Home Blog Page 49

No more ‘overrated’

0

A few people used the word “overrated” in a thread on the message board to describe some movies, and it reminded me that the word bugged me, but I couldn’t quite put into words why it did so. Then today my colleague Sean P. Means of The Salt Lake Tribune wrote a column on the subject, and I remembered it was our other colleague Scott Renshaw of City Weekly who first turned us against the term. And now my thoughts are more clear.

You can read Sean’s column here. He’s referring specifically to film critics who use the word, decrying it because it basically means “You all got it wrong.” The arrogance of the critic he cites — the New York Times’ A.O. Scott — is particularly galling, because A.O. wrote an entire article explaining WHY the critics who liked “Sideways” liked it. It wasn’t just because they thought it was a good movie (which to me is the most logical explanation); A.O. thinks they saw themselves in the main character and thus liked the movie.

I agree with Sean that this is an arrogant position to take. Disagreeing with his fellow film critics is one thing, but A.O. takes it a step further. He says, basically, “I didn’t like this movie that a majority of my colleagues liked. My opinion is the right one; my colleagues are wrong. But my colleagues are usually pretty smart, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and determine what subconscious event occurred to make them get it wrong this time.” That kind of snobbery doesn’t help the divide between movie critics and regular people (nor the divide between the New York Times and regular people, for that matter).

But “overrated” bugs me when normal folks use it, too. I suppose it’s seen as shorthand for “a movie I didn’t like that a lot of people did,” and that’s probably all that most people really intend when they use it. But the word implies more than that. “I disagree with the majority on this film, in that I did not like it,” while wordier, would be more civil and more accurate in most cases. “This film was overrated” implies that everyone else made a mistake in praising the movie so highly — they “over”did it, you see. “They all missed the boat, or fell for the emperor’s new clothes, or succumbed to the hype. I did not!” is the unspoken, superior declaration.

And the reason that’s arrogant, of course, is that opinions cannot be wrong. Unless they are based on faulty criteria — e.g., declaring “Schindler’s List” unenjoyable because it wasn’t funny enough — everyone’s opinion is as valid as everyone else’s. A movie hasn’t been “overrated” simply because many people liked it and you did not. That would mean that YOU are the zero point for judging a movie, and that if too many people are more enthusiastic about it than you are, then those people are in error.

Movie critics write in emphatic language — “this movie IS good, that movie IS bad,” as opposed to “I THINK this movie is good, I THINK that movie is bad” — but that’s only because that sort of writing is more persuasive, as anyone who has made it past ninth-grade English knows. It’s not because we don’t allow for the possibility that other people won’t feel the same way. All we’re doing is saying what WE thought. Your mileage may vary. And your mileage is allowed to vary. That’s why America is so rad.

White Noise

0

There is a pseudo-science called Electronic Voice Phenomenon, or EVP, that is the basis for the forgettable but mildly diverting film “White Noise.” EVP suggests that when a TV or radio is tuned to nothing but static, that is the perfect medium for dead people to communicate, whispering over the buzz for those with keen ears to hear. I can testify that it works, because I just saw Michael Keaton communicate from his dead career through the static of a movie called “White Noise.”

But I kid Mr. Mom! “White Noise” doesn’t set out to prove EVP; it requires you to believe in it already. The film’s intended eeriness isn’t over whether the voice the protagonist hears is his dead wife’s or something else altogether. That it’s his wife is given as a fact, and the eeriness is meant to come from what she’s saying, and what her husband does about it. The idea that EVP might be, I don’t know, maybe a load of crap, isn’t considered.

It still could have been an effective suspense-thriller, but as it stands, I’m not sure which parts they thought would be suspenseful or thrilling. There is very little mystery or intrigue; only vague communications from dead people.

It stars Michael Keaton as an architect named Jonathan Rivers whose wife Anna (Chandra West) disappears one night and is found dead a few weeks later. Six months pass. Still grief-stricken and off-kilter, Jonathan is contacted by a man named Raymond Price (Ian McNeice) who is an EVP practitioner and who claims to have been receiving messages from the late Anna. Jonathan listens and is immediately converted, which says more about Jonathan’s mental state than it does about Raymond’s persuasive powers.

I jotted in my notes that Raymond is an enormously fat British man whose neck hangs from his chin like a purse. I can’t figure out how to work that into my review, though, so I’m not going to mention it.

Anyway, through Raymond, Jonathan meets another mourner, Sarah Tate (Deborah Kara Unger), who has been communicating with her dead fiancé, who is probably just trying to tell her that he wants the ring back. But Jonathan surpasses Sarah for devotion, becoming intensely obsessed with contacting Anna, and following the few clues she gives him in order to save the lives of others — for you see, some dead people can apparently foretell the future.

The film reminds us that some spirits are malevolent, however, and Jonathan encounters some of those, too, primarily in the form of three shadowy figures who appear occasionally and growl spooky things. It leads the movie to a climax that doesn’t make any sense on one level and is a disappointment on another level. I do give it credit, though, for dusting off the old “Hey, I didn’t think THAT character was important, and here he is figuring heavily into the resolution!” device, which I haven’t seen in a new film in quite some time.

Written by Niall Johnson and directed by Geoffrey Sax, both Brits with experience in television, “White Noise” has Michael Keaton’s intensity and magnetism as its greatest assets and its storyline as its greatest weakness. Hearing dead people’s voices through static loses its spine-chilling power after a few minutes, and unfortunately, that’s about all the film has to offer.

Mrs. Movie Lady’s Top 10

0

In my capacity as Mrs. Movie Lady, the lady who “tells it like it is” at MrsMovieLady.com and on Topeka radio station KPZX-FM, I see literally dozens of movies a year. And at the end of the year, I get to tell you which ones were the very best. So don’t miss any of these classics! Many of them are now available on VHS.

Francine Pickens’ (aka Mrs. Movie Lady) Top 10 Movies of 2004

10. “Connie and Carla” Nia Vardalos, fresh off the success of “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” (which you’ll recall I declared to be the best movie of 2002), slam dunks another home run with this hilarious caper about two women who dress up as men and become cabaret singers! But it’s not a “drag,” if you know what I mean. It’s really great! Connie you imagine a funnier movie than this one? Carla all your friends on the phone and tell them about it!

9. “The Village” Good Night, Mr. Shyamalan! Who’d have thought after “The Sixth Sense,” “Unbreakable” and “Signs” that you’d come up with ANOTHER brilliant idea for a movie? What do you need to have thrills, chills and shocking twists? It takes a “Village”!

8. (tie) “First Daughter” and “Chasing Liberty” Move over, Bush twins! Both of these movies are about the president’s daughter getting into mischief, and since I can’t tell them apart, I decided to include them BOTH on the list! Hilary Duff, who simply cannot be duff-eated at the box office, starred in one, and if she isn’t the Next Big Thing, then I don’t know who the Next Big Thing is, nor what Hilary Duff is instead! Both movies earn the Mrs. Movie Lady presidential seal of approval. Hail to these chiefs!

7. “De-Lovely” You can keep your movies about Ray Charles and Bobby Darin. I’ll take this biography of Cole Porter any day! Who knew Kevin Kline could sing and play the piano? And who knew the guy who wrote the musical “Kiss Me, Kate” only had one leg for part of the time? A lump of “Cole” in your stocking if you didn’t like this de-licious, de-lightful de-tribute to one of America’s greatest slightly gay men!

6. “Christmas with the Kranks” I’ve seen the colorized version of “It’s a Wonderful Life,” but it didn’t make me laugh nearly as much as this modern classic. It Kranks right up there with the remake of “Miracle on 34th Street” in my book! Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis should leave their respective spouses and marry each other, because their chemistry together is perfect!

5. “The Day After Tomorrow” You want action, adventure, excitement and romance? You can’t have it now; you’ll have to take it “The Day After Tomorrow.” (Just kidding. You can have it now.)

4. (tie) “Catwoman” and “Garfield: The Movie” If you’d told me at the beginning of the year that two of my favorite films would be about cats, I’d have thought you were crazy! (Sorry to be blunt, that’s just me telling it like it is!) But sure enough, both of these movies — one about a sexy vixen who fights crime, the other starring Halle Berry — are purrr-fect. Bill Murray as the voice of Garfield: Who knew he could do comedy so well?

3. “Wimbledon” This movie is about “love” — and I mean the tennis term “love,” not the word that means liking someone a lot! Although it is about that, too. The main character is played by Paul Bettany, and I’m bettin’ ‘e could get any lady he wants with his charming good looks. And as for his co-star Kirsten Dunst, I’m not done st-aring at how gorgeous she is! Game, set, match, “Wimbledon” “nets” my vote for the year’s best romantic comedy — and I’m not just saying that to make a “racket”!

2. “Shall We Dance” Richard Gere is gere-ate, as usual, as a man who considers cheating on his wife with Jennifer Lopez. Cheating is wrong, gentlemen, but who wouldn’t want to do the tango with Ms. Lopez?! Some say she shouldn’t be in movies, but I say there’s ALWAYS room for J-Lo, especially in a movie about ballroom dancing. You can’t “cha-cha-“change my mind on this one: If these “waltz” could talk, they’d tell you that “Shall We Dance” fox trots all the way to No. 2 on my list.

1. “National Treasure” When was the last time you went to the movies and not just had a great time, but also learned something? “National Treasure” gives us excitement and thrills as Nicolas Cage — can I call him St. Nicolas, because he’s always giving us the gift of great movies? — and a pretty lady try to save the Declaration of Independence from bad guys. But it also teaches us some interesting facts about the Founding Fathers, such as where they hid their gold. I’d pay my last nickel and become “Nicolas” just to see “National Treasure.” This is one movie that lives up to its title!

Two new features: Best and Worst Movies of 2004; Media Inventory

0

I’ve posted two new articles: “The Best and Worst Movies of 2004” and “Eric’s Media Inventory: What I Watched and Read in 2004”.

This is the sixth year I’ve done a “Best and Worst Movies” list. I started in 1999, when I hadn’t even written reviews of a lot of the movies that made the list. (To this day, it irks me that I often make reference to “The Sixth Sense” yet cannot include a link to my review when I do, because I didn’t write one.)

The other article, “Eric’s Media Inventory,” is something that may be of only mild interest to people who are not me. It’s simply an account of the movies, plays and TV shows I watched, and the books I read, in 2004. I had never kept such careful track before, and I found it both interesting and rewarding to do so. You see where your time goes; you become more selective about how you spend it; you start managing your time better.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the articles. Further discussion or arguments regarding them are always welcome over on the message board.

The Best and Worst Movies of 2004

0
The Best and Worst Movies of 2004

There were 293 films released in Salt Lake City this year. I reviewed 245 of them. Of the 48 I missed, only one was a major release — “Vanity Fair,” for which I missed the press screening due to illness and never got around to watching thereafter — while the rest were arthouse/independent films.

I cite these statistics as a frame of reference, I suppose. Stephen King gave his top 10 movies in Entertainment Weekly a few weeks ago, prefaced by the disclosure that he only saw 60 of 2004’s releases anyway. This means the odds were 1 in 6 that if he saw a film, it made his top 10 list. I don’t see the point in compiling a top 10 list if you only saw 60 possible entries, but then, I don’t see the point in Stephen King writing a column for Entertainment Weekly anyway, regardless of the subject. But I digress.

I saw 245 movies that were in the running for this list. If a film you admire is not here, you need not wonder, “Well, did Eric even SEE it?” If it was a major release, and if it was not “Vanity Fair,” then yes, I did. Even if it was a minor release, I probably saw it. Heck, I reviewed 20 films that only played at Sundance and were never released at all! (They were not, therefore, eligible for the top 10 list. I have very strict rules about this sort of thing.)

As always, I have tried to find a common thread among the films on this list. What I see is that, with the exception of “The Passion of the Christ,” each of the movies here is fun. Some are serious, too, or dramatic or action-packed or whatever else. But there are noteworthy moments of levity and lightness even in the tearjerking “Million Dollar Baby,” and in the comic book melodrama “Spider-Man 2,” and in the bizarrely moody “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” The movies on this list, except for that one very somber one, recall that people go to the cinema to be entertained: uplifted, amused, thrilled, and entertained.

(Note: Sharp-eyed readers may notice that, in my initial reviews of these films, I gave some of them A’s and others A-‘s, and that some of the A- movies have been ranked higher than some of the A ones. Do not despair. The line between A and A- is very fine, and often violated. For me to give a film an A, I have to believe it’s an instant classic, being defined in my book as a film that will bear repeat viewings without losing its luster. Obviously, it’s hard to know that after seeing a film only once. If I have any doubt, I tend to give the movie an A-, to avoid giving out A’s that, upon later reflection, cause me to exclaim, “What was I THINKING?!” Now that some time has passed and I’ve been able to see many of these films a second time, and to ponder them all for many long hours while taking contemplative walks through meadows and forests, I can conclude that they all belong on the list.)

The Best Movies of 2004:

1. “Spider-Man 2” The best comic book movie ever made is also the year’s best film of any kind. Sam Raimi’s direction is masterful, combining stunning action, sly comedy, honest emotions and over-the-top comic book characters in a way that is stylized but that still feels believable. The sequence that begins with Spider-Man and Dr. Octopus fighting atop a building, follows them onto an elevated train, and ends with an unmasked Spidey being protected by the passengers is the best single scene of any movie this year. Who knew you could go from being thrilled by state-of-the-art action to crying at the humanity of the characters, all in a matter of moments? Raimi and company put a human face on the man behind the mask, and deliver a humdinger of a superhero flick in the process.

2. “Kill Bill Vol. 2” Quentin Tarantino’s second act is different in tone from the first, more focused on character than on violence. The change is remarkable and effective, providing context for the mayhem of the first movie as it expands the characters and deepens the plot. Even the revelation of the protagonist’s name is a giddy delight.

3. “The Incredibles” Here’s how brilliant Pixar is: Even when one of their products isn’t quite as funny, beautiful and enthralling as some of the previous ones, it still manages to be more funny, beautiful and enthralling than almost every other film that year.

4. “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” Nothing made me laugh harder, longer or louder than this movie. My response was the same upon my second viewing, so it wasn’t just the medication the first time. I freely admit that if you are not generally a Will Ferrell fan, you probably will not be as richly entertained by “Anchorman” as I was, though there are several very good supporting roles, too (notably Steve Carell as the semi-retarded weatherman who ate a big red candle and loves lamp). I think “Anchorman” is destined for inclusion in the annals of classic film comedies, next to “Blazing Saddles” and “Airplane!” An afternoon delight indeed.

5. “Garden State” Zach Braff’s writing and directing debut does for his generation what “The Graduate” did for a previous one. Few films have so astutely depicted the angst and cluelessness of post-college/pre-career 20-somethings, and “Garden State” does it with humor and tenderness.

6. “Super Size Me” Great documentaries are a blend of an interesting subject and a smart approach, and “Super Size Me” is a perfect 10 in both areas. Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock — who throws himself into his films in an approach similar to Michael Moore’s except Spurlock is likable and non-combative — ate McDonald’s food three meals a day for 30 days, no exceptions, and no non-McDonald’s food allowed. The results amazed even his doctors (who by week three were begging him to stop before he did permanent damage), and the facts he digs up in the meantime about American consuming habits are startling. He presents it all in an entertaining way, too, not at all like a stuffy health class lecture. All over the country, people watched this film and subsequently gave up fast food. Most of them fell off the wagon again, too, but the fact that the movie had the power to change them at all is a testament to its quality.

7. “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” By far the most creative and visually stimulating film of the year, this is also an emotionally sensitive examination of love, filtered through a bizarre premise about a company that erases parts of people’s memories and a man who is heartbroken to discover his ex-girlfriend has erased him from hers. In the end we realize that even painful memories have their purpose, and we had a wild, funny trip along the way.

8. “The Passion of the Christ” One of the few films on the list that I did not see twice, and I have little intention of re-viewing it any time soon. You heard a lot about this movie from both sides of it; you’ll even find it on some critics’ 10 Worst lists. More than any film I’ve ever seen, it is subject to so much of the viewer’s personal baggage that reviewing it is nearly impossible. All I can do is say what it did to me, which is that it horrified, uplifted and compelled me — compelled me to keep watching (even when it was difficult), compelled me to think about my own beliefs in God, compelled me to ponder the film long after I’d seen it. Oh, and the filmmaking is pretty fantastic, too.

9. “Million Dollar Baby” The height at which Clint Eastwood wears his pants in this film reminds us of his advancing age, but the man is far from slowing down, and as mentally spry as a genius half his age. “Million Dollar Baby” is a vibrant, compelling and thoroughly engaging boxing drama that bumps up against every cliche in the book without ever actually using them. Only a director with years of experience and decades of wisdom behind him would be able to walk that line so carefully, and Eastwood gives an Oscar-caliber performance to boot, as does Hilary Swank as the 32-year-old lady boxer he trains.

10. “Dawn of the Dead” and “Shaun of the Dead” I’m including these as one entry because I’m afraid I would lose what little credibility I have if I included two zombie movies on my Top 10 list. They make a nice pair of graphic, outrageously funny horror flicks, though. “Dawn” is a remake of the 1978 cult classic, and it has energy, humor and terror that the original only dreamed of. “Shaun of the Dead,” meanwhile, is a loving spoof of zombie films that is also, in its own right, a pretty good zombie film. To be scary and hilarious in one film is an impressive accomplishment, and both of these films do it well.

Honorable mentions:

11. “The Saddest Music in the World”
12. “Closer”
13. “Finding Neverland”
14. “Hero”
15. “Touching the Void”
16. “Mean Girls”
17. “Napoleon Dynamite”
18. “Riding Giants”
19. “Saints and Soldiers”
20. “A Very Long Engagement”

The Worst Movies of 2004:

1. “White Chicks” I am usually tolerant of people who like movies I think are bad, because we all have different life experiences that make up our senses of humor and hence might find different things enjoyable. But I draw the line at “White Chicks.” The fact is, if you liked “White Chicks,” you are stupid and you don’t know what comedy is. Now, please do not write to me to explain why that is false, and please do not try to explain why the movie is funny, because you are wrong on both counts and your very existence upsets me.

2. “Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2” This is a true achievement. The first “Baby Geniuses” was one of the worst films of 1999, and now here’s the sequel, making the same accomplishment. The people behind these movies must be proud. Evil and incompetent, but proud.

3. “The Brown Bunny” A deconstructionist rumination on one man’s journey to find reality in his delusion? Or a pretentious, self-important pile of poo that becomes more boring the longer you watch it? You be the judge! Or better yet, take my word for it. It’s the latter.

4. “National Lampoon’s Gold Diggers” If you cobble together a movie you shot in your backyard that features crass, obvious jokes and irritating characters, National Lampoon will put its name on it. All you have to do is ask. They’re like the Make-a-Wish Foundation for untalented filmmakers.

5. “New York Minute” Watching this movie, I could just tell one of the Olsen twins would wind up in rehab for an eating disorder. OK, maybe I couldn’t tell it would happen, but I sure wanted it to. When it did, it was like an early Christmas present.

6. “Johnson Family Vacation” Either Bernie Mac or Cedric the Entertainer is in this movie. Or possibly Steve Harvey. Or possibly all three. The point is, it sucks.

7. “Surviving Christmas” Ben Affleck is determined to be the most loathed celebrity on the planet. Why would you have that as your goal? Why would you keep making bad movies, one after the other? What could possibly be the point? Why, Ben? Tell us. We want to know. (Just kidding, we don’t.)

8. “Fat Albert” This film came out Christmas Day, right at the end of the year, just in time for consideration on everyone’s “Worst of the Year” lists. Surely the Bill Cosby who was funny is spinning in his grave.

9. “Without a Paddle” Without a laugh.

10. “Christmas with the Kranks” John Grisham should stick to writing legal potboilers, and Tim Allen should stick to doing cocaine and making that grunty “manly man” noise he makes. That always cracks me up.

Miscellaneous data:

Movies whose titles I get mixed up: “Mean Girls” and “White Chicks”; “White Chicks” and “Two Brothers”; “Open Water” and “Mean Creek”; “Before Sunset” and “After the Sunset”; “Code 46” and “Ladder 49”; “Collateral” and “Cellular”; “Bright Young Things” and “Dirty Pretty Things”

Least enjoyable good movie: “The Passion of the Christ”

Most enjoyable bad movie: “Cellular”

Worst performance in a good movie: Julia Roberts in “Closer”

Best performance in a bad movie: Christopher Walken in “Envy”

Longest movie: “Alexander” (175 minutes)

Shortest movie: “Teacher’s Pet” (68 minutes)

Movies whose titles are accurate reviews of the films themselves: “A Dirty Shame,” “A Very Long Engagement,” “The Forgotten,” “The Incredibles,” “The Punisher,” “You Got Served”

Movies whose titles are NOT accurate reviews of the films themselves: “The Work and the Glory,” “National Treasure,” “The Perfect Score”

Movies that ask questions that they probably don’t want me to answer: “Shall We Dance” (No, thanks.); “What the Bleep Do We Know!?” (How to be boring.)

Soggy movies: “The Life Aquatic,” “Beyond the Sea,” “Ocean’s Twelve,” “The Sea Inside,” “The Seagull’s Laughter,” “Open Water,” “Mean Creek,” “The Sea Inside

Movies I at least SORTA liked that other critics (judging by RottenTomatoes.com) and audiences (judging by box office gross) did not: “Eurotrip,” “The Girl Next Door,” “King Arthur,” “Home on the Range,” “Troy,” “Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!,” “Along Came Polly,” “Little Black Book,” “I Am David,” “Soul Plane”

Movies in which Ben Stiller kills a horse: “Envy,” “Starsky & Hutch”

* * * * *
Past “Best/Worst” lists:
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999

Media Inventory: What I Watched and Read in 2004

0
Media Inventory: What I Watched and Read in 2004

As Americans, we spend hundreds of hours a year consuming mass media. I am no exception. In fact, thanks to commercial-skipping technology and careful planning, sometimes I consume hundreds of hours of mass media in one day. But where is all that time going? What are we actually watching and reading and hearing?

This year, for the first time, I kept track. I kept a media diary, with a daily list of the movies and TV shows I watched, the plays I attended, and the books I read. I was curious what the statistics would look like when the year was over.

