks to use the word `stupendous.' It just rolls off the tongue. The soundtrack was stupendous. I think I'll go buy it now. Probably the most important thing to note about `O Brother' is the fact that in the hands of any other filmmakers, it would have been a complete disaster. The Coens have mastered the art of leaving their audience unfulfilled, while ensuring at the same time that their audience is content and even gratified to be feeling that way. While `O Brother' is nothing groundbreaking, it's a pleasant diversion from the tried and true formula. The Coens undoubtedly are able to go to sleep each night knowing that they've accomplished new things for film, which is more than I can say for most directors today. `O Brother' may not be a popcorn blockbuster. That's all right. I'll even say that whether I enjoyed it or not, it may not be your cup of tea. If you didn't like `Fargo,' you probably won't appreciate `O Brother, Where Art Thou?'

For fans of Joel and Ethan Coen, however, there is much to be appreciated here. `O Brother, Where Art Thou?' gets a'B+.' It's no Lebowski, but I'd sure watch it again. And again. If you're a newcomer to Coen fare, keep this in mind. As the film opens, Ulysses, Pete and Delmar come upon an old prophet. He tells them that `you will find a treasure, but it is not the treasure that you seek.' How true.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

CU Film Critic takes on "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."

[17 October 2001]

The original plan was as follows: Go see Robert Zemeckis' `Cast Away,' and finally be able to write a positive review for the Campus Press.

After actually seeing Tom Hanks waste his energy on a movie so incredibly devoid of plot, emotion, and appeal, however, I decided to direct my efforts elsewhere. I figure I owe you folks something good. Well, I'm just going to come right out with it. Drop whatever you're doing this very instant, and go see `Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,' by Chinese director Ang Lee. Starring Chow Yun-Fat, Michelle Yeoh, and Zhang Ziyi, `Crouching Tiger' is everything a film should be, and then some.

Wuxia is a form of Asian pulp fiction novel, similar in style and story to the American western, mixing action, history, and often a fairytale-like love story. The story of `Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' is told in this style. Set against the backdrop of Western China in the early 19th century, the film tells two intertwining stories. The first is of the warrior Yu Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh) who is secretly in love with the undefeated, but internally conflicted Li Mu Bai (Chow Yun-Fat). The second story acquaints us with Jen (Zhang Ziyi), the daughter of a high-ranking government official. Jen has been taught the mystical martial art of Wudan by the nefarious criminal Jade Fox (Cheng Pei Pei), who at one time, murdered Li's friend and mentor. Both paths cross in a story involving the theft of Li's 400 year-old sword, the Green Destiny. I'm not going to be able to do this film justice by describing what makes it a masterpiece; however, it's my job, so I'll do my best, and hope you heed my ords when I tell you to go see it at all costs. First off, the film looked majestic. The sprawling shots of unspoiled Chinese landscapes, the period costumes, the cities- in short, the entire world of the film made me wonder where Ang had found such a place to film his movie. The cinematography involved is on par with the best works of John Woo in his Hong Kong days. While I wouldn't necessarily classify `Crouching Tiger' as merely a martial arts film, it has more than its share of fight scenes. To call them fight scenes, however, is as severe an understatement as they come. The battles are fought in a surreal fantasy world where gravity has no meaning, and the martial art employed is painted onto the screen rather than thrust into the audience's lap. What's more, when the characters skip across a lake like so many stones, we as viewers aren't constantly reminded that these effects were generated by computers. The only thing that concerns me is that many viewers may be intimidated by the use of subtitles translating the film's Chinese dialogue. On the contrary, the use of the pure Chinese language of the script adds volumes to the mood of `Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' After twenty minutes, I forgot I was reading subtitles and enjoyed watching a swordfighting scene with more philosophical aphorisms than swinging blades. So far, this is my pick for Best Picture. Once I check out the Coen Brothers' `Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?' I'll let you know for sure. `Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' gets an A+. Let's just say this: if anyone ever tries to use `The Matrix' or a Jackie Chan film as example of great fighting again, I'll shake my head sadly and hand them my copy of the `Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' DVD I plan to buy as soon as is humanly possible.