So this is an inventory of my media consumption for 2004. Critical commentary is provided where appropriate, but mostly it’s a recap, a stroll down memory lane. Maybe this summary of my life will only be of interest to me, but maybe some people are curious what I’ve done with my spare time. Maybe what I’ve watched, seen and read matches up with what you’ve watched, seen and read. Let’s find out, shall we?

MOVIES

I made an unusual goal for myself this year. I wanted to watch 365 movies, one for every day of the year. Then I remembered it was leap year, which meant 366. I briefly considered waiting for a regular-length year, but I decided not to procrastinate.

The reason was more obsessive-compulsive than anything. I’d been keeping casual track of my movie-viewing for the past few years, and I’d found I usually wound up at around 300 or 325. I thought, why not put in a little bit of extra effort and make it an even 365 (or 366, in this case)? I want to be more of a film buff and a better-educated critic, but I’m so often busy watching the new releases that I don’t have much time for the classics, nor even to re-watch some of my personal favorites. Forcing myself to watch an average of one film per day, every day, would allow me to work some of that into my schedule.

And scheduling is all it really came down to. Once you’ve got it in your head, you just factor it into your routine the same as you do any of your other daily activities. (I mention this in case you are considering a goal of 366 movies per year.)

Now, my goal was not necessarily to “go to the movies” 366 times. Goodness knows I dislike multiplexes, or more accurately the audiences in them. Films viewed on DVD or on satellite TV in the comfort of my own home counted, too.

January got me off to a good start. I saw 56 movies that month, most of them at the Sundance Film Festival. Seeing 56 in 31 days gave me 25 “free” days, days I could not watch any movies and still be on target. Without meaning to, though, I used those days up within a few months. I hadn’t taken into account that, unlike most people, I watch a lot of movies during the week and almost none on the weekends. The weekends are usually for catching up on the TV that I missed during the week (when I was busy watching movies).

Weekends add up, and so after a great February (35 films), I had 22 in March, 27 in April, 26 in May and 20 in June — the lowest of any month the entire year. (June was one of my lower TV-watching months, too. You’d hope I was out enjoying the sunshine or something, but mostly I was just moving to a new apartment.)

The next few months proceeded more or less the same way: 34 films in July, 22 in August, 23 in September, 28 in October. By November, I was beginning to realize that if I was to meet my goal, I would need to get serious about it and stop assuming I would watch 366 movies without putting forth a little extra effort. I got back up to 34 in November, bringing the total to 327 for the year. This means I had to watch 39 movies in December — one a day, without fail, plus eight more at some point.

I will save you the suspense. I did not meet my goal. I watched 33 movies in December, bringing my total for the year to 360 — a nice round number, but six shy of what I’d hoped for. I wept bitter tears.

No, not really. The goal was 366, but the point behind the goal was to watch old films I’d never seen before, to get out more often to the weekend midnight movies at Salt Lake City’s Tower Theatre, and to see more of the independent and foreign films that I often wind up missing. Were it not for my 366 goal, I probably wouldn’t have been properly motivated to catch the re-release of Fellini’s “La Dolce Vita” when it came to town, nor to TiVo “The Philadelphia Story” and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” I might have watched “The Maltese Falcon,” but I probably wouldn’t have watched it again when a friend and I happened to stumble across it one night while channel-surfing. I’d heard plenty about “Deliverance,” but would I have made a point of seeing it when Turner Classic Movies showed it, had I not been trying to watch 366 films in 2004? Probably not.

In all, I saw 41 films this year that were released before 2004 that I had never seen before. (The list is below.) Plenty of classics, a few obscure ones, a few awful ones, even a made-for-TV movie on the Lifetime Network. (It was about Kim, the dumb daughter from “24,” having a gambling problem. It was AWESOME!!!!!!)

I also rewatched some of my favorite films from yesteryear, including “Blazing Saddles,” “Pulp Fiction,” the first two “Superman” movies, and “Memento.” In many cases, I was watching them with someone who had never seen them before, spreading the joy of great movies while also working toward my goal.

I went to the movies with my mom, something I had not done since 1993, when we saw a matinee of “Jurassic Park.” Tragically, the film we chose this time was “Darkness,” and we saw it on Christmas night. I also watched “The Maltese Falcon” and Disney’s “Robin Hood” with my friend Luscious Malone while we were babysitting for our friends in Las Vegas while said friends were performing in a crappy play. I went to several midnight movies at the Tower Theatre, including “Kill Bill Vol. 1” and “The Shining,” both of which benefit greatly from being seen on the big screen with a good sound system. I attended a screening of “Dr. Strangelove” at the Broadway Centre, which was unfortunately preceded by an anti-nuclear spiel by whatever group it was that had sponsored the screening.

Of course, most of the 360 movies I watched were new releases that I reviewed for my Web site and for EFilmCritic.com (and its sister site, HollywoodB****slap.com). My list of the best and worst movies of the year is featured in a separate article.

For the curious, here are the 360 movies I saw this year, arranged by category.

2004 releases that I saw and reviewed:
You can go here to see my movie reviews listed in reverse chronological order, if you really want to see a list of all the films I reviewed in 2004.

2004 releases that I watched a second time:
“Anchorman”
“The Bourne Supremacy”
“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”
“Eurotrip”
“Garden State”
“Hero”
“The Incredibles”
“Kill Bill Vol. 2”
“Napoleon Dynamite”
“The Saddest Music in the World”
“Shaun of the Dead”
“Shrek 2”
“Spider-Man 2”

Pre-2004 releases that I had seen before, and reviewed, that I re-watched this year:
“Cold Mountain”
“Death to Smoochy”
“Elf”
“Final Destination 2”
“Finding Nemo”
“Hedwig and the Angry Inch”
“Kill Bill Vol. 1”
“Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”
“Meet the Parents”
“Memento”
“Resident Evil”
“The Ring”
“Shrek”
“The Triplets of Belleville”

Pre-2004 releases that I had seen before but did not review, that I re-watched this year:
“Blazing Saddles”
“Dick Tracy”
“Dr. Stangelove”
“I Accuse My Parents” (on MST3K — heck yeah, it counts!)
“Night of the Living Dead” (1968)
“Pulp Fiction”
“Robin Hood” (animated)
“The Sixth Sense”
“Superman”
“Superman II”

Pre-2004 releases that I saw for the first time this year:
“Alice in Wonderland” (animated)
“The Amityville Horror”
“Barton Fink”
“Buffalo ’66”
“Caddyshack”
“Cape Fear” (1962)
“Child’s Play”
“City Lights”
“The Crow: Salvation”
“Dawn of the Dead” (1978)
“Deliverance”
“Ed Wood”
“The Elephant Man”
“Fahrenheit 451”
“Father of the Bride” (1950)
“Freaky Friday” (1978)
“Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”
“Haiku Tunnel”
“High Noon”
“The Hills Have Eyes”
“In Cold Blood”
“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”
“King Kong” (1933)
“Kramer vs. Kramer”
“La Dolce Vita”
“Mad Max”
“The Maltese Falcon” (twice)
“My Daughter’s Secret Life” (Lifetime Network movie — really awesome!!!!!!)
“Oliver!”
“The Philadelphia Story”
“Seven Brides for Seven Brothers”
“The Shining”
“Spun”
“The Thin Blue Line”
“Tigerland”
“To Kill a Mockingbird”
“Tootsie”
“Trainspotting”
“West Side Story”
“The Wild One”

TELEVISION

Here is the best thing about TiVo. You can program your remote control so that while you’re watching pre-TiVoed shows, you hit a button and it skips ahead 30 seconds — the length of most commercials. Hit that button four or five times, then, and you’re through the break and back to the show, all in a matter of seconds. It’s a thing of beauty.

What this means is that, while I watched 782 hours of programming over the course of the year — an average of 2.1 hours a day, which is about average in America — I watched it in only 523 hours. So I spent only 1.4 hours in front of the TV every day, yet watched 2.1 hours’ worth of material. How’s that for efficiency!

(By the way, 23 percent of the time I was watching TV, I was watching something with “Law & Order” in the title. Seriously: 115 episodes of “Law & Order,” and 68 episodes of “Law & Order: SVU.” I’ve seen all the old “SVUs” now, but there are still a couple hundred “Law & Orders” out there, waiting to be TiVoed.)

These are my 10 favorite shows currently on the air, all of them works of genius in their own way. For people who think TV is nothing but a vast wasteland, I point to these shows as examples to the contrary.

1. “Arrested Development”
2. “Lost”
3. “Scrubs”
4. “Deadwood”
5. “The Simpsons”
6. “Law & Order: SVU”
7. “24”
8. “Reno 911”
9. “South Park”
10. “Saturday Night Live”

Here’s what I watched regularly in 2004, listed by day. Please note that I never watch reruns, which means I watch these shows, at the most, 22 times a year. (Except for “Law & Order,” of course, which has hundreds of reruns I’ve never seen.) With a lot of shows, it’s 13 weeks or less. So while there are 11 shows listed for Sunday, for example, there are only four or five of them airing on any particular Sunday. (Good thing, too.)

SUNDAY:
“Desperate Housewives”
“The Simpsons”
“Malcolm in the Middle”
“Arrested Development”
“Cold Case”
“The Sopranos”
“Six Feet Under”
“Deadwood”
“Curb Your Enthusiasm”
“Alias”
“Da Ali G Show”

MONDAY:
I do other things on Mondays, like watch leftover Sunday shows.

TUESDAY:
“24”
“NYPD Blue”
“Law & Order: SVU”
“Veronica Mars”
“House”
“Scrubs”
“American Idol” (only the performance shows; I’ve never watched a “results” show)
“Angel” (until it got canceled)

WEDNESDAY:
“Law & Order”
“South Park”
“Lost”

THURSDAY:
“Will & Grace”

FRIDAY:
Home on a Friday?! Bah!

SATURDAY:
“Saturday Night Live”

DAILY:
“Jeopardy”

LIMITED RUN/MISCELLANEOUS DAYS:
“Line of Fire”
“The Simple Life”
“My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance”
“Joe Schmo 2”
“Super Millionaire”
“Touching Evil”
“Superstar USA”
“Reno 911”
“The Shield”

BOOKS

It would be foolish of me to compile a Top 10 list for the books I read this year, because I only read 17 of them. This is somewhat below the number of movies I watched (360), but you’ll admit, books take longer.

The links provided are to Amazon.com, where if you buy any of these books (or any product there, actually), I receive a very small kickback. These little proceeds help cover the costs of maintaining my Web site — the Web hosting service, the Laotian children who work in my sweatshop, etc. — so if you’re going to be buying stuff from Amazon ANYWAY, it would be super if you’d get to Amazon.com by clicking to it from a link on my site.

Anyway, here’s the list, in the order in which I read them. A couple of them appear to have been selections for Oprah’s book club, though I assure you that is entirely coincidental. Books that I particularly recommend are starred.

“The Da Vinci Code,” by Dan Brown. Oh, you know, it’s fine. I read it because EVERYONE was reading it, and I like to be hip with the pop culture. It’s written on about a 10th-grade reading level, and the cliffhangers are shameless. (“I walked into the room, and there in front of me was the MEANING OF LIFE.” [End of chapter]) But it’s thick, pulpy fun, as long as you don’t make the mistake of believing you are reading great literature, and as long as you don’t go around telling people it’s the best book you ever read.

** “Mr. Timothy,” by Louis Bayard. Entertainment Weekly gave this high marks one week, and the premise intrigued me: Tiny Tim from “A Christmas Carol,” grown up and solving crimes! Specifically, he solves the mystery of dead girls he keeps finding around town! Oh, and he lives upstairs at a brothel. Oh, and he has a sea-captain friend named Gully who, rather than having a hook for a hand, has a wrench. Oh, and I could go on about the odd (but believable), wildly imaginative proceedings in this marvelous novel. Written in first-person in the dialect of 1860s London (did you know prostitutes were called “dollymops”? Well, they were), the book is astonishingly well-written, Bayard’s vocabulary and agility at assembling it being almost as good as anything I’ve ever seen. The story has a bit of whodunit skullduggery, along with emotional depth and a litany of fantastically memorable characters. It has been a while since I’ve so thoroughly enjoyed reading a book as I did this one.

“Twisted,” by Jeffrey Deaver. Another recommendation from Entertainment Weekly, this is a compilation of short stories. I like short stories, because they’re, um, short. Also, they often have twist endings, and this collection of crime and/or horror-related tales is full of them. Some are better than others, but overall it’s a pretty entertaining read.

** “Peace Like a River,” by Leif Enger. My friend Luscious Malone recommended this book, which I kept thinking was called “Pees Like a River.” As always, Luscious did not steer me wrong. It’s a wistful, perfectly written novel set in rural Minnesota in the early 1960s, in which two young children accompany their godly father in search of their older brother, who is accused of murder. Dad seems to have his own special connection to God, able to perform miracles at times, a fact which unsettles those who witness it. The story is told from the point of view of the 11-year-old son, and Enger writes with a greater command of the English language than nearly anyone I’ve ever read. He turns every phrase brilliantly, writing poetically but not pretentiously, and every sentence is vibrant. Oh, and the story is great, too — sweet and funny and faith-affirming without being overtly religious.

** “The Pleasure of My Company,” by Steve Martin. I listened to this book — read by the author! — while driving to Portland, Ore., and back for a show I did up there in March. Now, if we cannot agree that Steve Martin is one of the most brilliant men of our day, then we have nothing to discuss. This novel, about an obsessive-compulsive, slightly crazy man trying to overcome himself and face the world, manages to be wonderfully, absurdly funny while also achieving raw emotional honesty. I found myself weeping over the story’s beautiful, sweet resolution, which was something of a driving hazard. It is one of my favorite books of the year.

“Special Circumstances,” by Sheldon Siegel. I happened to pick this one off the shelf at the library, and the first couple pages caught my interest. It seemed like a wry legal thriller, told from the point of view of a jaded defense attorney. That is what it is, but I had not reckoned how fast the jaded voice would become tiresome, and the legal aspects — the attorney’s best friend is accused of murdering one of their law partners — is not especially compelling. I finished the book only because I wanted to find out whodunit.

“Harriet the Spy,” by Louise Fitzhugh. This was one of my favorite books growing up. I think I identified with the main character, who wants to be a writer, has an active imagination, and often alienates her friends. I was between books one cold weekend this spring, and I wanted something familiar, the literary equivalent of comfort food. So I pulled this off the shelf, got in the bathtub (I filled it with water, too), and read away. A couple hours later, I was pruny and content.

“To Kill a Mockingbird,” by Harper Lee. One of those books I was supposed to have read but never did until now. I don’t recall what prompted me to finally read it, but I’m glad I did. The book vividly does what all novels are supposed to do, which is transport you to a particular time and place. Atticus Finch is a great hero.

“Song of Solomon,” by Toni Morrison. I was assigned this book in my AP English class in high school and, as with most of the books I was assigned, did not read it. The Provo library finally obtained a copy not long ago — they apparently were unaware of the existence of Toni Morrison until recently — and I was among the first to check it out. The style of the book doesn’t exactly suit my tastes, but I can appreciate the poetic beauty of Morrison’s writing. Also, reading this back-to-back with “To Kill a Mockingbird,” I got a distinct feel for black culture in the American South in the early 20th century, from two different perspectives.

“The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time,” by Mark Haddon. A charming British novel about an autistic boy who sets out to discover who murdered his neighbor’s dog. In the process, he learns about the dissolution of his parents’ marriage and about his own life. The book is written from the point of view of the boy, which makes it endlessly fascinating. The author has worked with autistic children and seems to know how they think, how they see the world, how they reason. It is a sweet, entertaining little novel.

** “Mailman,” by J. Robert Lennon. This was another Entertainment Weekly recommendation some time ago, but I was unable to get a library copy until now. In the meantime, I’d read another of Lennon’s books, “The Funnies,” about a man who inherits his father’s “Family Circus”-style comic strip when the old man dies, and must come to terms with the fact that the strip in no way resembles his actual, thoroughly dysfunctional family. “The Funnies” was a hoot, and so is “Mailman,” as it turns out. “Mailman” is about a letter carrier in his 50s who occasionally keeps mail to read for himself, and whose life is a twisted mess of neuroses and bitterness. The book is darkly funny, vividly portraying small-town life as well as the life of one of its more dyspeptic citizens. Lennon’s mastery of the language is brilliant; I laughed out loud many times while reading, even as I sympathized with the protagonist.

“One Hundred Years of Solitude,” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. The author is one of the most acclaimed South American writers in history, so I figured I ought to read something of his. This is his most famous novel, telling the 100-year history of a particular village somewhere in South America. It is written mostly as a history, with very little dialogue, and the characters are many. Yet I found it stayed with me long after I read it. It is one of those books that, when you have finished it, you feel like you’ve accomplished something meaningful.

“The Lovely Bones,” by Alice Sebold. Another book that EVERYONE was reading. Better than “Da Vinci Code,” but not life-altering. It tells the story of a girl was was raped and murdered years ago, and the effect it had on her family, and is told from the perspective of the dead girl herself, now in heaven.

“Ragtime,” by E.L. Doctorow. I’d seen the stage musical based on this book a few times, and when I stumbled across the book at the library, I gave it a shot. Like “One Hundred Years of Solitude,” it is written historically and without much dialogue. I daresay I prefer the musical version, though the book is briskly and engagingly written, and paints a clear picture of American life at the turn of the last century, when everything was beginning to change forever.

“Summerland,” by Michael Chabon. Ah, how much do I love Michael Chabon? His “Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay” is one of my favorite books of all time, and “Summerland” is an honest delight, too. I listened to this during a drive to Portland and back, read by the author, having been delighted to discover it among the Salt Lake City Library’s few audiobooks. The story is distinctly American, telling of baseball, Indian legends and Western folklore like Paul Bunyan and Bigfoot, all wrapped into a tale of three children who are pulled into an alternate world of sprites, giants and elves in order to save the universe. Anyone who loves baseball will particularly enjoy the book, which is pegged as a children’s novel but which I think is probably too deep for them to fully appreciate.

“Vile Bodies,” by Evelyn Waugh. When I saw the film “Bright Young Things,” I thought, “I bet the book this was based on is really funny.” “Vile Bodies” is that book, and it turns out I was right. It’s a savage satire of the worthless, lazy, upper-class socialites of 1920s England. Waugh could turn a droll phrase like nobody’s business. I suppose you’d have to develop a pretty good sense of humor if your name were Evelyn and you were a man.

** “Wonder Boys,” by Michael Chabon. I saw this film upon its release in 2000, then promptly forgot who Michael Chabon was. Even reading two of his books later did not remind me. It wasn’t until I finished “Summerland” and went looking for more Chabon on the library shelf that I remembered he’d written “Wonder Boys,” too. This is a funny, pithy novel about a disheveled English professor whose long-awaited novel is more than 1,000 pages and shows no signs of being finished; whose mistress has announced she is pregnant; whose wife has left him; and whose pupil has just shot the mistress’ dog. It takes place over one eventful weekend and is brimming with colorful characters and Chabon’s brilliant, masterful use of the English language. I believe Chabon is one of the best writers currently living.

“The Mysteries of Pittsburgh,” by Michael Chabon. This is Chabon’s first novel and has been compared to “Catcher in the Rye,” more for its young-man-finding-himself theme than for its particular content or tone. (It is far sunnier than “Catcher,” to be sure.) It’s breezy and witty and highly literate, like all of Chabon’s work, though I think his best stuff was yet to come.

THEATER

When I was reviewing theater for The Daily Herald in Provo, Utah, I saw 100 shows a year. That number decreased significantly when my reviewing duties were curtailed at the paper (by an arts editor who, by her own admission, didn’t care much for theater), and it decreased even more when I lost the job altogether.

So I saw only 11 shows this year, five of them on behalf of Salt Lake City Weekly, for which I have freelanced some reviews. (Links are provided, if you’re curious.) This list is more pointless than all the others, of course, since they’re all local productions and none of them are still running and why should you care? But here’s the list anyway, in chronological order.

“Brighton Beach Memoirs,” Pioneer Theatre Company, Salt Lake City. Pioneer used to send us season tickets at the Herald each year, and when I got fired, I happened to be in possession of the coming season’s batch. I saw no reason to give them back to the Herald, since the Herald had stopped reviewing theater anyway. Plus, the tickets were at home, and even if I’d wanted to bring them back to the office at some point, I was pretty sure I wouldn’t be allowed in. At any rate, I went to a few of the shows with my free Herald tickets, including this zippy old Neil Simon play that served as the prototype for all his future plays (i.e., Jewish people yelling vaudeville-style punchlines and setups at each other).

“The Fantasticks,” Provo Theatre Company. My friend Chris was in this musical, despite possessing little prowess for singing and despite hating musicals. Nonetheless, he and the rest of the cast were excellent. This musical has a song about a rape, using “rape” in its secondary definition of “kidnapping.” The characters even complain that, while they understand the singer means it in its non-sexual sense, it’s still an uncomfortable word to keep hearing over and over again, 33,000 times in one song. It’s a rare case of a show admitting its flaws: “Hey, audience, we know this song is irritating, but the word ‘kidnapping’ wouldn’t have fit so nicely in the meter of the song, so we used ‘rape’ instead. Deal with it.”

“Urinetown: The Musical,” national tour, Salt Lake City. I’d seen this on Broadway and loved it, so I made sure to get tickets when the tour came to town. It was just as wonky, crazy and funny as I remembered it.

“Evita,” Pioneer Theatre Company, Salt Lake City. Another freebie. This is probably Andrew Lloyd Webber’s best show, in my estimation, and PTC did it justice.

“Moon Over Buffalo,” Provo Theatre Company. The aforementioned friend Chris, who appeared in “The Fantasticks,” directed this farce. A few of my friends acted in it, too, and were quite funny. It was written by the same man who wrote “Lend Me a Tenor,” another wacky backstage farce that I enjoy.

“The Importance of Being Earnest,” Pioneer Theatre Company, Salt Lake City. This was the first of my City Weekly gigs. Because several other shows were opening the same week, though, I had only 300 words to review the show. It’s hard to write short! Plus, City Weekly pays by the word, so I felt like I kinda got gypped.

“Ten Little Indians,” Signature Productions, Las Vegas. I saw this community theater production because my friends Ken and Katie were starring in it. It was a singularly bad experience. The show had Ken’s rakish handsomeness and painted-on mustache and Katie’s radiant beauty, but it also had an octogenarian woman’s performance as a skittish doctor who seems to channel Don Knotts, as well as an 18-year-old jug-eared skank who combined physical unattractiveness with personal unlikability to an unprecedented degree. Such a terrible show. But man, did we ever laugh at it. (At it, not with it.)

“Popcorn,” Pygmalion Productions, Salt Lake City. Another City Weekly gig, though for some reason I can’t find it on their Web site. It’s a dark comedy about a Tarantino-esque director whose home is invaded one night by two spree-killers who blame his movies for their deeds. I like the idea well enough, but it’s executed like it thinks it’s the first play ever to deal with the issue of violence in the media.

“Madagascar,” Salt Lake Acting Company. Ah, now HERE’S a play, my friends! It has three characters, each staying in the same hotel room at different times: one five years ago, one five days ago, one today. The people are intertwined, and as they speak to us, we learn more and more about them, and about a mysterious disappearance that affected them all. One of the most enthralling shows I saw all year.

“Beauty and the Beast,” Pioneer Theatre Company, Salt Lake City. I love the animated Disney version, but I’ve always felt the stage show is too huge and overdone. Pioneer — among the first regional theaters to do the show since rights to it became available; it’s still running on Broadway — did an adequate job, but got bogged down in the first act. My friend wanted me to use the term “moose knuckle” (the male equivalent of “camel toe”) to describe Lumiere the candlestick’s costume, but I could not justify such a thing, even in City Weekly.

“The Santaland Diaries,” Tooth & Nail Theatre, Salt Lake City. As with “Beauty and the Beast,” I am a fan of the source material, not so much of the stage show. If David Sedaris came and read his essay himself, then you’d have something.

I’ve ‘sold out,’ apparently

0

I received this e-mail the other day from a fellow by the name of Seth Miller:

Just bumped into this site. I was at BYU when you wrote for the Universe. I was a fan. I’ve never written a letter to an editor or mad a complaint to anyone but I guess it’s never too late to start. I think you’ve sold out. [Shouldn’t I have money, then?] I never really knew what your standards were but I guess I just assumed they were similar to mine. It’s odd to me that only R-rated movies gets your highest honor “A.” Have more respect for yourself and stop trying to please others. I won’t be visiting you site again.
No response needed or wanted.

I wish I’d been keeping track of how many angry letters I’ve gotten over the years in which the writer indicated he or she did not want a reply. I suppose it’s all the bravery they can muster to even send the letter. If they had to read a response, and perhaps even DISCUSS the matter in greater detail — well, that would be unthinkable.

Anyway, though forbidden, I sent this response:

Well, actually, a response IS needed, because you have your facts wrong.

You wrote:

“It’s odd to me that only R-rated movies gets your highest honor ‘A.'”

That would indeed be odd, if it were even remotely true. But here are some non R-rated movies that I gave an A to this year alone:

Anchorman
Spider-Man 2
The Triplets of Belleville

That’s three A’s for PG-13 films, compared to only two for R-rated ones. A- grades are much more plentiful: 11 for PG-13 or PG films, and 9 for R-rated ones.

So your statement that I only give A’s to R-rated films is patently false.

But this is all beside the point anyway. When I grade films, I am grading them based on their artistic and entertainment value, not on how much “objectionable content” they have. That’s not what film critics are for.

Also, I find it disturbing that you equate my not having the same standards as you (if that’s true) with “selling out.” Can’t a person have different standards from you and NOT sell out?

You wrote:

“Have more respect for yourself and stop trying to please others.”

But if I stopped reviewing R-rated films, I would only be doing so in order to please you. So I can’t win here, I guess.

Good luck in your new-found career as a self-righteous person.

Sincerely,
Eric D. Snider

If I receive a reply, I will post it here, of course.

Park Wars

0

Salt Lake City gave us a nice gift this year, with free parking downtown during the holiday shopping season. The parking meters were covered with festive green bags tied with red ribbons, with the bags bearing the words “Free Parking” and “Two Hour Limit” — a gift accompanied by an admonition, in other words. I pictured the city saying in a merry voice, “Free parking!” And then, narrowing its eyes and lowering its voice ominously, “Two-hour limit …”

Parking in a big city is a hot commodity year-round, and Salt Lake is no exception. Only the lucky businesses have parking lots; everyone else has to let their customers fight it out on the street. I have noticed, though, that some of the establishments that most ardently defend their parking lot real estate are the ones that don’t actually need it — a sort of Little Man’s Syndrome for businesses.

For example, I live near a hotel called Renaissance Suites, which I guess means they offer jousting and yearly baths. The hotel is adjacent to the Marriott Residence Inn, and the two hotels share about 60 parking spaces, including a row of 20 that are never occupied. These spaces could conveniently be used by tenants of the apartment complex that lies next to them, except that the Renaissance Suites vehemently guards the spaces, ensuring that they remain available for use only by their own guests — the guests who never materialize, apparently, since there’s never anyone parked in those spots. (Never.)

If you do park there, you are in for a life of sorrow, my friend. Renaissance Suites has contracted a towing company to put a boot on any vehicle parked there without a permit. The fact that they are using boots is evidence enough that the hotel doesn’t actually need those spaces. If it did need them, it would have the cars towed out of the way, rather than putting boots on them, which merely forces the cars to occupy the spots even longer. Booting is a vindictive, punitive practice, one of the most evil inventions of the 20th century, up there with emoticons and karaoke.

Several blocks away, there is a place called Salt Lake Coffee Break, a hipster little establishment where the bohemian kids go to sip beverages, browse illegible underground publications, and post notices regarding their need for a drummer. Coffee Break has a scant 10 parking spaces out back, plus another four that become available after 4 p.m, when the financiers in the adjacent office go home.

On the other side of Coffee Break, however, is Arby’s, which has a total of 54 parking spaces. Now, you and I both know that neither this Arby’s nor any other Arby’s has ever had more than eight people inside at one time, and that many of those arrived in the same group-home van or shuffled in from the same bus station. Arby’s does not need 54 parking spaces. But if you go to Salt Lake Coffee Break and park in the Arby’s lot, you will be towed. Coffee Break has even put up signs, presumably at its own expense, warning its customers that Arby’s is serious about its “don’t park here unless you’re going to Arby’s” stance. Consequently, on any given day you can find about 40 empty spots behind Arby’s, with another lot beyond that — which allows Coffee Break patrons — jammed full.

My theory is that these businesses are self-conscious about their lack of patrons and don’t wish to concede the point. The towing companies are like a mobster’s hired goons, paid to ensure no one disrespects the boss by implying he doesn’t need so many parking spaces. What can we do, fellow citizens? Well, we can go complain to City Hall, but we’ll have to do it in less than two hours.

Beyond the Sea

0

Kevin Spacey is one of the most interesting actors alive. He can be oily and disgusting, or he can be smooth and suave, and the two are only inches apart. His performance in “Seven” isn’t all that different from the one in “Beyond the Sea,” really; it’s the same soft, distinctive voice, the same smile. All that separates his good characters from his evil ones are whether he infuses his delivery with charm or malice, and whether that smile seems sincere or sinister. Either way, he’s fascinating to watch.

“Beyond the Sea” is Spacey’s second time in the director’s chair (after 1996’s little-seen “Albino Alligator”), and it is clearly a labor of love for him. Directing the life story of crooner Bobby Darin with himself in the lead, Spacey has put his considerable talents to good use on both sides of the camera. The film is as smooth as Darin himself, slickly produced and well-paced, and it also happens to be stuffed with some fantastic music.

The film tells Darin’s story somewhat metaphorically, punctuated with big song-and-dance numbers — glossy, brightly colored spectacles, all of them, with backup dancers and such — that obviously didn’t really happen. Throughout the film, the adult Bobby talks to his younger self (played by an astute little fellow named William Ullrich), getting insight from him into his own psyche — or is it Spacey getting tips on how to play Darin? And then there’s the fact that Spacey is 45, which is eight years older than Darin was when he died, yet plays him from age 20 on up.

I applaud any attempt to make a biopic seem less like a boring recitation of facts and more like a movie, so Spacey’s free-thinking storytelling technique is OK in my book. Because let’s not kid ourselves: To the average viewer, Bobby Darin’s life is not much different from any other celebrity’s. His wife (the actress Sandra Dee, played here by Kate Bosworth) drinks too much; he’s a workaholic who neglects his family; he has demons from his past that need resolving; he uses his art to heal himself.

“Beyond the Sea” makes the point that music made life OK for Darin, and that because of his work, he became immortal. Listening to the soundtrack, you can start to believe it, too. Darin wanted to be the next Frank Sinatra and sing at the Copacabana Club; the record labels wanted him to be the next Elvis and work “American Bandstand.” He bowed to pressure and wrote the silly “Splish Splash,” but from then on (at least for several years) it was standards and big-band tunes like “Beyond the Sea,” “Mack the Knife” and the particularly meaningful “As Long As I’m Singing.” Spacey sings all these songs himself — he dances, too; who knew? — and acquits himself brilliantly. He sounds a bit like Darin, but more importantly, he sounds like a singer who really FEELS the lyrics. The music accounts for half of the film’s charm.

The movie is a tuneful, entertaining story populated by Vegas-style cool cats with retro New York accents. The supporting cast is particularly savory: John Goodman as Bobby’s manager, Bob Hoskins as his brother-in-law, Brenda Blethyn as his ill-fated, doting mother. Character actress Caroline Aaron, whose name you probably don’t know, gives a fantastic performance as Nina, Bobby’s older sister who feels misplaced when Bobby achieves stardom.

I wouldn’t say Spacey and Bosworth exactly have romantic chemistry together, what with his being 24 years older than she is, but they do have enough acting prowess to make their scenes together work. Bobby’s courtship of Sandra while shooting a film in Italy is lovely, marked by a huge “Beyond the Sea” number that has Spacey and dozens of extras dancing all over a million locations and soundstages. It was music that won her over, you see. See what music can do?

Maybe the movie goes too far with all the symbolic stuff, and Spacey’s vision of himself as Darin while Darin is about to star in a movie about himself is probably more, um, spacy than it needs to be. But again, I like that he tried something different, and that he has enough confidence in himself to tell the story of a mostly forgotten icon to an indifferent audience. The fact that he actually succeeds at it is just icing on the cake.

In Good Company

0

A comedy doesn’t need to have any underlying purpose to be a great film, but some of the most memorable ones do. “In Good Company” brilliantly walks the line between comedy and poignancy, being utterly funny without being shticky, and being touching without being shmaltzy.

It was written and directed by Paul Weitz, who also adapted and directed “About a Boy,” a similarly excellent film that also blended belly laughs with heart-tugging intimacy. Even his directorial debut, “American Pie,” had a heart underneath all that crudeness (a fact that most of its imitators have forgotten).

So we are in good hands as we observe the parallel lives of Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid) and Carter Duryea (Topher Grace). Dan is a 25-year veteran of the advertising industry, currently working as head of marketing for Sports America magazine — that is, until it is acquired by GlobeCom, a Fox-like conglomerate run by the Rupert Murdoch-like Teddy K (Malcolm McDowell). At that point, Teddy K’s crew lays off several employees, demotes Dan to a lower level in the marketing staff, and installs Carter as the new department head.

Carter is a 26-year-old ad whiz whose most recent work for GlobeCom has been marketing cell phones to 5-year-olds by giving the phones reptilian colors and dinosaur-ish ringtones. He has no experience in magazine advertising, however, and as he confides in a stranger on his way up to the Sports America offices on his first day, he is “scared s***less.” The stranger turns out to be Dan’s 18-year-old daughter Alex (Scarlett Johansson), and Carter winds up dating her without Dan’s knowledge, but we will leave those complications for later.

Immediately we see Weitz’s genius in the way he has structured the film. Normally, when a 26-year-old spoiled corporate brat becomes the supervisor of a 51-year-old family man and threatens that family man’s job security, we side with the family man and hate the corporate brat. But Weitz makes them both protagonists, shows us both of their lives and all of their feelings, and we sympathize with both men. Carter hasn’t become fully assimilated by the dehumanizing corporate machine; he’s just caught up in it at the moment — caught up so fully that his young wife (Selma Blair) walks out on him, leaving him with nothing. Apart from work, he has no life, no friends, no family. It sucks to be Dan Foreman right now, but it’s no picnic being Carter Duryea, either.

Weitz plays with the parallelism throughout the film, at one point giving us twin scenes of Dan taking out a second mortgage while Carter signs his divorce papers, and inflicting each man, at different times, with arm injuries. They are two sides of the same coin, Carter perhaps being a younger version of Dan, the one who is still at the crossroads of his life.

Without belaboring his point with heavy-handedness, Weitz also puts a human face on the corporate mindset, showing the casualties of capricious takeovers and rampant downsizing while also mocking corporate B.S. terms like “synergy” (a word that means nothing but that business types use to sound motivational). Carter goes around trying to get his marketing team “psyched” for an “awesome” quarter, but he knows how hollows he sounds, and Dan knows it, too. They’re going to need to each other’s help if this new arrangement is going to work.

And so we go from one jokey premise — old guy gets a whippersnapper for a boss! — to another one, as Carter invites himself to Sunday dinner at the Foreman home, awkwardly trying to have a surrogate family while his employee, the humiliated but good-humored Dan, is resigned to the fate of having his 26-year-old boss in his life. The scene is handled marvelously, though, and not at all jokily, brimming with a succession of major laughs whose subtext helps establish the characters’ relationships with each other: father/daughter, boss/employee, and husband/wife (Dan’s wife is played by “CSI’s” Marg Helgenberger). All of these connections are given their due over the course of the film; this is a movie about people trying to make their way in the world, not about something as two-dimensional as “my boss came to dinner and we had to order pizza.”

See, the movie’s ABOUT something, and it makes you laugh while it’s being about it, and I don’t know how you can do any better than that. Its only problem is that it resolves everything a little too neatly, and it indulges in the dreaded cliché of a peon standing up to a CEO in a public setting and being applauded for it, rather than being belittled or fired, as would surely occur in real life.

Topher Grace is fast becoming one of my favorite young actors. He has a tremendous skill for understated comedy (honed on “That ’70s Show,” where I believe he often plays straight man to the other, wackier characters), plus some real gravitas where it’s needed. The fact that we’re able to like Carter at all, despite the complications he represents in Dan’s life, says a lot for Grace’s, well, grace.

Dennis Quaid at times displays a leering sardonicism of Jack Nicholson-ian proportions, but he supports Dan’s moments of despair and cynicism with a tender love for his family and a good-hearted devotion to protecting them. He remains, through it all, a man who is fundamentally happy and who believes in the essential goodness of people. That sort of attitude is old-fashioned in modern corporate America, but the film suggests that maybe there’s a place for old dinosaurs like him. Dinosaurs are cool, after all; just check out those cell phones.

The Merchant of Venice

0

No one is eager to perform “The Merchant of Venice” anymore for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. The play itself, set in the time period in which it was written, probably accurately reflects the way Jews were treated, and of course modern audiences understand that some of its elements are, shall we say, dated. Still, if a theater were TOO excited about producing the play, people would get suspicious, the same as you’d raise an eyebrow if someone were really keen on doing “Springtime for Hitler.” So new stagings are always accompanied by director’s notes disclaiming the play’s contemptible undertones: “The play is a brilliant examination of justice and mercy, blah blah blah, even though Shakespeare kinda hated the Jews, blah blah blah, we don’t endorse the anti-Semitism, we’re being forced to do the play, someone has us at gunpoint, blah blah blah.”

So I admire Michael Radford (“Il Postino”) for adapting and directing this new film version, for taking the stand that the play IS a brilliant examination of justice and mercy, and that those qualities outweigh whatever anti-Semitic themes are to be found (many of which can be downplayed or eliminated anyway, through careful adapting, directing and acting). There is no sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater: “The Merchant of Venice” is a not a perfect play, but it is a good one. And the same can be said for Radford’s version of it.

He begins, of course, with title cards reminding the viewer that “intolerance of Jews was a fact of life” in Venice in 1596, in case anyone unfamiliar with the play’s history has wandered into the theater. From there the adaptation is fairly straightforward, with Shakespeare’s dialogue intact except for some streamlining elisions.

Shylock (Al Pacino) is a wealthy Jewish merchant and moneylender to whom Antonio (Jeremy Irons) goes for a loan when his young friend Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) needs money to woo his beloved (and wealthy) Portia (Lynn Collins). Bassanio, young and foolish, has no good credit left. Antonio, his mentor and bosom chum — and the film suggests their chumminess was indeed bosomy — is older and more responsible, and has ships at sea this very moment carrying out his business and bringing him back income.

However, Antonio and Shylock have a history, the former frequently spitting on the latter when they meet in the street. The loan is therefore not to be carried out between friends, but is strictly a business arrangement. Shylock insists on an eccentric contract: If Antonio cannot repay the 3,000-ducat loan by a certain date, Shylock shall be permitted to cut off a pound of his flesh as payment. Knowing his ships will return with plenty of money from their pursuits, Antonio agrees to the weird terms, seeing it as nothing more than a crazy old Jew being odd just for the sake of being odd.

And then the ships fail, and Antonio is broke.

I leave it for those who have not seen or read the play to discover what happens next — it really is suspenseful, if you don’t already know the outcome, and Radford plays up that aspect marvelously — and move onto the subject of Bassanio and Portia. She is one of Shakespeare’s many heroines who dress up as men, miraculously fooling everyone they meet, in order to perform works of spying or good deeds. In Portia’s case, it’s the latter, and that’s where I wish Radford had cast someone more charismatic and powerful than Lynn Collins, who is lovely but an unremarkably actress. Her chemistry with Joseph Fiennes is practically zero. (Cate Blanchett was originally cast in the role, and I have to believe she’d have been exponentially more powerful.)

As Shylock, Al Pacino has the most noticeable role, if not the one with the most screen time. He’s good, too, a mix of typical Al Pacino over-the-top “Hoo-ahh!”-ism and down-to-earth real acting. In his hands, Shylock is both sympathetic and despicable, often simultaneously, as he bemoans his persecution, misses his daughter Jessica (Zuleikha Robinson) who has run off with a Christian man … but also misses his money, and makes things infinitely worse for himself by insisting on fulfilling the macabre terms of the contract. He’s a contradictory character, which is another reason the play isn’t performed much: It’s hard for an actor to play the role believably. Pacino manages it.

Radford’s direction is swift and confident, and 16th-century Italy looks beautiful, a near-perfect re-creation of the sumptuous costumes, streets and manners of the time. There is, at last, a definitive film version of this play, flawed in parts but mostly timeless.

The Assassination of Richard Nixon

0

On Feb. 22, 1974, a disillusioned loner named Samuel Bicke boarded a plane at Baltimore Washington International Airport with a gun, intending to hijack the aircraft and kill President Nixon by crashing it into the White House. The plot, which never got off the ground literally or figuratively, was largely forgotten by history until the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which eerily reminded some people of what Bicke had tried to do.

I assume one of those people was Niels Mueller, who has directed and co-written (with Kevin Kennedy) “The Assassination of Richard Nixon,” which dramatizes the events leading up to Bicke’s aborted hijacking. Mueller is a relatively new face in the film industry, having written the indie comedy “Tadpole” and worked in miscellaneous capacities on miscellaneous other films. “Assassination” is a starkly ambitious endeavor for such a fellow, and he pulls it off well, if not perfectly.

Chronologically, we begin a year before the incident, with Bicke (Sean Penn) working as an office-furniture salesman in Pittsburgh. He’s idealistic and perpetually wounded, a born loser whose ex-wife Marie (Naomi Watts) doesn’t dislike him so much as she pities him.

It becomes clear almost immediately that sales is not the profession for Bicke, because he strongly disapproves of lying or any other kind of manipulation. His boss, Jack (Jack Jones), gives him books by Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale to read and digest, hoping it will make him a better salesman, but Bicke isn’t cut out for such smooth operations. He wants to start his own business by turning an old bus into a mobile tire store that would bring the merchandise right to the customer. He wants his part of the American Dream.

Like many protagonists in 1970s cinema (not to mention in the actual 1970s), Bicke becomes disillusioned and reclusive. Jack lauds the Watergate-plagued Nixon as the best salesman ever, saying he won the 1968 election based on his pledge to get America out of Vietnam and then, when he didn’t achieve that, made the same pledge in 1972. “He made a promise, didn’t deliver, and then sold us on the exact same promise all over again,” Jack says with a distinct air of admiration. Bicke, however, is not impressed. He begins to see Nixon as the embodiment of corruption, failed dreams and broken promises.

It is fitting that such a story should take place in the ’70s, as Penn’s performance closely resembles the work of two ’70s icons. He has the stammering fussiness of Dustin Hoffman and the slow-burning intensity of Robert De Niro — especially De Niro in “Taxi Driver,” where his character, Travis Bickle, had many of the same characteristics as the similarly named Samuel Bicke.

The way Mueller builds the film is good, coaxing us into Bicke’s world with details and nuances. We don’t exactly agree with everything Bicke thinks, but we are sympathetic toward him. We can see where he’s coming from, anyway.

Once Bicke’s plan begins to form, though, the film becomes muddled and unfocused, throwing itself into climax mode even while delaying the actual climax. And though the conclusion is gripping, I can’t shake the idea that Mueller is trying to wring profound truths out of an episode that is not actually very earth-shattering. Maybe there are deep, universal themes to be found in the life of Samuel Bicke — but then, maybe he was just a disenchanted working-class slob who went a little crazy. Travis Bickle could be Everyman because he wasn’t real. Samuel Bicke, as an actual person, can only be himself, and Mueller doesn’t quite make a compelling case that he represented any more than that.

The Best of ‘Snide Remarks’: 2004

0

Ah, memories. As we draw to the close of another year (2004, specifically), let us saunter through the stacks of “Snide Remarks” columns that have graced the Internet since the column began its new life on March 8. Enjoy these highlights, won’t you?