Little Nicky (2000)

CU Film Critic takes on "Little Nicky."

[17 October 2001]

Adam Sandler's latest comedy, `Little Nicky,' hasn't been a hit with most critics. Granted, it wasn't his best, but you can't walk into an Adam Sandler movie expecting `Citizen Kane.' Anyone going to see `Little Nicky' should realize that it's another comedy in the spirit of `The Waterboy' and `Billy Madison.'

As the film opens, we see a peeping tom (John Lovitz, singing `Ladies' Night' for `Wedding Singer' fans) get caught in the act. Falling from the tree in shock, he is killed, and we get out first glimpse of Hell through the eyes of Adam Sandler.

I would have loved to see some concept art from the film. The artful sets present a goofy, non-threatening hell, reminiscent of `Far Side' comics- rock, fire, brimstone, servants, etc. Director Steven Brill then introduces us to the family. Harvey Keitel, stars as the Prince of Darkness himself, though in Sandler's world, we see a cartoonish devil and family man, hoping to soon pass on the kingdom to one of his three sons, Cassius (`Tiny' Lister, Jr.), Adrian (Rhys Ifans), and Nicky (Sandler).

Nicky is the youngest son of Satan, a nice boy who's basically afraid of evil and likes making heavy-metal mix tapes. He's got a goofy hair, a constant grimace and a speech impediment due to an head-on encounter with a shovel.

The Devil calls his sons for a family meeting- it is his 10,000th year as ruler of Hell, and under normal circumstances, this would mean he is to pass the kingdom on to one of his sons. In this case, however, Beelzebub feels that his sons aren't ready for the responsibility and decides to keep the throne for himself. Nicky seems to be fine with the decision, but Adrian and Cassius are so angry that they leave Hell and commence wreaking havoc in New York, instead. For lack of a better explanation, this causes a disturbance in the force, making it impossible for new souls to enter Hell, and also causing the Devil to slowly decay into nothingness. To restore balance to the universe, Nicky must travel to earth to bring his brothers back. Makes sense to me.

Along the way, we become acquainted with a great ensemble cast. Patricia Arquette plays a cute but geeky art student who becomes the object of Nicky's affection. Reese Witherspoon is perfectly cast in a bit part as Nicky's mother, and we see Quentin Tarantino as a frenzied streed preacher. Other cameos include Dana Carvey, Kevin Nealon, Popeye's chicken, Henry Winkler, Rodney Dangerfield (as Satan's father), and Ozzy Osbourne.

Most Sandler movies keep you chuckling comfortably throughout. In contrast, Little Nicky is a series of belly laughs. Sandler fans may be disappointed by the lack of memorable quotes, but some of the sight gags are priceless.

`Little Nicky' is a lot of fun, but certainly not Sandler's best. This became obvious when I realized that some of the film's best gags came from references to his past movies; we get to see the Rob Schneider's cajun hermit (You can do it!!!), and a two-handed Chubbs Peterson (It's all in the hips!). The film's biggest fault was, oddly enough, the character of Nicky. I love goofy Sandler characters, but the speech impediment and facial expressions on this got old after the first five minutes. I won't give a lot of credit to the director, good or bad; it's obvious that Sandler was pulling all the strings in this one. Not his best, but definitely not his worst- I give `Little Nicky' a `C+.'

Autumn in New York (2000)

CU Cilm Critic Takes on "Autumn in New York"

[17 October 2001]

Every so often, a movie comes along that the entire nation seems to enjoy. Critics shower it with praise, it's full of great cinematography, has an excellent script, and if it's lucky, it picks up an Oscar nomination along the way. In many cases, this will be the film that I end up despising. On the other hand, the opposite can be true. Sometimes, a bad movie will be released. The critics will destroy it. It will be full of terrible dialogue, shabby acting, and undeveloped characters. Of course, it goes without saying that this movie will rely on every film cliche in the proverbial book. For some reason, however, I will enjoy it. `Autumn in New York,' starring Richard Gere and Winona Ryder, is a prime example of this unexplained phenomenon. Gere stars as Will Keane, the womanizing owner of one of New York's classier gourmet restaurants. Soon after the movie opens, Will falls for a younger woman (Ryder) who happens to be the daughter of an old friend. After the age difference turns out to be inconsequential, Charlotte's revelation that she is terminally ill makes it clear that they have been forced into a doomed relationship from the start. This, compounded by Gere's hesitancy to abandon his Don Juan-ish ways make for turbulence throughout their time together. A quasi-interesting subplot is thrown in concerning Keane's estranged daughter, and it serves to keep `Autumn' from falling into too many formulaic romance plots.