On getting fired:
When I lost my job, I knew my savings would run out soon. Probably within the hour, in fact, because my savings consisted of 50 cents, and I needed a candy bar. (March 8)

On my previous roommates:
One moved out in the dark of night without telling me; he left the key on the upper shelf of a cupboard to ensure I wouldn’t find it and realize his departure for at least a few days; I never heard from him again. One disappeared altogether for two months, leaving behind his pet tarantula, a creature which can apparently survive without food for at least two months, since I sure as H. wasn’t going near it. One otherwise well-bred fellow occasionally sat shirtless on the couch drinking beer from a bottle, as if our couch were located in a trailer park. (April 5)

On Portland, Ore.:
I’ve been to Portland several times to visit friends, and each time I go, I am reminded of what a great city it is. And when I say I am reminded, I mean verbally, hundreds of times, by the locals, who ramble on constantly about what a great city it is. All the time an outsider spends in Portland is occupied with listening to natives extol its virtues, as if they are all trained Portland representatives who get a commission if they convince you to move there. I assume that if I did finally cave in and relocate to the Northwest, the hard-sell would cease and Portlanders would finally talk about something else. (Like how they hate all these outsiders moving in, probably.) (April 12)

On having babies:
It is my understanding that childbirth is an extraordinarily painful process, which is no surprise, given that it consists of reaching inside a person and pulling another person out of her. I can’t think of any 8-pound section of me that I would let you remove unless you first gave me enough drugs to kill me. (April 19)

On building my own shelves for my condo:
Needless to say, these were the most dubious, improbable shelves ever built. They creaked and wobbled every time I touched them, or didn’t touch them. There were spots in the wall where you could see several holes next to each other, false starts where I’d misjudged the location of the stud and had to try again; these series of holes made it look like I’d been shot at with a machine gun. I was wildly suspicious of the shelves, bordering on paranoia, confident they would collapse at any moment, until finally one day they did. One of the shelves overpowered its supporting brackets, fell onto the shelf beneath it, and took it and all of its contents down. This was known as the Great Shelf Disaster of 2003, and my ego and a bag of cookies were crushed in the fracas. (April 26)

On the trend toward obesity:
Fat, fat, fat. That’s all anyone talks about anymore. Americans are all fat, and they need to be less fat, and being fat will kill you, and blah blah blah fat fat fat. I get so tired of hearing about fat that it makes me want to get as fat as I possibly can, just out of spite, and also laziness. (May 10)

On “Troy”:
It was reported that Brad Pitt tore his Achilles tendon while playing Achilles in the film “Troy.” You don’t even want to KNOW what happened to the guy who plays Buttocks. (May 17)

On my filthy South American roommate:
Has news of the existence of bacteria not reached Argentina? Or has it simply not reached Raoul? The most alarming thing is that Raoul loves to cook and hopes to become a chef one day. Obviously, I will not be dining at Raoul’s House of Botulism, or whatever he calls his restaurant. It will probably only be able to open at all because the health officials who inspect it will have died before they could file their reports. (May 24)

On futons:
I don’t know who invented the futon, but it was obviously someone who has never slept and who hates people. An insomniac Nazi, maybe. The futon that sits in the guest bedroom at my parents’ house has a gridwork of steel bars for a foundation, with a paper-thin mattress on top of it. It is a poor idea to begin with, and it is poorly executed. Bed : futon :: La-Z-Boy recliner : electric chair. (June 14)

On sharing a bathroom with my two sisters:
I have two sisters living at home, and they both have very long hair, almost down to their respective butts. I regard their hair as beautiful; however, I have discovered that its beauty is limited to the time that it is affixed to their heads. Once it has been jettisoned, the individual hair strands become ghastly and terrifying, and a den of them occupies the upstairs shower. They are willful, eel-like creatures that lurk quietly on the wall of the shower, waiting to attach themselves to any passing object. I find myself showering gingerly, trying not to disturb the hairs’ slumber, similar to how one would tiptoe through a cave full of bats. But inevitably I arouse their fury and become entangled, lost in the grip of two-foot strands of discarded hair. (June 14)

On moving from Orem to Salt Lake City:
Out-of-state readers may not recognize the significance in this move, so I will explain it in clear, lucid terms: Orem is in a place called “Utah Valley,” and Utah Valley does a thing called “suck.” (June 28)

On my DSL service:
Thanks to further advancements in Qwest’s ongoing commitment to incompetence, I was recently without DSL service for three days. Qwest’s explanation for the disruption was, “we r dum we dont no how 2 do stuf cuz we are 2 stupd lololololol w00t!,” followed by a fart noise. And that was after I asked to speak to a supervisor. (July 19)

On the ubiquitousness of the Internet:
Reuters reports that 75 percent of Americans above the age of 2 who live in homes with phone lines have Internet access. (Infants and hillbillies remain the two toughest demographics to reach.) (July 19)

On a county fair entertainer called Toot Toot the Karaoke Clown:
I am not certain what drives a man to become a karaoke clown, given that everyone hates karaoke and everyone also hates clowns. Did Toot Toot sit in his mobile home thinking, “I don’t just want to be something people hate; I want to be TWO things people hate”? What other combinations did he consider before arriving at karaoke clown? Tax-collector mime? Redheaded Nazi? Telemarketer John Mayer? (Aug. 23)

On being asked to come up with a bedtime story for my friend’s children:
Claire told me they like their bedtime stories to center around pirates and, if possible, bubble gum. These seemed like reasonable demands; Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote “The Scarlet Letter” under precisely the same strictures. And if I’m not as able a storyteller as Nathaniel Hawthorne, then I don’t know what I am. (Aug. 30)

On Madonna’s children’s book:
While at the library, I noticed a book called “Mr. Peabody’s Apples,” written by Madonna. At first I assumed it was a dirty book, since it was written by Madonna and since it was called “Mr. Peabody’s Apples.” (Aug. 30)

On the summer’s comic-book movies:
The two highest-profile ones were “Spider-Man 2” and “Catwoman.” One featured a campy hero in tight-fitting clothing who appealed to gay men, while the other featured a campy hero in tight-fitting clothing who appealed to gay men AND lesbians. “Spider-Man 2” was hailed for its humanity and universal themes, serving as a cautionary tale against the dangers of fusing mechanical arms to your spine as a means of creating fusion. “Catwoman,” meanwhile, sucked. (Sept. 6)

On my new roommate:
Greg does not have the word “stuff” in his vocabulary. Instead, he has the word “s***.” He tosses “s***” around very casually, in sentences such as, “I’ve been here two weeks, and I’m still unpacking my s***,” and “No, this seat’s not taken, let me just move my s***.” Normally, I dislike that word a lot, but I’ve discovered it doesn’t bother me so much when it’s used non-swearingly. The best usage came when I told him about Josh Hartnett’s unsettling unibrow in “Wicker Park,” and Greg said, “Geez, someone should have told him to pluck that s***.” (Note: I assume Greg does have “stuff” in his vocabulary when used as a verb. That is, I’m pretty sure he would say, “We need to stuff the turkey for Thanksgiving” rather than “We need to s*** the turkey for Thanksgiving.” But I’ll let you know for sure in November.) (Sept. 13)

The Least Funny Things in the World:
1. Bazooka Joe comics
2. birth defects
3. Jay Leno
4. your mom dying
5. Al Franken
6. one-legged puppies
7. award-show jokes
8. Bob Hope (pre-death)
9. Bob Hope (post-death)
10. your dad dying
(Sept. 20)

On UVSC’s speaking invitation to Michael Moore:
Now that the student government has made the commitment, UVSC authorities are scrambling to put a good spin on it, all the while cursing themselves for letting students — UVSC students, at that! — be in charge of booking speakers. Apparently, last year’s visit from SpongeBob SquarePants taught them nothing. (Sept. 27)

On Michael Moore’s appearance:
Do you suppose Moore will dress nicely, or shave his big sweaty face when he shows up to address UVSC for $50,000? No, he’ll probably look like he always does, like one of those sweepstakes winners you see on TV who were caught off-guard by the Prize Patrol van. He always looks like he didn’t know he was going to be out in public that day, like he only wore his grubbies because he thought he would just be out working in the yard, and then somehow he accidentally wound up at the Academy Awards. I swear, he makes Peter Jackson look like Cary Grant. (Sept. 27)

On Las Vegas:
When you think of Las Vegas, you think of garish lights, smoky casinos, and mid-priced whores. But Las Vegas is so much more than that. It is also unreasonable heat, big-haired trailer trash and over-hyped shows featuring fey, tiger-loving magicians, creepy French acrobats or men who are painted blue. (Oct. 4)

On British slang:
“Ten Little Indians” was originally called “Ten Little N******,” “n*****” being what the British called people from India in those days. How a nation of snaggle-toothed inbreds gets off slurring other races is beyond me. (Oct. 4)

On parking:
I hate paying for parking. You give money to someone, and what do you get in return? Nothing. You hand the money over, park your car, and leave the scene, usually to go spend more money somewhere else. All you’re paying for is the right to not drive your car for a while. Well, it’s your car! You should be able to not drive it whenever you want. (Oct. 11)

On greeting people:
I think it would be fun to greet everyone the way you greet a dog, rubbing the person’s head and saying (if his name is Bob), “Who’s a good boy?! Is Bob a good boy?! Yes he is! Yes he is! Who’s a good boy?!” Let’s start this trend. You first. (Oct. 18)

On “Saving Private Ryan”:
At first I thought all the uproar last week wasn’t because ABC aired “Saving Private Ryan,” but because it aired “Shaving Ryan’s Privates.” Then I realized I didn’t really think that, and I just wanted to make that joke. Then I was deeply ashamed. (Nov. 22)

Darkness

0

You have to hand it to Dimension Films. When they abandon a movie, they abandon it with gusto. Here is “Darkness,” a film shot in 2001 and originally scheduled for a summer 2002 release. Dimension pushed it back on the schedule numerous times before finally deciding to cut its losses and dump the thing into theaters on Christmas Day 2004. What better way to celebrate the birth of Jesus than to watch a film about satanic sacrifices and the unleashing of evil? This movie will disappear faster than wrapping paper at Rite-Aid on Christmas Eve. (Sorry, that’s the best one-liner I could come up with. Cut me some slack, I just sat through “Darkness.”)

It’s a lamentable film, a true waste of talented actresses Lena Olin and Anna Paquin, and a goofy retread of stock horror-flick devices. We have weird, atmospheric things occurring in a house that has a dark past; we have lights that go on and off randomly, and music boxes that start playing without human intervention; we have ominous trenchcoated men standing in the rain because they have important information for the protagonists; we have ghastly specters that appear and disappear in darkened corridors; and we have people who, despite coming to realize that their house came equipped with hot and cold running evil, continue to live in said house.

Also included in “Darkness”: a frazzled father who slowly goes insane in a creepy house and menaces his wife and son as they cower in a bathroom. Prior to this, white title cards on black backgrounds tell us what day of the week it is. If you have seen “The Shining” recently, all of this should seem familiar.

Set in Spain, but the part of Spain where everyone speaks English and no one has a Spanish accent, “Darkness” centers around a house wherein evil deeds occurred decades ago. No one has lived in the house for some time, but now a family has moved in. The father, Mark (Iain Glen), is allegedly from Spain originally; his American wife Maria (Lena Olin) is a nurse who works at the same hospital as Mark’s father (Giancarlo Giannini). They have a daughter called Reggie (Anna Paquin) and a son whom the movie mostly forgets about and so I have, too.

Weird things happen almost immediately, and we learn that 40 years ago, six children were killed by cultists in that very house. A seventh child escaped, and you get three guesses who he is now. Meanwhile, Mark occasionally has episodes of delirium and mania, causing Reggie to tell her mom, in a voice dripping with foreboding, “It’s starting again.” Alas, nothing really “starts” in this movie for a good long while. Things keep going bump in the night, but since the source of the bumping is too vague, we stop being scared after a while and start being impatient.

The plot boils down to cultists having to spill a particular person’s blood in order to “close the circle.” This device is old hat to those of us who saw every episode of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” but I suppose it’s still a reasonably good one, if it’s well-executed. That is not the case here, though. Writer/director Jaume Balagueró, having seen good horror movies, knows what elements to include but no idea how to incorporate them into a coherent story.

Word on the street is that the film was originally gorier (it is fairly tame now) and was trimmed to achieve a more profitable PG-13 rating. So it’s possible the story line was mangled in all the surgery, which means we ought to be blaming Dimension Films for the incomprehensibility. But we are not here to play the blame game. We are here to tell you that “Darkness” is a dull, unfrightening movie, and a terrible way to spend any night, let alone Christmas.

Fat Albert

0

The “Fat Albert” movie has carved out quite a dilemma for itself. The only people who might find it funny are under the age of 10 — but anyone that young won’t be familiar with the TV cartoon it’s based on and therefore won’t get all the jokes. So really, this movie is for people who are above the age of 30 but who have the sense of humor of a 6-year-old. If that describes you, then run, do not walk, to your nearest cinema and enjoy “Fat Albert”! And then please hurl yourself from the nearest bridge.

The “Fat Albert” cartoon was the brainchild of Bill Cosby, based on his own experiences as a poor kid in North Philadelphia. Cosby wrote the film with Charles Kipps, who has worked on some of Cosby’s less-distinguished TV shows (“The Cosby Mysteries,” “Little Bill”), and what they’ve come up with is among the two or three worst screenplays of the year. It’s an utter wreck of a film, completely laugh-free and mind-bogglingly misguided.

The story is about a Philadelphia teen named Doris (Kyla Pratt) who is unpopular at school for reasons the movie declines to tell us. One day she is watching the “Fat Albert” cartoon on TV — wait, maybe that’s why she’s unpopular — and crying about the fact that she has no friends, and her tears fall on the remote control and somehow that makes Fat Albert and his gang of problem-solving junkyard layabouts pop out of the TV and into Doris’ living room. Good thing she wasn’t watching “Crocodile Hunter.”

Fat Albert (Kenan Thompson), a polite, obese teen who says “Hey, hey, hey!” approximately 75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times per day, is driven to help people solve their problems. He is obsessed with it, in fact, perhaps due to his own guilt over some long-ago transgression, perhaps something filthy and degrading, though I am only speculating. So though Doris insists her lack of friends is not a problem, Fat Albert and his pals — including the speech-impeded Mushmouth (Jermaine Williams), very tall Old Weird Harold (Aaron Frazier), bucktoothed Bucky (Alphonso McAuley), dumb Dumb Donald (Marques Houston) and two other kids who are boring — insist they will help her get some anyway.

The kids, being from a 1970s TV show, are baffled by 21st-century devices such as cell phones. The comedic device in which a person from the past is amazed by the present has already been used in approximately 90,000,000,000,000,000,000 other movies, but here it is again, as predictable as ever. One of the boring guys develops a crush on Doris, while Fat Albert himself has a thing for Doris’ hot foster sister Lauri (Dania Ramirez). Then they go to a party, where Fat Albert improvises a rap!!!!!!

What is laughable about the film is the attitude that the writers and the director, veteran TV director Joel Zwick, have toward it. They evidently think the audience is full of people who have vivid, fond memories of the “Fat Albert” TV series, because they have gone to great pains to re-create it faithfully. The characters in the film walk and pose oddly, apparently imitating their cartoon counterparts — which means the actors have watched the show recently, even if no one else on Earth has. To the casual viewer, it just looks like people walking and posing oddly, and it’s distracting, not funny.

You can tell the parts where they assumed you’d say, “Aw, I remember that! How nostalgic and amusing to see it enacted on the big screen!” But as I said, the only people who’d be able to tolerate the film’s simple-mindedness would be children, who of course have no knowledge of this alleged “Fat Albert” cartoon. (In the movie, kids on the street keep recognizing the in-the-flesh Fat Albert and his buddies from seeing them on TV, while their parents ignore them. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?)

I respect Cosby’s lifelong mission to provide wholesome entertainment for children and teach valuable lessons and whatnot, but good intentions are not an excuse for dull entertainment, just as a desire for simplicity is not an excuse for simple-mindedness. There’s “innocent,” and then there’s just “dumb.” “Fat Albert” fails in every possible way — fails to be funny, fails to be interesting, fails to speak to its potential audience. It is, as Mushmouth would say, a pebeece of crabap.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

0

A Wes Anderson film is always a thing of inspired, calculated madness, so much like his other films that you’d think he made them all in the same month. His previous movies, “Bottle Rocket,” “Rushmore” and “The Royal Tenenbaums,” established his template, and now “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou” fills in the blanks again.

I say this as a Wes Anderson fan, but one who is becoming slightly less enamored of Anderson’s cinematic tricks as time goes on. “The Life Aquatic” is a delight, but it doesn’t feel as fresh and surprising as, say, “Rushmore” did. Still, I’ll take a filmmaker who keeps using the same interesting devices over one who doesn’t even know any.

The title character, played with typically understated aplomb by Bill Murray, is an oceanographer on the order of Jacques Cousteau, once a hailed documentarian but now in his waning years. His latest film, “The Life Aquatic Part 1,” is greeted tepidly at a film festival, perhaps because audiences have grown out of ocean documentaries. Steve Zissou’s work is pure ’60s-style cheese, resembling the short films we used to watch in elementary school.

Steve’s personal life is as somber as his professional life. His wife and business partner, Eleanor (Anjelica Huston) — who many whisper is the brains behind the operation — is only barely on Steve’s side after having been, at one point, the lover of Alistair Hennessey (Jeff Goldblum), Steve’s chief rival in the cutthroat world of oceanography. Adding to his grief is the fact that his best friend Esteban was eaten by a jaguar shark while filming “The Life Aquatic Part 1.” With little else left to lose, Steve has decided the goal of his next voyage will be to find and destroy the offending fish.

His ship, the Belafonte, is staffed by a loyal group of experts, (including Willem Dafoe as German cinematographer Klaus Daimler) and a handful of college interns, who are there (as are many elements in the film) mainly because Wes Anderson thought it would be amusing to put them there. They are joined by Jane Winslett-Richardson (Cate Blanchett), a high-voiced British journalist for Oceanographic Explorer magazine who is doing a story on Steve. He hates the intrusion, but he needs the publicity.

They are also joined, at the last minute, by one Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), a genteel pilot for a Kentucky-based airline. He is a life-long Steve Zissou fan and, according to his now-deceased mother, Steve’s illegitimate son, too. Steve and Eleanor have no children. If he is to have a son before he dies, it will have to be Ned.

And so the crew embarks on a marvelous journey, looking for the jaguar shark, fleeing Hennessey because they stole his state-of-the-art equipment, running afoul of pirates (yes, pirates!), and putting up with the presence of a “bond company stooge” who’s there to make sure Steve doesn’t violate the terms of his insurance policy.

There is loopiness at every turn, like the crew member who serenades us with guitar-accompanied David Bowie songs sung in Portuguese, or the other crew member, a woman, who is always topless. Anderson belongs to the same school of filmmaking as the Coen Brothers, where even the characters with only a couple lines are brimming with kooky personality.

Steve Zissou is played with such precise sadness, longing and relentlessly off-kilter behavior by Bill Murray that many viewers will be turned off by his performance and will be upset when he gets nominated for another Oscar. Indeed, many viewers will be turned off by the film altogether, as it is surreal and stylized, with even ordinary conversations about ordinary things getting the Wes Anderson treatment (he co-wrote the script with Noah Baumbach).

But I think Murray is brilliant here, and superbly nuanced. He is emotionally closed-off, but not unfeeling. In fact, his keen sensitivity is why he’s closed-off, a preemptive strike against potential sorrow. Seeing him and Wilson bond as father and possible son — bond in their own peculiar Andersonian way, that is — is evidence of the film’s softer side.

But the fact remains that the film, like Steve Zissou, is emotionally distant. You almost have to work at it to feel what Steve and Ned are feeling, and I don’t think it’s wise of Anderson to make audiences have to toil just to get his point. If you don’t go to the effort, you’ll still come away having seen a very funny movie, but you’ll have missed some of the depth.

The Woodsman

0

Kevin Bacon’s entire career has been leading up to “The Woodsman,” where he finally gets to play a child molester.

His last two major roles were in “Mystic River” and “Trapped,” both films about people who harm children. Between them, he appeared as a stalker in “In the Cut.” Before that, there was the evil, voyeuristic invisible guy in “Hollow Man” (2000), plus the general ickiness of “Wild Things” (1998).

Bacon has a snaky, lubricated quality to him, with a face that approaches handsomeness but backs off at the last minute to pursue weaseliness instead. I’m not sure I would buy him as a romantic lead. I would definitely buy him as a child molester, though.

And so he is in the dismal, overcast “The Woodsman,” playing Walter, a pedophile who has just returned to his hometown of Philadelphia after a 12-year prison sentence. He finds an apartment, unfortunately located adjacent to an elementary school, which I doubt any real-life parole board would tolerate. He also finds a job at a lumberyard, working with wood, his primary skill. (Keep your naughty jokes to yourselves.)

Life is not easy for Walter. His nosy co-worker Alana (rapper Eve) wants to know what he went to prison for, and a mistrustful cop (Mos Def) doesn’t believe Walter will be part of the minority of pedophiles who successfully reform. No one trusts him, and he barely trusts himself. His therapist recommends keeping a journal, in which he expresses his torment and the difficulty of resisting temptation.

He falls into a relationship with Vickie (Kyra Sedgwick, Bacon’s real-life spouse), a wounded, mildly trashy full-grown woman who gets past his weaknesses and tries to see the good in him. Seeing Bacon and Sedgwick, a married couple, go at it is a bit odd, but hey, if they don’t mind us watching….

The screenplay, by director Nicole Kassell (this is her first feature in either capacity), uses more shorthand than it ought to, culling most of Mos Def’s dialogue from the Big Book of Movie Cop Clichés and creating a world in which seemingly everyone either molests or has been molested.

Furthermore, there is the issue of What does Walter want? Redemption? Peace? It’s hard to say. He doesn’t seem to want anything other than to just go on living. As such, it’s hard to sympathize with him. He is a child molester, after all. We need a solid, noble goal to get behind, not just a general “I wish I wasn’t screwed up” kind of mopiness.

That said, Bacon plays the role extremely well, demonstrating in a few key scenes why he’s such a highly regarded actor. He registers emotional intensity when it’s called for, and a scene in which he encounters a young girl — a potential victim — is dripping with creepy tension.

But the mood of the film is so relentlessly bleak that it’s hard to take. Even the small victories in Walter’s life are muted and underplayed, giving us little hope for his future. You say, “Well, what kind of happiness and forgiveness should a child molester have?” And I say, probably none — so why watch a movie about one? A character who is doomed from the start because of his own actions is difficult to support, and a film about him is bound to feel oppressively dark.

In the Realms of the Unreal (documentary)

0

“In the Realms of the Unreal” is the name of the 15,000-page children’s fantasy novel written by Chicago janitor Henry Darger, who left it among his things when he died in 1973 at the age of 81. The title is borrowed for Jessica Yu’s uncommonly interesting and lovely documentary about Darger and his work.