There are so many reasons not to like `Autumn in New York.' The first is obvious; no matter what lengths director Joan Chen goes to in order to keep the film original, she can't help but pour it into an overused mold. `Autumn' is a sappy movie about your standard ill-fated-from-the-start romance. It wears its heart on its sleeve and begs you to be nice because, after all, it's about beautiful things like true love and a person's ability to improve himself. People should watch it and cry because it's the kind of movie that is supposed to make people cry. The script itself was a different issue altogether. The dialogue sounded like it had been written by someone who had recently taken a very bad creative writing class.

`I can smell the rain. When did I learn to do that?' `Food is the only beautiful thing that truly nourishes.' Also, it seems that either Ryder's part was originally written for Drew Barrymore, or Drew's been giving Winona acting lessons recently.

However, I should stop complaining, because I genuinely enjoyed this movie. First of all, we should give Joan Chen a few tries before we start tearing her works of art to shreds. `Autumn' is the first English-language film Chen has attempted, so it appears that she's still getting her feet wet, and I can appreciate that. Second of all, in spite of the movie's unoriginal nature, some aspects made it impossible not to enjoy. What sticks in my mind are some of the most amazing visuals I have seen on the big screen in a very long time. Chen's mastery of aesthetic cinematography is incredible. It seems that NYC's pigeon population has been completely replaced by doves. Why? Because doves are pretty, that's why. Many of the scenes seemed to be paintings brought to life. Be it a night scene in a Manhattan alleyway or a flyby of the Brooklyn Bridge, each shot is tailored perfectly to compose a balanced and artistic blend of actors and scenery, without once resorting to the standby shot of the New York skyline. Joan Chen does amazing things with even a few strands of glass beads. The characters, as stereotypical as they were, made me care about them, which is rare. I was most impressed my J.K. Simmons' character, a surgeon called upon to help Ryder's character during the movie's second half. Simmons, with no more than twenty lines, undoubtedly gave the best performance during the movie's entire 107 minutes, and I look forward to seeing him in larger roles. `Autumn in New York' is a painting. It's a ballet or a classical choral piece. It's a piece of beautiful art, if not a good story. It forces us to think about things we don't always want to think about, but probably should. As I said, there are many reasons to brush it aside as Hollywood fluff, but there are more reasons to appreciate it.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

CU Film Critic takes on "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."

[17 October 2001]

I've seen far many, many reviews of `Dr. Seuss' How the The Grinch Stole Christmas' in which critics can't resist the urge to write in rhyme, and every last one I've read irritates me. Yet, as I sit to begin my review, I feel the uncontrollable urge to begin rhyming myself. I promise not to.

I remember being excited to hear that there would be a live action version of `The Grinch' starring Jim Carrey, and I also remember being disturbed to hear that it would be directed by Ron `Opie' Howard. I had hoping for an artistic genius such as Tim Burton or a holiday entertainment luminary like John Hughes. Oddly, Opie pulled this one off.

If you want to see a good, fun holiday movie, go see this one. I'm not going to start comparing it to the classic animated `Grinch,' but I think it did a noteworthy job of giving some back story on the Grinch's character and a little history on the town of Whoville.

It also attempted to answer some age old questions- most notably, `Where is Whoville?' Well, the movie begins by showing, visually, that Whoville exists deep inside a tiny snowflake. The only problem with this is that the rest of the film goes on to prove that Whoville is actually located in northern Minnesota.

I've noticed that Jim Carrey is a lot more fun to watch when he talks like Jimmy Stweart on crack. Honestly, I don't think anyone else could have pulled off such a classic character. Carrey's Grinch could be the standard by which we measure all other bastardized Hollywood versions of cherished childhood memories.