Darger himself seemed to dwell in an unreal realm, as documented in the other major written work he left behind, his life story. He had a Dickensian childhood, more or less orphaned, sent to a home for “feeble-minded children” (which he doesn’t appear to have been) and made to do menial labor on work farms. As an adult, he was reclusive and a devout Catholic. He wanted to be left alone. He never married. The hundreds of paintings he did to accompany his book suggest he had a limited knowledge of the opposite sex: The children are often painted naked, and the little girls have penises.

Coming from other minds, this would be creepy and unsettling. But Yu’s interviews with the people who dealt with Darger — his landlords, his neighbors, and so forth — reveal a man universally considered innocent and child-like. He was naive, maybe a little feeble-minded after all, and had no prurient interests of any kind, at least not of which he left behind any evidence.

Was he crazy? Probably at least slightly. For 10 years, he kept a detailed journal of the weather, comparing it with the forecasts. He seemed angry that the meteorologists got it wrong so often. This is not the behavior of a non-crazy person.

What makes the film so fascinating is its dual stories: one, of Darger himself, and two, of his “In the Realms of the Unreal” novel. His colorful paintings are animated a bit to give them life and whimsy, and the story itself is a simple, charming piece about a band of seven little girls who lead a fight against an evil warlike nation.

It parallels his real life, too, which gives it poignancy. Did Darger miss his own lost childhood and write this story as a means of recapturing it? It would appear so, though Yu takes the interesting tack of NOT interviewing any psychologists or experts. This is refreshing, as it allows Darger and his work to remain pure, untainted by analysis or dissection. (This is a man who wrote thousands of pages with no intention of anyone ever reading them, much less having them put under a microscope.) He was child-like, his writing was unpolished and quaint, and both are preserved in this gratifying, poignant documentary.

Meet the Fockers

0

In the grand tradition of movie sequels, “Meet the Fockers” is a little coarser, a little more desperate and a lot less funny than its predecessor. But then it also has Dustin Hoffman, who single-handedly saves the day with a performance as single-mindedly, energetically funny as anything he’s ever done.

In the world of the movie, it’s only been two years since 2000’s “Meet the Parents,” which ended with Gaylord “Greg” Focker (Ben Stiller) getting the OK to marry his sweetheart Pam Byrnes (Teri Polo) from her accommodating mother Dina (Blythe Danner) and her strict, ex-CIA father Jack (Robert De Niro). Due to Greg’s apprehension about letting the Byrneses meet his own parents, the wedding has been delayed many times. But now the moment of truth has arrived, and Greg and the Byrneses are at last heading to Florida to meet the Fockers.

Greg’s parents, as you have heard, are played by Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand. You probably can’t imagine a better pair to play a couple of retired liberal Jews in South Florida, can you? And they are fantastic, both of them, full of quirks and affable zaniness. The Fockers are a touch-feely couple, still quite frisky (she’s a sex therapist specializing in senior citizens; he’s a happy house husband) and absolute admirers of their mediocre son. They are the antithesis of the straitlaced Byrneses (well, of Jack, anyway; Dina is still a bit of a cipher).

So we’ve added Hoffman and Streisand to the already-perfect mix of Ben Stiller as a frustrated, befuddled straightman and Robert De Niro as an intimidating future father-in-law; the original director (Jay Roach) and writers (John Hamburg and James Herzfeld) are back; we would seem to have all the elements in place for a sequel worthy of the original. So what went wrong?

In my opinion, what made the first film work was Stiller’s persona as the hapless, wry loser, a character that has since been used in too many films but that in 2000 was still relatively fresh. In “Meet the Parents,” someone — usually Robert De Niro — would say or do something insane and get a laugh, and then Stiller would top off the laugh with a stammering, deadpan reaction. (For example, Jack reads a bizarre poem about his dead, cancer-ridden mother, and Greg responds, “That was so beautiful, and yet, had so much information.”)

Much of that attitude is gone in the sequel; indeed, Greg is almost relegated to a supporting-cast position in favor of the De Niro/Hoffman dynamic. That pair certainly has a lot going for it — even with only average-to-decent material to work with, De Niro and Hoffman have magnetism and a commitment to their work that is exciting to watch — but it isn’t where the film’s greatest assets lie. Stiller ought to be one of the movie’s best weapons, but he has far fewer amusing things to say this time than he did the first time around.

Instead, we get a lot of tired gags like people falling down, someone being drugged with truth serum, and a dog that humps everything. Many lines exist just to remind us that yes, his name is still Gaylord Focker, and yes, he’s still a male nurse. (In case you forgot.) Jokes are done, redone and overdone, to the point that you notice the movie TRYING to be funny more than you notice it actually BEING funny. There are approximately 1,000 lines in which the amusing part is supposed to be the word “Focker,” and dozens upon dozens of boob jokes. There’s even a 1-year-old baby to whom Greg accidentally teaches a swear word — funny a couple times, but not when the baby keeps saying it OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Give it a rest, Fockers.

All of this is to explain why the film isn’t as good as its predecessor, or even as good as a sequel ought to be. It is still passably entertaining, however, due in large part to Hoffman’s loosey-goosey performance as Bernie Focker. Many of his lines sound ad-libbed; his persona is that of a man who does and says whatever comes into his mind, a well-meaning but embarrassing aging hippie. The film forgets its solid original premises and becomes feebly desperate at times, but Hoffman is always there to wring a laugh out of some hoary joke or some contrived situation. The man is a national treasure, I tell you.

The Phantom of the Opera

0

Those of us who love musicals will not be thrilled with the new big-screen version of “The Phantom of the Opera” — not because it’s a terrible film (though it is), but because of the bad name it gives movie musicals. “Chicago” revived the genre and brought in audiences consisting largely of people for whom musicals aren’t usually their “thing.” Some of those people, having been eased into the genre by the swinging razzle-dazzle of “Chicago,” might wander into “Phantom,” too, only to be numbed, annoyed and confused. “See?!” they’ll say as they stagger out of the film 143 minutes later. “I told you I didn’t like musicals!”

Which is a shame, because on stage, “Phantom” is a good way of introducing people to the art of the musical. Andrew Lloyd Webber and Charles Hart’s lavish spectacle has catchy tunes and is not overly complicated or intellectual. It is accessible and ordinary, and since it is almost entirely sung (with very little dialogue), there are none of those awkward “they were just talking, then all of a sudden they started singing” transitions that can be so off-putting to newbies.

Nearly everything that is good about the stage version is lost in the movie version, which was adapted by Lloyd Webber and Joel Schumacher and directed by Schumacher. The man has directed good films, including “Phone Booth” and “Tigerland,” but when he directs bad ones, he directs the hell out of them. I’m thinking of the loud bombast of “Batman & Robin,” or the braying idiocy of “Bad Company.” All of his worst impulses — from bad casting to bad camera angles — are brought to bear in “Phantom.”

Take, for example, the role of the Phantom himself, the mad, disfigured genius who lives beneath the Opera Populaire in 1870s Paris, where the story is set. Schumacher has cast Gerard Butler, bland star of such loud, dumb films as “Dracula 2000,” “Timeline,” “Reign of Fire” and “Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life.” Where in all of that did Schumacher see in Butler the potential to play a sensitive, wounded man who obsesses over a singer?

Butler’s singing voice is too lightweight for a man with as much built-up passion and anger as the Phantom. It is not an especially good voice, either, growling some of the lower notes and sounding far too modern and pop-ish for a character whose only musical influences have been opera. (Wouldn’t a man who lived under an operahouse sing more like Pavarotti and less like Michael Bolton?)

Butler may have been cast because he is handsome — which is actually a liability for this role, since the Phantom is supposed to be disfigured to the point of being shunned by all society. The way Schumacher and his makeup artists have rendered him, the Phantom has three-fourths of a perfectly good, enviably attractive face, marred only by what appears to be a burn scar around his right eye. For this he was put in a circus freak show? He ought to be uglier. But of course, people wouldn’t go see a movie with an ugly man as the romantic lead.

The object of the Phantom’s affections is Christine Daae (Emmy Rossum), a young member of the chorus to whom he has been giving covert vocal lessons. He ensures her chance at stardom by antagonizing the prima donna, Carlotta (Minnie Driver, hilarious and underused), who storms off the stage after the latest in a series of mysterious accidents for which the operahouse is infamous. Christine’s audition for the company managers is a song called “Think of Me,” which we are told comes from the third act of the opera they are rehearsing. It has always amused me that in the middle of some 18th- or 19th-century opera is a cheesy pop-musical love song that, by the sound of it, can only have been written in the 1980s. It doesn’t even approximate “opera,” nor is it a particularly impressive number. But of course, people wouldn’t go see a show that had TOO much opera in it. Setting one in an operahouse is risky enough.

Emmy Rossum’s voice is lovely, as is she, but she is devoid of passion. When she sings, her face is expressionless. Matching her in this regard is Patrick Wilson, the Broadway actor who plays Raoul, Christine’s non-Phantom paramour. For a fun drinking game, watch him closely and any time his eyes or eyebrows move, take a shot. By the time the film is over, you will have taken two shots. But of course, no one wants to see a movie in which characters’ faces register emotion. No, wait. That’s wrong.

A Phantom who can’t sing and who isn’t even hideous, other characters who sing with great enthusiasm yet who do not match it with their faces — it’s as though Schumacher hates musicals and is trying to sabotage every musical element of the film. This theory is borne out by the way he stages the songs. He seldom keeps the camera on a singer’s face for more than a couple seconds while he or she is singing, constantly cutting away or giving us long shots instead, thus destroying any hope we have of feeling the sentiments behind the lyrics. There is too much random motion, too much unfocused energy. I note that “Moulin Rouge” had a good deal of choppy editing, too, yet Baz Luhrmann was also not afraid to show us the singers’ faces for several seconds at a time. A film musical needn’t be “stagy.” There just needs to be purpose to the movement, and when a song feels like it needs less movement, the director needs to be willing to restrain himself.

Schumacher seems to have had no idea, when he was filming, that there would be music added later, or what kind of music it might be, or what sort of emotions it would be expressing. He just goes right on swooping the cameras around, showing us expensive set pieces and vibrant costumes, regardless of what the texture of the music would suggest he ought to do.

There is a very funny song called “Prima Donna,” sung by the opera managers Firmin (Ciaran Hinds) and Andre (Simon Callow) to Carlotta in an attempt to woo her back to the stage, the Phantom’s insistence that she not perform notwithstanding. Schumacher does not seem to know that this song is funny, for he directs the scene the same way he directs everything else, i.e., chaotically and peripatetically. At every turn, he convinces me he is absolutely the wrong man to direct any musical.

Some of my colleagues have said that a director as shallow as Schumacher is the perfect fit for a musical as shallow as “Phantom of the Opera,” but I think the finished product proves otherwise. On stage, “Phantom” can be a pleasure, even if it is a guilty one. On screen, what passion and excitement there is in the work has been sucked out; it has become boring, which is something the stage version could never be accused of. It is shallow, yes, but even shallow works need competent directors.

Hotel Rwanda

0

Joaquin Phoenix isn’t in “Hotel Rwanda” very much, but he’s on screen long enough for his character, a news reporter named Jack, to summarize exactly how the world will react when they see the unfolding massacre on CNN: “They’ll say, ‘Oh my God, that’s horrible!’ Then they’ll go on eating their dinners.”

Even at that, he’s probably overstating the West’s empathy for Africa’s intra-national squabbles. “Hotel Rwanda” is set in the capital city of Kigali in 1994, where Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle) is manager of the upscale Hotel de Mille Collines. (You can tell Paul was a real person because no fictional character would ever have a name that unwieldy.) Rwanda was arbitrarily divided years earlier into two separate tribes, the Hutus and the Tutsis, the latter of which mostly governed, often oppressively. Now factions within the Hutu group are urging their fellows to rise up and kill the Tutsis.

Paul is a Hutu, but he does not subscribe to the militant notions being advocated by some. He, like most of his sensibly minded fellow Rwandans, realizes there is so little actual difference between the two tribes that it is often impossible to tell which one a person belongs to without asking. Paul is a calm businessman, dressed at all times in a suit and tie, unfailingly polite and efficient. He runs a good hotel, and he runs a good life.

But tensions flare and soon people are being arrested and executed by the Hutu militia. Paul tells his wife (Sophie Okonedo) that he cannot call in favors to help their incarcerated neighbor because “he is not family.” Then he rolls over in bed and we see in his eyes that he knows this policy of selective protection cannot last. He’s too good a person.

Sure enough, within days his hotel is home to 800 refugees. Paul realizes quickly that warlords are easily placated if you have enough cash; bribery, tact and a cool common sense make him an excellent leader, protecting his refugees from the slaughter that reigns elsewhere in the city.

Don Cheadle, who has received critical acclaim but little mainstream notice for his previous work (“Boogie Nights,” “Traffic,” “Ocean’s Eleven,” etc.), performs here as though it is the very culmination of his long, busy career, which it probably is. His commitment to the role and to the film is unwavering as he infuses the character with life and texture. We know Paul was a real man, but Cheadle makes us FEEL it.

Sophie Okonedo plays the supportive wife gracefully, sinking her teeth into a few choice moments when Mrs. Rusesabagina is perturbed by her husband’s priorities. I should also mention Nick Nolte, who plays a grizzled, reluctantly heroic U.S. colonel with characteristic aplomb.

I don’t understand the political and diplomatic complexities at play here, and director Terry George (who co-wrote the script with Keir Pearson) doesn’t take as much care as he ought to in explaining them, leaving us in the dark, at times, in regard to who’s killing whom and why. He also is too careful about which characters whose names we know are allowed to die, setting up too many false alarms and tearful resolutions. And yet it is still a powerful, sobering film, alive with energy and urgency. It brings immediacy to a tragedy that most of us paid little attention to when it was happening.

You Are Listening to Delilah

0

Welcome back to The Delilah Show. I hope you’re enjoying the holiday season. Maybe you’re rushing around getting some last-minute shopping done. Or maybe you’re relaxing at home with the kids. Or maybe you’re getting ready to have some friends over for an evening of caroling and binge eating. Whatever you’re doing, I’m glad you’re sharing it with us tonight.

I know Christmas can be a hectic time of year. It seems like every year, my pride and joy, my special daughter Ruth, just wants more and more toys! Isn’t that how it always is? Parents, you know what I’m talking about. But still, we love the little angels, even though they cause us so many headaches, because they’re all so special. Every one of those headaches is like a special gift from heaven.

This week I got a special letter from a listener named Samantha in Dallas. She writes, “Dear Delilah, I’m hoping you will play a special song for me during your show because I am going through a rough time. My father recently passed away after a long illness, and I’m afraid this holiday season just won’t be the same without him. Can you lift my spirits, Delilah? Signed, Samantha.”

Samantha, I would be glad to play a special song for you during this time of sadness.

[plays song]

“Oh, the weather outside is frightful
But the fire is so delightful!
And since we’ve no place to go,
Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow!”

You’re listening to Delilah, on [pre-recorded tape of Delilah saying local station’s name]!

[commercial break]

Welcome back to Delilah. I’m glad you’ve joined us tonight. Maybe there’s someone you love who can’t be with you this Christmas season. Maybe you’ve recently lost someone. Maybe, like me, you’ve been drinking since 3 o’clock this afternoon and everything just seems a little fuzzy. Whatever the case, I’m glad you’ve tuned in so we can all spend this special time of year together.

Carol is on the phone from Knoxville, Tennessee. Carol, tell us your story.

Well, Delilah, the light and joy in my life is my little boy Rodney. He’s 5 years old, and he was born without a neck. His little head just attaches right to his little shoulders. He’s so special, and he absolutely means the world to me!

Carol, I know just how you feel. My precious little sweet angel Ruth is the love of my life, except when she doesn’t mind me when I tell her to clean up her room or to pour Mommy another drink. Then I just want to take her little neck, which she does have, and — but anyway, we’ll play a special song for you and your special little neck-less boy.

[plays song]

“Jingle bell, jingle bell, jingle bell rock,
Jingle bell swing and jingle bells ring.
Snowin’ and blowin’ up bushels of fun;
Now the jingle hop has begun!”

You’re listening to Deloolah, on [pre-recorded tape of Delilah saying local station’s name]!

[commercial break]

Welcome shmack to the shmow. If you’re joining us tonight, thanks. Maybe Christmas is a sad time for you. Maybe you don’t have any family nearby. Maybe your dad died while climbing down the chimney, like that girl’s dad in “Gremlins” did. Maybe you’re some kind of Jew or something. Whatever the reason for being sad, I’m glad you’re sad, and I’m glad you’re here tonight, to get all cozy with the Christmas songs and to hear everybody’s special stories and to roll around naked. Wheee! I don’t have any clothes on right now, because I’m Delilah, and I’m listening to Delilah, on [“Jingle bell, jingle bell, jingle bell rock”].

I have a special listener named special Ruth on the special phone. Ruth, go ahead and say what’s on your mind.

Mommy, it’s me, Ruth. Daddy called and said you sound funny on the radio again, and he’s glad he gets me for Christmas and not you, and I’m glad too, because Daddy and new mommy Amber are more fun, and plus you never get out of bed, even on Christmas, and–

[pre-recorded tape of Delilah saying local station’s name]

Ruth, thanks for your call. I’ll play a special song for you and your special father and his special thunder-tramp of a girlfriend.

[plays song]

“Silent night, holy night,
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon virgin mother and child,
Holy infant, so tender and mild.
Sleep in heavenly peace,
Sleep in heavenly peace.”

Sorry, that was the wrong song. That should have been for Susan in Oklahoma City, a single mother who just had a baby. I can’t find the song for my ex-husband, because I think maybe Amber ate it. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha cough cough cough. Man, I’m thirsty.

[commercial break]

— and so I said, “Why don’t you show me YOUR license and registration, OFFICER?!” What? Oh! Welcome back to the Delilah Show. Maybe you’re sitting at home by a nice, warm dog. Or maybe you’re in your car, upside-down in a ditch, waiting for help to come. Or maybe you’re in the emergency room, giving birth to an ungrateful child and wanting more morphine. Whatever your deal is, I’m glad you’re sharing it with us. And if you have any vodka, I hope you’ll share that with us, too. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha cough cough vomit.

I have a note here from my producer, and it says, “Glarble geesh gookle gookle.” John, that’s crazy! What is that? Oh, that’s not a note from my producer, that’s my grocery list. John, where’s the note you gave me? John…? John, I love you, wherever you are. You’re a great producer, really, I mean it. Sigh. I’m sleepy. Here’s a special special special about a lady whose husband went away, and it’s called “Amber the Red-Nosed Reinwhore.” You’re listening to Delilah, and I’m gonna go lie down for a while.

What I Learned Today

0

Today I learned that if you get a speeding ticket, and when you mail in the check you sign it “Up Yours” instead of your actual name, a few weeks later you’ll get a letter from the court saying they can’t process the check due to an “invalid maker’s signature” and you’ll need to send another check. Good to know.

Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events

0

It must get tiresome being unlucky all the time. You get into a scrape, you use your ingenuity to get out of it, and then plop, you’re back in the jam again. Daniel Handler’s pseudonymously written books “A Series of Unfortunate Events” have a bit of sameness about them, as each time the hapless Baudelaire orphans are set upon by the evil Count Olaf and escape by being clever. The movie, which encapsulates the first three books in the series, begins roaringly but soon loses steam, caught in the quagmire of repetitiveness.

It owes much of its initial energy to Jim Carrey, who performs the role of Count Olaf (and his various aliases) with typical Carreyan mania. Count Olaf — granted custody to his distant relatives the Baudelaires when their parents perish in a fire — is delirious and silly, full of idiosyncrasies and random oddness, like pronouncing “surprise” the French way, “sur-preez.” He makes jokes about the youngest child, baby Sunny, being a monkey, except he also seems to actually believe she is a monkey.

Count Olaf is evil, of course, and he wants the children dead so he can stop having to care for them and start spending their money. But the older children, Violet (Emily Browning) the inventor and Klaus (Liam Aiken) the bookworm, are a crafty duo. Sullen and stubborn, they seem to accept that they are going to be miserable for a while, even as they are constantly looking for ways not to be. I admire their fortitude. Harry Potter is always about to be killed, too, but at least he has magical powers and some friends. The Baudelaires got nothin’.

The Count’s nefarious plans are first thwarted by a somewhat competent lawyer (Timothy Spall), who thinks Olaf has let baby Sunny drive the car, thus making Olaf an unfit guardian. What he had actually done was lock the children in the vehicle while it was in the path of an oncoming train, but either way, Olaf is no longer a foster parent. The kids go to the home of reptile expert Uncle Monty (Billy Connolly) and are happy there, but the Count soon infiltrates and destroys that situation, and the children are bounced to Aunt Josephine (Meryl Streep), a woman so terrified of possible accidents that she doesn’t even use doorknobs for fear a fire on the other side will have made them hot to the touch. (Note: I received an e-mail from an attentive reader who points out that I have this wrong. Aunt Josephine is actually afraid that the doorknobs might explode into a thousand pieces and one might hit her in the eye. I think I inferred that she was afraid a fire on the other side of the door would have caused the explosion, but that is not what the movie says. My apologies.)

Once the initial manic charm of Jim Carrey has worn off — and that may be sooner for some viewers than others, depending upon your general attitude toward Carrey’s style — the film settles into a rut from which it never entirely escapes. The story is dark and morbidly funny, but apart from Carrey, it is not funny enough, occasional subtitled babblings from baby Sunny notwithstanding. Director Brad Silberling’s previous films — “Casper,” “City of Angels” and “Moonlight Mile” — have all dealt with death as major themes; you may know that Silberling was dating actress Rebecca Schaeffer when she was killed by an obsessed fan in 1989, so it’s understandable how his work would become flavored by thoughts of mortality. But with “A Series of Unfortunate Events,” you get the feeling he’s thinking too much about the underlying themes, and it prevents him from having any fun.

Where the film excels is in its production design. Not a bit of it was shot “on location” anywhere; everything was manufactured on studio lots and sound stages, so it has a whimsical, artificial look, like peering into someone’s imagination while he’s dreaming. If the movie were as wildly creative as it looks, it would be brilliant, instead of merely OK.

Spanglish

0

James L. Brooks is a well-respected man, having written and directed “Terms of Endearment,” “Broadcast News,” “I’ll Do Anything” and “As Good As It Gets,” not to mention being one of the creators of such beloved TV shows as “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “Taxi” and “The Simpsons.” So it’s unfortunate to see him make mistakes the way he does in “Spanglish.”

This is an uneasy, tiring film, full of great material here, weighed down by mediocrity there. At the 90-minute mark, I thought, “Well, this is wrapping up nicely. A solid B-grade film if ever I saw one!” By the time the film actually ended, 40 minutes later, my sentiments were not nearly as charitable, and my assessment had dropped down to a C+. And there were STILL plot threads left unresolved.

The movie is narrated by young Cristina Moreno (Shelbie Bruce), a Mexican girl who traveled to Los Angeles with her beautiful mother Flor (Paz Vega) to find a better life for themselves. But only now, six years later, do they actually venture outside the Latino barrios of L.A. and into white America, when Flor is hired as a housekeeper and nanny for the Clasky family.

The Claskys are Deborah (Tea Leoni), a neurotic, self-absorbed woman who has recently been downsized from the professional world into the world of housewifery; and her husband John (Adam Sandler), a modest, easy-going chef who is just now becoming a celebrity for it. They have two children, Bernice (Sarah Steele) and Georgie (Ian Hyland), though I think the latter gets only about 90 seconds of screen time, and both youngsters disappear for a good half-hour of the movie. Deborah’s mother Evelyn (Cloris Leachman), once a jazz recording star and now a full-time chipper alcoholic, lives with them in their sunny, spacious Los Angeles home.

Flor speaks barely a word of English but is able to take charge of the Clasky household nonetheless, retaining her own privacy — the Claskys don’t even know she has a daughter at first — while she works. When Deborah criticizes Bernice for being slightly overweight, Flor comes to the rescue in a very sweet and endearing moment. Young Sarah Steele, making her first film appearance, is wonderfully real as the awkward tween Bernice, so full of life and personality. Paz Vega is beguiling as Flor, too, and so we have the makings of a good film here.

Alas, we are forced to spend time with John and Deborah Clasky, too. Deborah is an unlikable shrew masquerading as a “flawed character” with “issues.” She’s a hateful b-word, pure and simple, so caught up in her own self-doubt that she forgets anyone else exists. I kept wanting her to have an affair so that John would have an excuse to divorce her, except that John, inexplicably, is in love with her.

John is a far more likable character, but he is played by entirely the wrong actor. We are asked to accept Adam Sandler as a father and a world-famous chef. He is almost convincing in the former role; as the latter, he is not even close. Evidently his much-ballyhooed dramatic work in “Punch-Drunk Love” was a fluke, because his attempts at depth here are just embarrassing, like a stoner plucked out of a frat house to act opposite Sir John Gielgud in “Hamlet.”

The plot ambles around a lot of areas, including John’s growing affection for Flor, Flor’s fierce protection of Cristina, Cristina’s desire to be less sheltered, and Deborah’s world-class jackassedness. Through it all there are incidents or scenes that are funny or effective. Most of what Cloris Leachman does as Evelyn is amusing, leading up to the moment she tells her daughter Deborah that “lately your low self-esteem is just good common sense.” And there is one especially noteworthy scene between John, Cristina and Flor, an argument over how all the children are being raised, with Cristina providing translation and cutely enacting her mother’s fiery sentiments.

But Brooks seems to think that giving characters self-doubt is the same as giving them an arc, when in fact that is only true if they somehow address, resolve or deal with their self-doubt. John, for example, doesn’t want to be the world’s top chef because he fears the pressure it will bring. He achieves the distinction anyway, though, and is soon crushed by the responsibilities of it, just as he feared. But does he learn how to cope with it, or root out the source of his self-doubt? Nope. He just doubts for a long time, and then the movie ends.

Too, the marriage of John and Deborah is a difficult one, a matter that is given a good deal of screen time. Yet in the final analysis we are left to guess what’s going to happen to them, because the film has switched back to its original protagonist, Flor.

Don’t waste my time, movie. Either tell someone’s story or don’t. Introducing characters and spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with them, only to abandon them in the end, is not acceptable.

And so the film is tragically uneven, filled with laughter sometimes and marred by impatient watch-checking other times. It needs to be trimmed, toned and focused better before it is put on public display — but since it’s too late for that, it probably just needs to be disregarded.

The Aviator

0

It is a dangerous time for “The Aviator” to be released. Many biopics are already in theaters, and “The Aviator,” telling the story of full-time billionaire and part-time madman Howard Hughes, is apt to seem exactly like them.

To be honest, it IS a lot like them; biopics have become the new romantic-comedy, the genre where certain things ALWAYS happen, and where you go along with it because hey, it’s a biopic. But this one is directed by Martin Scorsese, and while it is far from his best work, it is polished and opulent and clearly the product of a skilled filmmaker. His movies tend to look like they were expensive, but they also tend to look like they needed to be.

It begins, as do most biopics, with a “significant” moment from the subject’s childhood: in this case, young Howard being bathed by his mother, who coos about the danger of germs and illness. Bathed at age 9 (or so) by his mother? In a vast, dark room? And being warned against germs? Thus are the seeds of insanity sown.

We skip ahead some years to 1927, when Hughes (in a confident performance by Leonardo DiCaprio), heir to his parents’ Texas fortune, has decided he’s a filmmaker. He’s been shooting “Hell’s Angels,” a war epic, for a year. He delays for months because he needs for there to be clouds for the airplanes to fly past, in order to give the audience some idea of the planes’ speed. He finally gets his clouds and finishes the film, but by then Hollywood has entered the Sound Era. So he reshoots the whole thing for sound. The total cost is some $4 million, an obscene amount in Depression-Era terms.

Hounded and worried by his financial advisor Noah Dietrich (the reliable John C. Reilly), and often abetted by a meteorologist (Ian Holm) upon whom he sometimes foists other duties, Hughes is a larger-than-life figure who dates starlets and wastes money. He has a fascination with aviation, and when TWA doesn’t want to build the plane he’s designing, he buys TWA. He’s the epitome — perhaps the prototype — of the frivolous Texas billionaire.

The film is at its best when it focuses on the relationship between Hughes and Katharine Hepburn, played to gorgeous, patrician perfection by Cate Blanchett. Hepburn was known to shower seven times a day, among other obsessions; she could relate, on some level, to the quirks of Howard Hughes. In the film they are a fine pair, tolerating and complementing each other even when his down-home Texas ways don’t blend with the mannerisms of her Connecticut family. He’s mildly deaf at times (a fact that comes and goes over the course of the film), but he can always hear Katharine.

(As for Cate Blanchett, if this is not the supporting performance of the year, I don’t know what is. She captures Katharine Hepburn’s beauty, intelligence and mystique magnificently, presenting a character that is not just a fine impersonation but a genuine person, too. If a film is ever made about Ms. Hepburn, here’s your star.)

Less compelling is Hughes’ subsequent relationship with Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale). Perhaps Ava Gardner was simply not as interesting as Katharine Hepburn, or perhaps Kate Beckinsale is no Cate Blanchett. Whatever the case, Gardner barely registers as a real person, much less a person with any connection to Howard Hughes. Watching the film, I constantly wished Hughes would dump Gardner and get back with Hepburn, even though Hepburn was by now in love with Spencer Tracy, and I would certainly never want to break them up. So you see my dilemma.

Scorsese earns his money as a director in a sequence in which Hughes is nearly killed while test-piloting a new plane. The scene is frightening, fiery and superbly assembled, a visceral reminder of Scorsese’s decades of practical experience in making movies that affect the viewer.

The rest of the film is eminently watchable and often very entertaining. It benefits from fine supporting performances by Alec Baldwin as Pan-Am chief Juan Trippe (Hughes’ main competitor in the airline business) and Alan Alda as the corrupt senator in Pan-Am’s pocket, plus spicy tiny performances by the likes of Edward Herrmann, Willem Dafoe, Brent Spiner, Jude Law and Frances Conroy (“Six Feet Under’s” Ruth Fisher, here playing Katharine Hepburn’s mother like she was born into it).

As Hughes becomes more paranoid and delusional and less able to deal with his obsessive-compulsive disorder, DiCaprio kicks his performance into high gear, bringing out the man’s oddities, ambitions and basic humanity all at once. DiCaprio is so youthful-looking that even with a mustache and makeup he never convinces me that Hughes is more than about 20 years old — but it is a testament to DiCaprio’s ability that such matters almost become irrelevant in the final analysis. He gained legions of detractors with “Titanic,” and he seems doomed to forever fight against them, but “The Aviator” is strong evidence in his favor, if you give the guy a chance.

The movie is lavish and big, fully meeting the demands of Howard Hughes’ lavish, big life. If it fits too easily into the mold of biopics, and if its lengthy running time feels too rambling, well, you overlook that. This is grand Hollywood entertainment in the old-school style, so glistening and dazzling that its flaws are washed away in a sea of glitter.

Flight of the Phoenix

0

“Flight of the Phoenix” is a perfectly good B-grade adventure film about a group of people whose plane crashes in the Gobi Desert and they have to build a new plane out of the wreckage in order to fly to safety. Hmm. It sounds crazy when I say it, but in the film it makes perfect sense. Maybe you had to be there.

It’s a remake of a 1965 film that you haven’t seen, which in turn was based on a novel you haven’t read. In the new version, directed by John Moore (who also did the perfectly good B-grade war film “Behind Enemy Lines”), an oil company has closed down its unprofitable drilling expedition in Mongolia and sent pilots Towns (Dennis Quaid) and A.J. (Tyrese Gibson) to collect the few remaining employees. They are accompanied by a suit-clad corporate weasel named Ian (Hugh Laurie).

The employees aren’t happy about losing their jobs, and there’s a “shoot the messenger” mentality at first, with tough boss Kelly (Miranda Otto) locking horns with Towns (which means they are destined to become friends, as you are aware, if not lovers). But they all must band together, and fast, when the plane goes down in the desert in a most spectacular and terrifying crash sequence. They have food and water to last only a few weeks, and little hope of being discovered by anyone other than desert marauders. In the meantime, they are at the mercy of sandstorms and heat.

But they have with them a man named Elliott (Giovanni Ribisi), who wandered onto the oil field a while back and has been hanging around ever since. No one knows what his deal is, exactly, but he claims he designs airplanes and can help his fellow survivors — who are skilled at welding and rigging and whatnot, having worked in the oil business — build a new one out of the wreckage of the old one. Having few alternatives, they set to work.

(Let me point out that while I like Ribisi generally, his performance here — complete with nerdy “character” voice and idiosyncratic mannerisms — is irritating.)

The movie is populated by the usual assortment of disparate characters: an Australian, a Mexican, a guy with an eye-patch, a stuffy guy, a Scotsman, a woman, and so forth. They sit around the campfire and talk about what they’ll do when they get home — what they’ll eat, who they’ll sleep with, all that. These are the familiar devices with which movies like this are made. It’s not groundbreaking, but sometimes it still works.

The screenplay (by Scott Frank and actor Edward Burns) is structured so that the film maintains an even pace. There’s always something happening — a character is lost in a sandstorm, someone sets out on foot to find help, everyone must decide whether to rebuild the plane — even though, technically, nothing important really happens until the end. A movie about people sitting around the desert with nothing to do runs a high risk of being dull, but “Flight of the Phoenix” has enough wit, energy and charisma among its performers to keep it soaring.

Kinsey

0

Sexuality is such a prevalent theme in today’s culture that it’s hard to see why Alfred Kinsey’s research on it caused such a big stir in the 1940s. The film “Kinsey” paints a portrait of a complex, socially awkward man whose personal feelings played only a small role in his clinical studies, a man who was simply curious to know what people were thinking (or, more to the point, doing).

In “Kinsey,” written and directed by Bill Condon (“Gods and Monsters”), we are given a view of early-20th-century morality that is somewhere between quaint and frightening. Kinsey’s father (played by John Lithgow, reliving his “Footloose” sanctimony), a small-town moral tyrant, preaches that “the modern inventions of science have been used to cultivate immorality” — the same argument that very sensible people today make about Internet pornography and such, except that HE’S talking about inventions like electricity and the telephone. The worst one of all, according to Alfred Kinsey Sr.? You’ll never guess. It’s the zipper, because it gives “men and boys speedy access to moral oblivion.”

Raised in this environment, Dr. Kinsey himself (played as an adult by Liam Neeson) is the very picture of sexual ignorance and repression, but as a budding scientist, he has a natural curiosity. He becomes a biologist, and a bookish one at that, spending 11 months in solitude looking for a particular breed of wasp. He eventually gathers 500,000 specimens. Even if a guy like that WANTED to have sex, what are the chances he could?

While teaching at the University of Indiana, Kinsey meets Clara McMillen (Laura Linney), his soulmate, a woman perhaps as nerdy as he is. When they get married, he gives her an ancient gall wasp trapped in amber. She declares it the perfect gift.

Kinsey begins teaching a course at the university designed to help students in early marriage, and he is amazed at the misinformation with which otherwise intelligent students are saddled. Sex is never discussed in decent society, and when it is discussed, it is often discussed erroneously. Kinsey theorizes that there is a huge gap between what society assumes people do and what people actually do, and so he sets out to find out, scientifically, what people actually do.

Aided by a team that includes Peter Sarsgaard as a bisexual grad student and Chris O’Donnell and Timothy Hutton as research assistants, Kinsey interviews thousands of people around the country about their sexual histories, training his staff rigorously beforehand so the interviews will be objective, non-judgmental and accurate. The results are published in “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” which fast becomes a bestseller.

The book raises the expected controversy, both from priggish academics at U. of Indiana (including one played by Tim Curry), and from religious organizations. Kinsey is frustrated and perplexed by this. His honest intention was simply to report on what was happening in America, not to suggest what people SHOULD be doing. He leaves morality out of it, saying that if lots of people are doing something, then a person shouldn’t feel perverted or freakish for doing it, because it’s obviously natural. To him, it’s all biology.

Kinsey himself is “open” almost to an alarming degree, and you should hear the conversations had at the Kinsey family dinner table. It’s 2004, and I’m not a prude, and I was taken aback to hear such things discussed so openly — which I suspect is what Condon had in mind, to show that in some ways, American society is no more open about sexuality now than it was in the 1940s.

The question of whether Kinsey’s work did more harm or good for society is beyond the scope of a movie review, and it’s irrelevant in terms of discussing the film’s artistic merits, which are many. I can tell you that the movie supports Kinsey’s research, especially insofar as it opened doors for homosexuals to feel less self-loathing and more acceptance, homosexuality being one of the major things that made people feel alone and freakish in those days. (Condon is gay, which may explain, at least in part, his interest in Kinsey to begin with.)

Did Kinsey’s telling the world what everyone was already doing make people do it more? Did general acceptance of the things that people were already doing secretly make people who were not already doing those things start doing them? Are there some things that SHOULDN’T be accepted, no matter how common they are? Of course there are. The question is whether the things most widely uncovered in Kinsey’s research as being more common than everyone thought — homosexuality and masturbation — are among them. Your views on that matter may determine, to some extent, your enjoyment of the film.

Neeson, a consummate actor, strangles his Irish accent into near-submission and gives a surprisingly nuanced performance as Kinsey. Ever the scientist, Kinsey seems to eschew such incalculable things as “love,” but his relationship with Clara — as odd as it can be at times — is ultimately warm and loving, the emotional balance to all of Kinsey’s clinical work.

Laura Linney has a thankless role, that of the supportive woman who stands by her obsessed, brilliant man (see also Jennifer Connelly in “A Beautiful Mind,” Marcia Gay Harden in “Pollock”), but she does it stoically and with grace. She does a mean John Lithgow impression, too, as we discover in a scene where Clara and and Kinsey make fun of his father. That’s the kind of thing that will get you an Oscar.

Like many biopics, “Kinsey” overstates its subject’s importance just a bit — surely there were OTHER things, besides Alfred Kinsey, that made society more willing to discuss sexuality — and oversimplifies some things, too. But it also covers an impressive number of sides to the Alfred Kinsey story, making the doctor a human being rather than just a sex object.

The Sea Inside (Spanish)

0

The subjects of euthanasia and the “right to die” have taken a back seat to sexier controversies in recent years, but it wasn’t very long ago that Dr. Kevorkian was on the news every night and Ramon Sampedro was petitioning the Spanish government for the right to end his own life as he saw fit.

“The Sea Inside,” which tells of Sampedro’s struggle, is probably the most uplifting, life-affirming film about suicide ever made. It makes you grateful to be alive even as you sympathize with Ramon’s struggle. He’s such a wonderful, honest man that you really hope he dies at the end.

Directed and co-written by Alejandro Amenabar (“The Others”), “The Sea Inside” stars Javier Bardem as Ramon, who at the film’s beginning has been paralyzed from the neck down for 26 years. He became quadriplegic in a diving accident and has since been cared for primarily by his sister-in-law Manuela (Mabel Rivera). He lives in an upstairs room in the home of Manuela and her husband, Ramon’s brother Jose (Celsa Bugallo), and does not often leave it. He despises the wheelchair. He has a poet’s soul and is deeply sensitive, yet he has allowed himself to become bitter over his situation. He has no dignity in the current arrangement, no zest for life. He wants to die.

The Spanish government doesn’t allow assisted suicides, however, and Ramon obviously can’t do it himself. Through the help of a group called Death with Dignity, he campaigns for Spain to recognize the legitimacy of euthanasia and to grant him his wish. Meanwhile, he goes on living, writing a book and polarizing his friends and family.

His lawyer, Julia (Belen Rueda), whom he chose specifically because she has a degenerative disorder that makes her sympathetic to those who want to die, connects with him in a way no one else ever has. Rosa (Lola Dueñas), a lower-class factory worker who saw Ramon on the news one night, befriends him and tries to dissuade him from his goal, coming to rely on his strength in the process. His aged father refuses to discuss the matter. His brother and sister-in-law, also good Catholics, are torn between hating to see him suffer and knowing they would miss him if he were gone.

Javier Bardem is the soul of the movie, portraying Ramon as a tender, intelligent man full of wit and warmth and passion. It is precisely the role that someone like Robin Williams or Jim Carrey would play — the sad clown who teaches everyone Valuable Lessons About Life — except that Bardem does it without becoming too preachy or maudlin.

The film does have a tendency to set up situations so that characters are forced to give heavy speeches (as opposed to engaging in normal conversation) about life or death or whatever; but these speeches are always delivered well by Bardem and the supporting actors, all of whom perform superbly. In fact, the speeches are delivered so well, you almost forget they’re speeches.

Amenabar’s direction is graceful throughout, but never more so than in one beautiful scene in which Ramon imagines he is flying out the window, soaring over the Spanish countryside, and landing on a beach where Julia is waiting to kiss him, all accompanied by Puccini’s “Nessun Dorma.” A scene that magical and lovely is rare, and yet it is right at home in this lovely, poignant film.

Million Dollar Baby

0

I see maybe two or three films in a year that affect me like “Million Dollar Baby” did. They are the films that I enjoy as I watch them, but that I become positively rapturous about later, as it all sinks in and I process everything. The more I recall these films’ details, their emotions, their humanity, the more I love them. It goes beyond just thinking “Million Dollar Baby” is a great movie; I’ve developed an actual affection for it, like it’s my friend.

This is the 21st time that Clint Eastwood has directed himself in a movie, and it’s some of his most nuanced, delicate work on either side of the camera. Based on the stories of boxing writer F.X. Toole and adapted for the screen by TV veteran Paul Haggis, “Million Dollar Baby” nudges up against every cliche in the book without ever actually using them. It has elements of boxing movies and medical dramas, and can accurately be described as belonging to both categories — but it doesn’t indulge in the predictable, mawkish turns that those films usually take.

Much of the credit for this is due to Eastwood, I believe. The screenplay itself is good but could have become mediocre with by-the-numbers direction or if the actors had been permitted to slack off in their delivery. Eastwood keeps a steady hand, though, allowing sentimentality to seep in only when it’s appropriate, and even then only at a comfortable level. His direction is unobtrusive; his shots are not tricky or gimmicky, nor do they call attention to themselves. He simply tells the story in a warm, kindly manner, like an expert artisan methodically going about his craft.

Eastwood plays Frankie Dunn, an aging cut man and owner of a low-rent mid-city gymnasium called the Hit Pit. The cut man is not a boxer’s manager or trainer, but the guy who stands ring-side and stops a boxer’s cuts from bleeding during a match. Frankie has trained and managed, too, but he is a cautious man, too cautious to take the chances necessary to catapult a young boxer to super-stardom. He is uncertain about many things — about the boxer (Mike Colter) he’s been working with, about his religion, about himself. His oldest friend, former boxer Eddie “Scrap-Iron” Dupris (Morgan Freeman), suffered an eye injury back in the day. He works at the Hit Pit, and is thus a constant reminder to Frankie of the dangers of their sport, and of their own mortality. Neither man is getting any younger, after all.

One day a woman named Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) comes in. She is 31 years old and wants to be a fighter. She has some natural skill but very little training, and Frankie will not take her on, simply because “I don’t train girls.” He says this — well, growls it, the way Eastwood growls things — many times over the next several weeks, as she buys a membership to his gym and practices on her own with a steely determination that eventually, of course, wins him over. Grudgingly, he agrees to train her.

Frankie and Maggie develop a father-daughter sort of relationship, with her taking the place of his absentee daughter and him taking the place of her worthless hillbilly family. They are sweet together, honest and candid with each other, but guarded about their emotions. Eddie, meanwhile, observes them, keeps his good eye on the gym, and narrates the film for us.

Eastwood is at his absolute finest as an actor, particularly in the film’s third act, when catastrophe strikes Frankie and Maggie’s world. Clint’s been playing “old” characters for years now, but I don’t think he has ever appeared as vulnerable and as rawly emotional as he does here.

Hilary Swank, who has been languishing in tepid roles in films like “Insomnia” and “The Core” since winning an Oscar for “Boys Don’t Cry,” returns to her true level of expertise as Maggie, a woman whose toughness and resilience are matched by her inner gentility.

How cool is Eastwood? He gives the film’s coolest, most Eastwood-y moment to his friend Morgan Freeman, whose performance also deserves to be noted among the year’s best. Freeman is not the Wise Old Man he usually plays; Eddie is wise, yes, and an old man, sure, but he has grit to him, a little darkness, some rough edges. And as for that cool moment I mentioned: You’ll know it when it comes.