`The Grinch' is packed with Ron Howard's `in-jokes' and double entendres aimed at disillusioned Gen-Xers. Seuss purists may find this distasteful, but honestly, why spend millions of dollars on a big-budget remake if you're just going to rehash the same material?

Cindy Lou who had gigantic teeth and gigantic hair. She also sang a nice little tune. Let's move on.

The film's talent award goes to the dog. If anyone truly lived up to the persona given them in the original Seuss drawings, it was Max. Some may argue that Carrey's performance was more admirable. To those people, I say, `but the dog was cute and had an antler on his head for a good portion of the movie. Did Jim Carrey even attempt this feat? I think not.'

Let's look at `The Grinch' by the numbers. The props department provided 1,938 candy canes, 152,000 pounds of crushed marble (used for fake snow), 8,200 christmas tree ornaments, and no less than two million linear feet of styrofoam to build the city of Whoville itself. Opie got the studio to go all out financially, and it shows. The sets look like you'd expect Whoville to look. Great stuff.

`The Grinch' gets a `B+.' It won't by any means replace its predecessor as a holiday classic, but you'll leave the theater feeling like a six-year old.

Ghost World (2001)

CU Film Critic takes on "Ghost World."

[17 October 2001]

I was hoping I'd be able to forgive Steve Buscemi for his part in `Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.' After his performance in `Ghost World,' he could spend the rest of his career starring opposite David Spade and still have left us with a quality repertoire. I've heard that Terry Zwigoff's `Ghost World' was based on some comic book or another; however, I didn't see caped superheroes, so I choose not to believe this. This week's film is the story of disillusioned, angst-filled Enid (Thora Birch), her friend Rebecca (Scarlett Johansson), and the months following their high school graduation. In some sort of coming-of-age paradox, the girls are more than ready to leave behind the `phony, conventional' world of high school, but have no desire to actually move on with their lives. After countless hours of boredom, they decide to play a mean-spirited prank on middle-aged loner Seymour (Buscemi), after which Enid develops a fascination with him and his unconventional lifestyle. From a directorial standpoint, Zwigoff has a winner here- great use of music, editing, and camera work that seems almost too slow and lingering to be comfortable. It does its job, which is to remind us we'll be spending two hours in the barren wasteland of America's suburbs. Steve Buscemi. Born to make moviegoers uncomfortable. He doesn't let us down in this role as geeky record collector Seymour. The part was written with him in mind, I'm sure. There's not much to say about his incredible performance, other than point out that the man's got a corner on the quirky strange guy market. A few things about `Ghost World' bothered me, so let me bring them out right now so I can go back to feeling good about the film.

While the script and delivery are dead-on, I'm never quite sure how to feel about Thora Birch's character. Don't get me wrong, the acting was great, but I'm not sure what the screenwriters were going for. For all intents and purposes, she's a cute little cynic, angry at the world around her for reason upon reason, spending her afternoons making snap judgements of those she comes into contact with. But are we supposed to see things from her perspective, or are we supposed to disapprove? It's difficult to tell whether the film's amateurish `counter-culture' attitudes are presented in a satirical light or otherwise. After some thought, I'd like to think that it isn't so much about the destruction of adolescent disillusionment as it is about Birch's character beginning a new life devoid of all illusions in the first place. I think Johannsson's character was underused, in the sense that her gradual `selling-out' could have presented a great counterpoint to Birch's downward spiral. All in all, though, screenwriter Daniel Clowes' has given us a masterpiece on par with recent films like `Rushmore.' The dialogue and banter between Enid and Rebecca is painfully truthful and hilarious at the same time. `Ghost World' isn't dumbed down, and it doesn't pander.

`Ghost World' is definitely worth your time if you're looking for an impressively written film completely devoid of plot but heavy on theme. As a side note, I'll say this: Someday I'm gonna be a geeky, middle-aged film critic, much live Steve Buscemi's character. When I do, it would be nice if a nubile young oddball like Thora Birch decided to befriend me and take me out on Friday nights. `Ghost World' gets a `B+.' The critic has spoken.