Frankie’s strategy in boxing is the same as in life: Always protect yourself. Left unguarded, you can get hurt. The boxing-as-life metaphors that have permeated a thousand other stories never felt as true as they do in this beautiful, understated film. It is destined to become a classic.

The unprofitable “Work and the Glory”

6

It does get so tiring being right all the time, but here I am again.

When Utah millionaire Larry H. Miller announced last year that he would put $7 million into the production of a movie based on the first volume in the “Work and the Glory” historical-fiction series, I thought, “He’s insane. There is no way he will ever get that money back.”

If you’re not familiar with it, “The Work and the Glory” is a nine-part series of novels set in the early days of the LDS Church. It follows the fictional Steed family as they interact with various real-life people connected with early church history — Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, folks like that. The books are enormously popular among the LDS faithful and have sold more than 2 million copies all together (many of those were bought by the same people, of course, since there are nine books in the series, but still).

Turning the books into films was a no-brainer, but apparently deciding how much to spend on the movie was a no-brainer, too. Look at the facts: The highest-grossing Mormon-themed film so far was “The Other Side of Heaven,” which topped out at $4.7 million and which contained very little LDS-specific doctrine or cultural material, which means it stood a chance of being watched by non-Mormons, too.

For “The Work and the Glory” to turn a profit, it would need to make almost twice as much money as “The Other Side of Heaven” did. Is such a thing possible? Sure. It may happen someday that a movie from the LDS Cinema movement is good enough, non-inclusive enough and marketed well enough to gain an audience wider than just Mormons. But there was NO WAY “The Work and the Glory” was going to be it. The story is too specifically Mormon, dealing with Joseph Smith and his heavenly visions, and with the other characters’ crises of faith. We like to pretend that regular people have at least a passing interest in early American history and might be curious to see a film in which Joseph Smith is a character, but we’re kidding ourselves. The only people who want to see a movie about early-19th-century Mormons — if indeed anyone does — are Mormons.

So by and large, only Mormons will see “The Work and the Glory.” Fair enough. Are there enough Mormons in the potential viewing audience, then, for it to make $7 million at the box office? No. They would need to be Mormons a) of movie-going age (no very young children, no absurdly old adults); b) who ever, ever go to the movies anyway; c) who live in an area where the film is playing; and d) who have any interest whatsoever in seeing “The Work and the Glory” when they could be seeing “The Incredibles” or “National Treasure” or whatever.

To make $7 million, the movie would have to be seen by 1,000,000 people. I don’t think there ARE a million people who fit the criteria I just mentioned. Only about 670,000 people saw “The Other Side of Heaven”; why would 50 percent MORE people watch this movie? About 350,000 people saw “God’s Army,” which was well-reviewed and had the benefit of being the first film in the modern LDS Cinema movement. Why would three times as many people watch “The Work and the Glory”? Why would so many people who DIDN’T watch those other films come watch this one?

Because it was a popular book? Maybe. A source tells me the FIRST volume in the series (which is the basis for this movie) has sold 338,000 copies. Even if every single one of those people sees the movie — heck, even if they each bring a friend, too — we’re still only in “Other Side of Heaven” territory, financially speaking.

I’m harping on this because I don’t understand why no one harped on it to Larry H. Miller before he embarked on his noble but foolhardy endeavor. It’s not like I have any inside information or magic knowledge of the workings of LDS movies. It’s all pretty obvious.

The problem is that everyone keeps thinking THEIR movie will finally be the one to have major cross-over appeal, to get non-Mormons as well as Mormons into the theater. But the only ones that have done it — “The Other Side of Heaven” and “Saints and Soldiers” — have been the ones that have downplayed the Mormon content. A film that is obviously, undeniably, inherently saturated with Mormonism — a film like, say, “The Work and the Glory” — will only be of interest to Mormons. To overcome that, it would have to be SUCH a good movie that EVERY critic who saw it raved and raved about it in the newspapers, urging everyone, regardless of religion, to run out and see it. And while I admire each filmmakers’ optimism in thinking their film might be the one to get such a reception, again, let’s not kid ourselves.

After three weekends in theaters, “The Work and the Glory” has grossed $765,381 — highly respectable for its genre, but not even close to indicating it will go on to gross $7 million. Each weekend its box office has dropped off precipitously: $251,145 the first weekend, then $106,702, then $68,956 — and that’s despite adding two or three more theaters every week. I suspect that within a few weeks, all the people who want to see it will have done so, and it will max out at maybe $1.5 million. Larry H. Miller will have lost $5.5 million. I’m not crying for him; the guy can afford it. But it’s sad to think such a tragedy could have been averted. Larry, the next time you want to throw $5.5 million away, CALL ME. I have so many ideas.

The Curious Incident of the Moron in the Night-time

0

This is the story of how I made a bank deposit and consequently almost died.

Late one Saturday night, past midnight, I returned to downtown Salt Lake City after an evening of diversion and, still feeling peppy, decided I’d stop by the ATM to deposit some money I’d had cluttering my wallet for several days. It was a cold winter night, the mercury hovering at around 20 degrees. I parked my car in front of a fire hydrant and left it running as I dashed to the ATM not 15 feet away. I completed my transaction quickly and hurried back to the car, only to find my hurrying had been useless, as my car doors were closed and locked. The keys were in the ignition; the car was running; and my cell phone was in there, too.

The enormity of the situation did not reveal itself to me all at once. For several moments I just stood next to the car, looking around dazedly, semi-consciously hoping someone who could help me would come along. I’m not sure what I expected. A benevolent locksmith? A kindly tow-truck driver who roams the city looking for poor souls to help? Either way, it was going to cost me money. I thought I had heard that cops sometimes carried slim jims with them to help in this sort of crisis — I mean the slim jims that are thin metal rods used to unlock cars, not the Slim Jims that are beef jerky, though I suppose those probably come in handy sometimes, too — but since it was late on a weekend night, all the cops in the city were loitering near the dance clubs, waiting to pop drunken drivers or break up fights.

I have free roadside assistance through the Kia Motor Company; however, not having used the service before, I did not have the phone number. For all I knew, the roadside assistance did not actually exist. For all I knew, the man at the Kia dealership had invented it out of bitterness at having to sell sub-par Korean automobiles for a living. Whether it existed or not, and whether I had a right to use it or not, I didn’t know how to contact them anyway. Besides, even if I did, it would probably be 45 minutes or more before someone arrived, and Lady Winter was already beginning to whisper her icy breath across my tender ears.

I thought immediately of two friends who lived mere blocks from where I was, either of whom could be summoned to come pick me up, or to stay with the car while I walked home to retrieve the spare key that I knew was somewhere in my bedroom. But because I live in the era of cell phones, I don’t know anyone’s phone number. I only know their location in my speed-dial registry. And knowing that Shane is #9 and Michael is #70 (to name two nearby friends) would be irrelevant if I were at a pay phone, like the time Mr. Burns tried to call Smithers by dialing S-M-I-T-H-E-R-S.

Eventually I decided my best bet was to walk home — a distance of approximately half a mile — and get the spare key. I had to hope my roommate was home, since my key to our apartment was currently incarcerated with my car key, but since it was now nearly 1 a.m., I figured he must be home. His life is interesting, but not THAT interesting.

Or so I thought. When I knocked on our door, no one answered. Either he was still out, or he was fast asleep. I knocked louder, hoping I could be heard over the din being caused by our Mexican neighbors across the hall, who were again having one dickens of a fiesta, as they are wont to do. No response. I had walked home for nothing, braved the arctic perils of Lady Winter’s frosty handiwork for naught, and goodness knows what was being done to my car in my absence. I didn’t care if it got stolen, as my insurance would cover it and I would at last be rid of the Kia-shaped albatross with the unaffordable monthly payment that had been hanging from my neck in recent months. I was more worried about the car being ticketed or towed, since it was, you’ll recall, parked in front of a fire hydrant.

At any rate, I walked back to the car, still hoping to find a police officer. I located one, sitting in his car and doing, from what I could tell, nothing. I asked him if he had a slim jim, the tone of my voice indicating the lower-case kind, and he said Salt Lake’s finest don’t carry them anymore, but that some cab companies do. His concern for my plight did not seem to extend beyond the warm confines of his police cruiser. Or maybe he misunderstood me and thought I just wanted some beef jerky.

I returned to the car to find it unstolen, unticketed and untowed. After a minute or two, a taxi happened by and I flagged him down. He told me he didn’t have a slim jim, but that a certain other cab company does offer that service, for which they charge $35. I thanked him and sent him on his way. I was certainly not going to pay $35 to have my car unlocked when there was a perfectly good spare key back in my apartment, or when I had theoretical access to roadside assistance, for that matter.

I weighed my options. I could gain access to my car by smashing a window. The insurance would cover it (at least, they would if I told them I didn’t know how it happened, which would add “insurance fraud” to the list of crimes I have committed in my life), but then I would have to drive around with a busted window until it got fixed. It would get me out of the cold right NOW, but it would put me back in the cold for an indefinite length of time after that. In a rare case of not choosing the short-term solution, I opted not to smash a window.

My only choice, really, was to get that spare key. Roommate or not, I had to get into my apartment. I gave my car one last look and headed home again, resolute this time because I had a backup plan.

As I walked through the crisp, frigid air, my nose and hands now raw with the chilled reminders of Lady Winter’s splendid yield, the clubs began to close and young people in various states of inebriation and undress spilled out onto the sidewalks, filling the night with a melange of slurred profanities and sweat-mingled cologne. These people all had a way to get home. I was completely sober and adequately clothed, and yet I had locked my keys in a car that was still running. You tell me who’s the idiot.

By now the fact that my car was unattended and vulnerable to attack at 1:30 a.m. in the downtown area of a major city had settled into a comfortable place in my mind, next to unalarming facts like “I have some leftover pizza in the fridge” and “I should probably do laundry tomorrow.” That my car was currently running, locked, and parked next to a fire hydrant had become nothing more than a bit of information. I fully expected it to remain true forever, that from now on, I would simply always own a car that was unprotected and illegally parked next to a bank. It had become part of who I was.

I reached my apartment to find the Mexicans still engaged in high-octane merry-making and my roommate still either not home or completely unconscious. As late as it was, I knew it HAD to be the latter. The guy simply doesn’t have friends who can stay out this late, I’m sorry. I pounded extra-hard on the door, but to no avail. So I left the building, went outside, and threw rocks at his bedroom window. I was unconcerned about breaking the window, not just because the renter’s insurance would cover it (again, perhaps requiring fraud on my part), but because we live on the third floor and my pitching arm is less than what it used to be, and what it used to be is nothing. Still, despite the pelting of stones against the walls 10 feet below his window, my roommate did not wake up.

And so it came time for Plan B, my backup plan for accessing my apartment. I was going to have to climb up to the balcony.

I believe I mentioned our apartment’s status as a third-floor dwelling. Standing on the ground, I could just barely reach the second-story apartment’s balcony. I would have to hoist myself up onto it, then stand on that balcony’s railing and do the same thing to get to mine. At any point in the process, I could fall and break my neck, an event that would be covered by my health insurance with no fraud necessary, if I had health insurance, which I do not, which means in actual fact an extreme amount of fraud would be necessary. But I had no other choice. Even if I gave up on my car and decided to just be a pedestrian from now on, I would still need to get into my apartment and out of the stinging, polar night that Lady Winter in her gorgeous wrath had bestowed upon us. The balcony — and its access to the sliding-glass door, which is never locked — was my only hope.

So I climbed, carefully and as nimbly as an out-of-shape 30-year-old man in a heavy winter coat can climb. I looked like a retarded sloth, the one the rest of the sloths leave behind when predators attack. I envisioned a number of scenarios in which a police officer drove up, or another tenant walked by, or the people whose balconies I was standing on emerged with shotguns. But I did not imagine them very vividly, because the majority of my attention had to be paid to the matter at hand, the matter of not dying.

I reached my balcony and found the sliding-glass door unlocked, the first thing in several hours that had happened according to my expectations. The key was where I thought it was, and after pausing a moment to defrost and rest my legs — I had walked 1 1/2 miles tonight, which is more than I had walked over the course of my entire life — I headed BACK to the car (make that two miles, now). It was still there, unmolested since the last time I’d seen it. I was kind of disappointed, actually. Part of me was hoping to find it on the back of a tow truck, or being spirited away by hoodlums, or on fire — you know, just to keep the night entertaining. But no, it was there, unscathed, and still running. (That it might have run out of gas while I was gone had crossed my mind as one hilarious possible outcome.) I unlocked it with the spare key, got in, and drove home. My ordeal was over. But my door-ignoring, sleep-through-anything roommate’s ordeal was just beginning.

Arbitrary editing of music

0

I heard something amusing on the radio the other day. The song was “Teenage Dirtbag” by Wheatus, about a high school student who loves this girl secretly but knows she would never love him because, after all, he’s just a teenage dirtbag who listens to Iron Maiden. Surely you can agree that such a tool should not be loved by the prettiest girl in school.

The second verse goes like this:

Her boyfriend’s a d***
And he brings a gun to school
And he’d simply kick
My a** if he knew the truth.

What amused me was the way it was edited for the radio. The words “d***” and “a**” remained intact, but “gun” was bleeped out. The semi-swear words are OK, but anything even remotely suggesting the possibility of violence is not — even when, in context, the act of bringing a gun to school is described as being a BAD thing to do (i.e., if you do it, you’re a d***).

I remembered the song “Semi-Charmed Life” by Third Eye Blind from a few years back. A reference to oral sex survived the cut, but the words “crystal meth” were bleeped for radio and MTV.

This is consistent with the way radio and MTV arbitrarily and senselessly edit music aimed at young people. The reasoning seems to be this: Kids hear swearing all the time, and even if they take it up themselves, it’s not going to ruin them. Violence and drugs, however, WILL harm them, and so we must eliminate all references to such things. Look how concerned we are for young people!

Actually, they’re terrified of being blamed every time a kid O.D.’s on drugs or kills his classmates. They figure if they just bleep out the drug and gun references, they’re doing their part. It has a germ of a good idea to it, but it’s administered so blindly as to give us silly examples like the ones cited.

Ocean’s Twelve

0

I have a friend who hated “Ocean’s Eleven” because he thought it was pretentious, nothing more than a bunch of big-shot Hollywood celebrities saying, “Look at us having fun! Don’t you wish you could be like us?” I find his bitterness puzzling — “Ocean’s Eleven” only begins to tell the story of the things that enrage him, Josh Groban and Alex Trebek being two others — but I can see where he’s coming from. Still, I enjoyed that film and (to a lesser extent) its sequel precisely BECAUSE they’re chock-full of charismatic famous people having a good time. If the performers are having fun, the audience usually will, too.

There’s a little more to “Ocean’s Twelve” than millionaire actors sitting around and laughing, though I admit that seems to be the central idea. The director is Steven Soderbergh once again, and he infuses nearly everything he does with creativity and energy. He puts the camera in interesting places, and moves it and his actors around in unusual ways. The visuals are playful and slightly retro, recalling (as did the first film) a Rat Pack-era Las Vegas full of swingin’ coolness.

The setting this time, however, is Amsterdam and Rome and various points in between. Danny Ocean (George Clooney) has reassembled his team of con men and thieves because the victim of their last heist, casino owner Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), has made it clear that if the money they stole is not repaid (with interest!) within two weeks, dire things will begin happening to them. He knows all their identities, which spooks them a little, considering the lengths to which they went to avoid detection.

So they’re together again by necessity: They need to do another huge job in order to pay back Benedict. They attempt a small-ish job in Amsterdam as a warm-up for the big finale — stealing a highly valuable Faberge Egg — but are thwarted by a mysterious thief called the Night Fox, who gets there first and subsequently issues a challenge: a race to see who can steal the Faberge Egg first and best. Complications like this, our heroes don’t need.

There is also an international law-enforcement agent named Isabel Lahiri (Catherine Zeta-Jones) on their tail; the fact that she is Rusty’s ex-girlfriend adds more complications to an already-complicated situation.

All eleven of the first film’s characters have returned, a feat that, in Hollywood, ranks up there with robbing the Bellagio in terms of difficulty and precedence. But let’s be honest: Eleven people is too many for a film, and adding a twelfth — especially when it’s the cold, robotic Catherine Zeta-Jones — only makes it more crowded. I’m not even sure why Bernie Mac showed up for the sequel, for example, so limited is his screen time. Poor Don Cheadle gets exactly one great moment — a profanity-laden conversation with a recording-studio engineer in which all the profanity is bleeped out by a ringing phone — and then is relegated to the back burner.

The standout is Matt Damon, whose character of Linus is anxious and unsettled, constantly trying to prove himself of value to the team. George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts play only mild variations of themselves, but Damon plays a real character, and a funny one at that.

“Ocean’s Twelve” is essentially more of “Ocean’s Eleven,” which is generally what audiences want in sequels, I suppose. It is funny, but not AS funny; it is surprising, but not AS surprising; it is good but not AS good.

Blade Trinity

0

I’m reasonably fond of the sort of movies that the “Blade” films are, and yet when I saw “Blade II” I had no memory of “Blade I,” and when I sat down to watch “Blade III” (titled, for no reason, “Blade Trinity”), I realized I had no memory of “Blade II,” either. I recall only a lot of thick mythology, confusing action scenes, and barrels upon barrels of blood. In terms of specifics such as plots or characters, I am lost. So I am hurrying to write my review of “Blade Trinity” as fast as I can, before it slips out of my mind forever and even my scribbled notes become useless.

Blade, played again with over-much coolness by one-time celebrity Wesley Snipes, is a human-vampire hybrid who has devoted his life and his considerable array of weapons to the destruction of his nocturnal half-cousins. He is aided by Whistler (Kris Kristofferson), a scraggly old coot with a knack for technology; in the new film, they are joined by Whistler’s long-lost daughter Abigail (Jessica Biel) and a man named Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds), who spent five years being a vampire before being rescued by a serum that turned him human again.

King has a personal reason for fighting vampires. That reason, as it is with so many men who want to fight vampires, is that his ex-girlfriend is one. She is Danica Talos (Parker Posey), and it was she who converted him in the first place. It is also she who has reawakened the world’s first vampire — Dagon, Dracula, whatever you want to call him — to help the vampires wage war against Blade.

The “Blade” films are based on a dark comic book series and have been written by David S. Goyer, who also directed this third film. As such, there is a certain consistency in tone, the ongoing presence of vulgar wisecracks, the abundant violence. “Blade Trinity” is Goyer’s first major stab at directing, and he does seem to have an eye for decent action sequences.

But the first half of the film is bogged down by Snipes’ dull performance as Blade, a character who seems less interesting the more time we spend with him. Parker Posey gets some campy laughs as the evil, Ivana Trump-esque Danica, but I think she goes over the top, a tendency to which Posey is not normally prone, but oh well. The one who gets it exactly right is Ryan Reynolds, whose Hannibal King character is viciously, snarkily funny, oozing the same wise-acre attitude of a thousand other action-flick supporting characters but doing it much better. Part of it is that his dialogue is written well — I wish I could tell you the funniest thing he says, but it’s so crass I don’t even want to THINK it — but part of it is also his smart-aleck delivery. I said in my review of “National Lampoon’s Van Wilder,” in which he starred, that if he ever got some good material, he’d probably be really funny. And here we are. I do so enjoy being right.

“Blade Trinity” is not a comedy, but its funny parts are more memorable than its action-horror parts, which are competent but unremarkable. I cannot tell what fans of the series will think, because as I mentioned, I am not a very good fan myself. Most of the film has drained from my memory already, as if sucked out by some fanged, malevolent force.

Born into Brothels (documentary)

0

We begin with an understatement: “The men who enter our building are not so good.” These are the words of a prostitute’s daughter who lives with her mother in a Calcutta whorehouse, spoken at the beginning of “Born into Brothels.” There are other children there, too, also the offspring of working women. It seems likely that if they are not rescued, they will grow up to be prostitutes as well.

That is the alarming premise of Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman’s documentary, but the film doesn’t quite do it justice. Not that we need to see ALL the sordid details of their mothers’ lives, but more emphasis on the facts that a) this is a brothel and b) the children are on track to become employees there themselves would have been useful. The squalor and filth that are shown could be any slum or ghetto — upsetting, of course, to have children stuck there, but not nearly as much as when you know it’s a whorehouse.

Nonetheless, even as a documentary about poor children, “Born into Brothels” is mostly an effective one. It follows Briski, a photographer who comes to the red-light district to teach her craft to the children, as she attempts to raise money to get the kids out of there. She is struck by how happy the children are despite their surroundings, how they find pleasure in simple things like flying kites from the brothel’s roof. And she is appalled by their mothers’ grotesque behavior, their cattiness toward one another, their wanton desperation. Briski is compelled to help — and, of course, to film herself helping.

The children, of whom seven are featured, are endearing, and have a variety of attitudes toward Briski and her labors. One boy, Avijit, displays a remarkable proficiency at photography and is accepted into a special young artists’ exhibition in Amsterdam — if he can get a passport. Briski tries to get the children enrolled in a private school — but even if she succeeds, their parents must approve, and many of them don’t like interlopers.

Briski and Kauffman serve as directors, producers and editors (with Nancy Baker, somewhat more experienced, helping on the latter chore), despite never having done anything like this before. Their novice status shows a little in the tangents the film takes, and in its failure to fully explore the facets with the most potential for drama. But if the film itself is not stellar, the humanitarian efforts it documents are. In this case, the content is more noble than the way it’s presented.

If you’d watch ‘Arrested Development,’ we could stop harrassing you about it

0

The past two episodes of “Arrested Development” have been some of the show’s funniest, and thus some of the funniest half-hours of TV I’ve ever seen. And yet so many people who would probably enjoy it aren’t watching it.

The MVP two weeks ago (there was no episode last week) was Lucille, the bitter, haughty matriarch of the dysfunctional Bluth family. Her uncharacteristically giddy reaction every time private detective Gene Parmesan revealed himself was hysterical; we’ve finally found the one thing that can make Lucille Bluth happy. Also a riot was the close-up of her skeptical, withered face as she slowly closed the door on her son Gob. The banner she made for Buster’s joining-the-Army farewell party — “You’re killing me, Buster” — was sheer brilliance.

And let’s not forget Buster himself, dozing off in the trunk of a car bound for Mexico, getting out six minutes later in Santa Ana and, owing to the large number of Mexicans he encounters, believing himself to be in Mexico. And the fact that he begins speaking to them in a Mexican accent, as if that will help them understand him — it’s politically incorrect, I suppose, but Buster is so dumb (did you catch the Mexican woman referring to him, in Spanish, as “el retardo”?) that it’s just funny.

Last night’s episode, dealing with the funeral arrangements for the believed-to-be-dead George Sr., was simply packed with recurring jokes, silly references and generally outlandish behavior. The scene where the family learns of their patriarch’s death and everyone reacts with selfish hysteria was classic. And the ongoing Charlie Brown references — where saddened characters would shuffle around dejectedly as the C.B. theme music played — were funnier each time.

Basically, everyone’s been telling you for the past year that “Arrested Development” is a) the funniest show on TV or b) ONE of the funniest shows on TV. (Some commentators aren’t quite willing to commit to the first option.) I freely confess that it’s not for everyone. You have to pay attention, and the more often you watch, the funnier it is. (There are frequent throwbacks to previous episodes folded subtly into the mix.) If your current choice for Funniest Sitcom on TV is “According to Jim” or “The George Lopez Show,” then you probably will not find “Arrested Development” very entertaining.

But for everyone else, what’s the problem? The show has a better lead-in this year than it did last year, coming now immediately after “The Simpsons.” The style of humor in those shows is not exactly alike, but both are a wicked blend of the sophomoric and the sophisticated. I would think nearly anyone who loves one would love the other.

And yet, only about 70 percent of “Simpsons” viewers are staying tuned for “Arrested Development.” (That’s a guess, of course; there are probably some people who don’t watch “The Simpsons” but who tune in especially for “Arrested Development.”) Seventy percent might sound good, but it isn’t. Fully 95 percent of the people who watch CBS’ “Everybody Loves Raymond” stay tuned to watch “Two and a Half Men” afterward. In some pairings of half-hour sitcoms across the dial, the retention rate is almost 100 percent.

In case you’re curious, here are the ratings so far this season. The first number is the households watching “The Simpsons,” the second is the households watching “Arrested Development,” and then there’s the percent of “Simpsons” viewers who stay tuned for “Arrested Development.” Please note that this is the number of households; the actual number viewers will be higher, since most people don’t live alone.

Nov. 7 — 6.8 million; 5.0 million; 74 percent retention
Nov. 14 — 7.2 million; 4.9 million; 68.1 percent retention
Nov. 21 — 6.1 million; 4.2 million; 68.9 percent retention
Dec. 5 — 6.4 million; 4.5 million; 70.3 percent retention

Lots of “Simpsons” viewers gave “Arrested Development” a try the first week, but apparently a lot of them didn’t like it, because the next week that 74 percent retention had dropped to 68.1 percent, where it remains. I do think any “Simpsons” fan who watches “Arrested Development” for a few weeks would find it growing on them and becoming funnier each time. I promise, it just keeps getting better. Watch it for three weeks. If you don’t enjoy it, I’ll refund your money.

(By the way, if you wanted to buy the first season of “Arrested Development” on DVD, I’d be much obliged if you’d use the link you see here.)

Do You Hear What I Hear?

0

One downside to my new apartment is that I miss the neighbors I had when I lived in a condo. This isn’t because I actually KNEW them, of course, being hermitical and frightened of people. Typically, my only association with neighbors is hearing the sounds they make through the walls, floors and ceilings we share. And the fact is, I liked the sounds my condo neighbors made more than I like the sounds my apartment neighbors make.

At the condo, the master bedroom of the unit behind me was on the other side of my bedroom wall. That other unit housed an amorous couple who were not, shall we say, quiet in their appreciation for one another. I believe their bed must have been exactly on the other side of the wall from my bed, as I was able to hear them without wanting to, one time even being awakened in the middle of the night by their fervor.

I gathered from the frequency and duration of their episodes that they were newlyweds, and the fact that it was always after 2 a.m. when they commenced led me to conclude that they were not just newlyweds, but unemployed, too. Even if a couple were still this spirited in their second year of marriage, surely they would at least get to it earlier.

One night two of my friends and I were sitting in my room, talking and laughing, and the sex neighbors banged on the wall and yelled, “Keep it down!” Keep it down?! ME?! These unemployed newlyweds had a lot of nerve, let me tell you.

The near-nightly romps went on for a few weeks, to the point that I became bored with it. I’d be getting ready for bed, and I’d hear them start up, and I’d think, “Well, there they go again.” And then suddenly they stopped. Several nights passed with no commotion from the other side of the wall. I became morbidly curious. Were there problems in the marriage? Was one of them sick? Was one of them pregnant (the wife, probably)? I wanted to stop by their condo in a neighborly fashion and make small talk, just to see if I could determine what had quenched their passion.

But I couldn’t do this, of course, because I didn’t know them. I had never seen them — at least, not that I knew of. Anytime I saw a couple around the complex whose specific dwelling place I did not know, I would eye them suspiciously, trying to determine if they might be my sex neighbors. Part of me didn’t really want to know what they looked like, of course. What if it turned out they were old and/or hideous and/or immense? That would make my overhearing them horrifying, rather than mildly diverting.

Now I live in an apartment building. Due to the vagaries of construction and planning, there are no tenants on either side of me. Across the hall, though, is a Mexican family who on a recent Saturday night had one dickens of a fiesta that lasted loudly until well past 3 a.m. I couldn’t hear the noise from my bedroom, but in the living room it was noticeable, and in the hall it was deafening. Apparently it was extremely loud in the Mexicans’ next-door neighbor’s apartment, too, because a pajama-clad young woman emerged from there and began banging on the Mexicans’ door at around 2:30. I heard this banging and went to my peephole to see what drama would unfold. What I saw was the poor woman’s banging fall on deaf ears: The music inside the apartment was so raucous, they could not even hear their neighbor pounding on their door. Eventually she gave up and went back to her apartment, perhaps afraid, as so many Utahns are, of even quiet Mexicans, let alone boisterous ones.

The noise of the Mexicans is not a problem for me, but the noise of the people directly above me is. There are at least three persons living up there, possibly a family and possibly just a loose confederation of people who shout at each other a lot. Shouting seems to be their only method of communication, and there are no hours of the day or night when shouting is deemed inappropriate in their home. I imagine even wakes or prayer services, if held in apartment 411, would be ear-splitting.

The woman in the bedroom above mine has her alarm clock set to play CDs to wake her up in the morning, so loudly that it often wakes ME up in the morning, too, which is very considerate of her but wholly unnecessary, as I have my own alarm clock, thank you, not to mention better taste in music. Plus, she gets up at obscene hours like 9 a.m. or even 8 a.m., if you can imagine.

When she is home, she is always a) yelling and b) in her bedroom. I picture her as an 800-pound woman who is confined to her bed but must maintain a household, so she barks orders to and has shouted conversations with her children/staff/nurses, who are invariably in other rooms of the apartment. Her shouting seldom takes an argumentative or angry tone; it is simply the way she communicates.

One time it was 3 in the morning and I heard the TV on up there, and I heard children’s voices. So the 800-pound shouter is evidently a bad mother, too.

The oddest thing about the people above me is that they are, by the sound of their voices, an African-American family (or commune, whichever), and yet I have frequently heard the sounds of Depeche Mode and the Cure coming from their stereo. Far be it from me to generalize, but do black people listen to ’80s synth-pop? I am fascinated by the diverse and interesting people who make up this crazy world of ours. Maybe someday I’ll actually meet one of them.

Closer

0

You would have to search far and wide through the annals of film history to find a more complex, miscreant group of characters than those in “Closer,” an uncommonly engrossing and romantically cynical drama about two men and two women who couple, uncouple and re-couple over the course of four years.

These people are absolute messes, psychologically speaking, which I think is why I enjoy watching them so much — partly in amazement at how self-destructive they are, and partly because their emotions and motivations seem genuinely believable. They’re screwed up, but only in the way that real people are screwed up. Their dialogue is rather theatrical (the film is based on a stage play) and in that sense not 100 percent realistic, but thanks to the almost uniformly excellent performances and direction, the emotions behind the dialogue ring true. You believe the sentiment even when you don’t believe the words used to express it.

The movie is directed by Mike Nichols, whose landmark film “The Graduate” showed that he knew how to use moody pop music to his advantage, and who demonstrates here that he has not lost the knack. The song is “The Blowers Daughter” by Damien Rice, and it plays as the film opens with two strangers walking in slow-motion toward each other on a busy street, catching each other’s eye, a wordless connection being made. That the two people are Jude Law and Natalie Portman tells you that they are beautiful; but Law and Portman also happen to be fantastic actors, capable of drawing an audience’s attention, as they do here, simply by looking at each other. And then, just to make sure you’re really paying attention, one of them is hit by a taxi.

The injuries are minor, but the effect is not: One rushes to the other’s aid and official introductions are made. The next thing we know, Dan and Alice (for those are their names) have been together a year, sharing a flat in London, where Dan is an obituary writer with a novel in the works and Alice is, in her own words, “on an expedition,” doing the sort of European wandering that many American youths do (at least in the movies).

Their relationship is threatened by Dan’s sudden interest in Anna (Julia Roberts), a photographer whom he meets in the course of his work. Alice knows Dan has hit on Anna and is hurt by it. To her credit, Anna refuses his advances, and Dan retaliates by attempting to embarrass her in an online chat. This childish prank leads to her meeting a new man, a doctor named Larry (Clive Owen). They fall in love.

These two couples have met, as you can see, under unusual circumstances, and their relationships persist only tenuously. I get the feeling sometimes they stay together only because they have such great “how we met” stories, and breaking up would ruin them. Certainly at least three of the four are particularly interested in monogamy, for soon the couples have mixed and matched in various ways with various dramatic consequences.

I have always believed that the one thing everyone in the world wants is to be happy, and that life is simply the ongoing attempt to figure out what will achieve that for them. The characters in this movie aren’t even close to figuring it out. The one thing they know, if they search themselves carefully — which they do not — is that they don’t know what they want. When Larry complains about his and Anna’s apartment’s bathroom, she says, “You chose it.” His reply: “That doesn’t mean I like it.”

The one character among the four who exhibits signs of emotional stability is, ironically, the one you’d least expect it from: Alice. Played by Natalie Portman with astonishing conviction, poignancy and range, Alice’s response when faced with emotional abandonment by Dan is to put up her figurative armor by taking off her literal clothes: She goes back to work as a stripper, a job she had in New York before sojourning to England. A scene set at her workplace between her and Larry is fraught with anger and sexual tension, a marvelous moment from Clive Owen and one of Portman’s several brilliant scenes.

The weak link in the cast is Julia Roberts, whose performance is merely OK while the others’ are superb. She is too glossy to be a complex, dichotomous woman like Anna; her “Erin Brockovich” Oscar notwithstanding, Julia Roberts simply doesn’t have the depth to pull off something this complicated.

For as much sex as there is in these characters’ minds and dialogue, there is no sex in the film. It all occurs offscreen, Nichols and Marber having realized that sex itself is not a very interesting thing for a movie to focus on. It’s the aftermath and the beforemath (if that were a word) of sex that make for rich character drama.

I Am David

0

It is nearly impossible to fail to engage your audience’s emotions when you’re making a film about children fleeing evil grownups. “Life is Beautiful,” “Rabbit-Proof Fence,” “Ransom” — heck, even “Home Alone” wins us over because we naturally root for the kid. No theme is more common in film than Good vs. Evil, but if you introduce children into the mix, you create an instant bond with your audience because no matter how much they may dislike your movie, they don’t want to see any children get hurt.

I mention this because “I Am David” is not an especially brilliant film, nor does it execute its ideas with particular flair, and yet I cannot resist liking and being moved by it. Based on Anne Holm’s novel, it is about a 12-year-old boy named David (Ben Tibber) who, in 1952, flees a Bulgarian forced-labor camp (set up to enslave those who oppose the new, post-war regime) and makes for freedom. He has been given an envelope whose contents are secret and told that Denmark is where he needs to take it.

David’s first means of escape, however, is a ship bound for Italy. This is a slight detour from Denmark, but it does allow him more opportunities to meet strangers of varying degrees of kindness and to have a number of quaint Dickensian episodes as he makes his way back north: staying with a wealthy family, doing odd jobs for odd people, getting into tussles with pugnacious little boys, that sort of thing. Much of this material, in the mid-section of the film, feels like a sidetrack, marked by lovely European scenery but not much point.

It is not until David reaches Switzerland and encounters a kindly old woman named Sophie (Joan Plowright) that director Paul Feig — best known as the man behind TV’s “Freaks and Geeks” — finds his way again. David has only known the cruel life of the labor camp, having been put there with his now-dead parents at an early age. Sophie, on the other hand, has lived several peaceful decades in a world where there is freedom and beauty. Heartbreakingly, David has learned never to trust anyone, making it Sophie’s responsibility to help him see that there is good in the world, too.

Again, how can you go wrong with a story like that? For that matter, how can ANY story go wrong with the motherly Joan Plowright, all soothing whispers and warm smiles, there to dispense homey wisdom to jaded youths? She filled a similar role, to similarly great effect, in the 1999 film “Tea with Mussolini,” where she also played surrogate grandmother to an orphaned European boy. In the current film, her character’s boundless compassion and gentle discipline make her the film’s saving grace.

House of Flying Daggers (Chinese)

0

When last we saw the great Chinese filmmaker Zhang Yimou, he was undergoing a bit of a mid-career renaissance, writing and directing the awe-inspiring martial arts film “Hero” after previously focusing on poignant dramas. He continues on that path with “House of Flying Daggers,” yet he goes back to earlier films like “Not One Less” and “The Road Home,” too, as “Flying Daggers” is, at its heart, an emotional story about love and betrayal. In many ways, it is Yimou’s most accomplished and beautiful film.

It takes place in the 9th century A.D., in an area where the local police grapple frequently with the Flying Daggers, a secret group of vigilantes and guerrilla warriors who go about righting wrongs and fighting injustice and bringing down The Man. There is much call for the Flying Daggers, as the government is corrupt and heartless — traits that make it even less sympathetic toward underground organizations like the Flying Daggers.

Two local policemen, Jin (Takeshi Kaneshiro) and Leo (Andy Lau), get word that a member of the Flying Daggers has begun working as a courtesan at the local “entertainment house,” as it is called, so Jin goes undercover. He hopes to meet her, gain her trust, and follow her back to the Flying Daggers’ secret headquarters.

To an extent, the plan succeeds. The woman, Mei (Ziyi Zhang), who is beautiful, an expert fighter, oh, and blind since birth, is indeed a Flying Dagger. The government believes she is the daughter of the Daggers’ former leader, whom the government assassinated (which makes her especially dangerous now, should she encounter any government agents).

Mei and Jin almost immediately begin to fall in love, apparently for real, despite Jin’s ulterior motives. The romance complicates Jin’s attitude toward the operation, and so do Mei’s almost-supernatural instincts: She often detects Jin’s fellow officers lurking in the foliage as they journey to Flying Dagger headquarters, which means she and Jin have to fight them, Jin making sure to defeat but not kill his cohorts. When the federal government, apathetic toward local law enforcement officers, takes over the pursuit of Mei and the Flying Daggers, Jin’s company can no longer guarantee his safety.

As a blend of war and love, the film is not just a series of battle sequences, the way “Hero” was. When the fights do come, however, Zhang directs them with as much precision and artistry as in that earlier film. One fight takes place in a bamboo forest, with many of the maneuvers occurring at the tops of the trees, gravity boldly and beautifully defied. Even Mei’s dancing as a courtesan earns a skillful cinematographic treatment. Zhang seems to believe that there is no such thing as an unimportant shot, and that if something is going to appear in his film, it is going to be photographed with style and meaning.

The cinematographer is named Xiaoding Zhao, and he has no prior credits listed on the Internet Movie Database. I wonder if this can be a mistake. His work in “Flying Daggers” is exquisite, often breathtaking, far more so than one would expect for someone with no previous feature-film experience.

The film begins with an autumnal feel, all gray skies and earth tones, and not the usual spring colors associated with a budding romance. The wistfulness suggests Mei and Jin are not destined for happiness together, a feeling borne out by the movie’s wintry finale. In the middle, we gradually move to the lush green colors of the bamboo forest and the Flying Daggers’ uniforms. Some of these visuals are stunning, absolutely stunning. It is not often that a movie can inspire discussion based solely on its use of color, but there you go.

The final battle, between Mei, Jin and a third character, is marked by its intentional lack of gracefulness. It is too personal now; lovers have been stabbed in the back and in the heart — in some cases literally, I might add — and the fighting takes on a brutal, bloody quality. The fighters do not fly anymore. They remain earthbound, scratching, crying and bleeding in a most non-balletic fashion. Zhang is at his most insightful here, no longer alternating between scenes of combat and scenes of love, but combining them into one stirring finale.

Tsk, the Season

0

We are now into December, which means whoever’s in charge of getting me in the Christmas spirit had better get crackin’!

I used to rely on the radio to do this, because there is always at least one station that plays holiday music around the clock in December. But I got confused this year when KOSY 106.5 started playing carols on Nov. 1, with FM 100 right on its heels. I got all Christmas spirit-y for a few minutes, and then I realized how shameful and degrading it is to listen to Christmas music when there’s still Halloween candy in the dish next to the front door. So I put those stations away until the day after Thanksgiving, the day long ago sanctioned by the Christian church as the earliest appropriate moment to begin celebrating Christmas.

I actually like the stores this time of year, with all the hustle and bustle and decorations and such. The stores are crowded, but they’re crowded with people who are generally good-natured and who aren’t likely to murder you over the last Tickle-Me SpongeBob doll or whatever, the way they do in less-godly places such as New York and Miami.

But this year I’m afraid the stores are ruined for me, too, because I made the mistake of going to one at 5:30 a.m. last Friday for its massive day-after-Thanksgiving sale. Why this appealed to me, I don’t know. It combines two of my least-favorite things in the world — getting up early and standing in line — and all just so I could save a few dollars (OK, many, many dollars) on some DVDs.

My mom and one of my brothers are veterans of the Best Buy post-Thanksgiving-sale wars, having served tours of duty in that arena for several years. Before they had cell phones, they used walkie-talkies to communicate with each other in the store, combining their efforts to snatch up the merchandise and get in line as quickly as possible. I had never been tempted to join them until this year, when the Best Buy near my California hometown, where I was visiting, was offering merchandise at prices so low I simply couldn’t afford not to buy it.

Alas, Mom and Jeff retired from combat this year and left me to fend for myself, and I confess that I, a casual shopper at best, am no match for the vicious, predatory warriors who descend upon retail stores on the fourth Friday in November. One woman mentioned having been in line since 3 o’clock the previous afternoon, which means she spent her Thanksgiving Day sitting outside of a Best Buy, a devotion to bargain-hunting that I find both impressive and sad. Sleep-deprived, unshowered, jostled and harried, I made it out of the store at 7:30 a.m., two hours after I arrived. And now I don’t know if the usual tinsel and trees with which Target and its retail brethren are festooned from now till Christmas will be enough to counteract that one un-Christmaslike experience.

I already know not to bother going to the movies for Christmas cheer. “The Polar Express” is based on a 30-page picture book, and watching it is like reading that picture book, except instead of only taking five minutes, it takes 90. Plus it is filled to an unhealthy degree with Tom Hanks. “Surviving Christmas,” released in October, didn’t even survive Thanksgiving. And “Christmas with the Kranks”? is so awful that the Lord has filed suit to have the title changed to “Holidays with the Kranks”? to protect His good name.

So things are looking a bit grim in the Christmas spirit department, but I hold out hope that someone or something will have me feeling festive before it’s too late. Maybe that DVD of “Bad Santa”? that I bought for $5.99 will help.

FAQs about the ins and outs of being a movie critic.

0

FAQs about the ins and outs of being a movie critic.

Q: How do you see the movies early?
A: With my eyes. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Q: I will stop reading RIGHT NOW if this is just going to be smart-aleck answers.
A: OK, OK. Most films have advance screenings before they open. Some films have press screenings, to which only press are invited (duh), usually held at 10 a.m. And then other films have promo screenings, held in the evening, to which press and the public are invited (usually via ticket giveaways on radio stations), where they tape off a few rows for critics.

For indie films and other arthouse fare, the studios often avoid the expense of renting a theater for a screening by sending screener tapes to the critics to watch at home.

Q: Screenings at 10 in the morning? With no audience? Doesn’t that make it hard to enjoy, say, a comedy?
A: No, but you’re not alone in thinking that. It took some getting used to, but once I’d been at it a few months, seeing films at 10 a.m. (some were even at 9 a.m., back in the old days!) didn’t seem strange anymore. I’ve been just as scared or entertained or whatever sitting with only four other people in a theater at 10 a.m. as I would have been in a packed house at 7 p.m.

In fact, since audiences tend to distract me, what with their whispering and their wrapper-rattling and their shuffling around and whatnot, I probably get MORE enjoyment out of a film that I see in a very small group, regardless of what time of day it is.

That said, the studios tend to think that with comedies — especially big, mass-appeal comedies — we’ll enjoy it more if we see it with an audience, that the laughter surrounding us will inspire us to laugh, too.

It doesn’t work. Often, we sit there in our cluster, glancing around the theater in amazement that these people are actually LAUGHING at this. And other times, we’re the only ones laughing, and we wonder why no one else is. I think if you watch movies for a living, you probably are past the point where hearing chuckles behind you subconsciously forces you to join in on the chuckling yourself.

Q: How far in advance are these screenings held? Days? Weeks?
A: Usually days. Typically, screenings are Monday and/or Tuesday and/or Wednesday for films being released that Friday. Sometimes we’ll see one the previous Thursday (eight days before it opens). Sometimes, if the studio feels particularly confident that early promo screenings will lead to positive “buzz,” they’ll have several screenings, sometimes starting as early as six weeks before the release date. (Strangely, though they encourage the public who comes to these screenings to tell their friends how great it is, the critics are still under strict orders not to print their reviews early — even if they’re positive.)

Q: Do you critics all sit together?
A: Yep. At promo screenings, it’s sort of by necessity, since the studio reps have taped off seats in a particular area for us. But even at press-only screenings, we still tend to sit close to each other, if only so we can chit-chat before the movie starts.

I’m told the critics in some other cities hate each other, see each other as competition, and so on, and won’t fraternize or even sit next to each other. Those critics are big babies. Here in the SLC, we’re all friendly, keep each other in the loop on upcoming screenings, have been known to socialize outside of work, etc. One of my critic buddies even helped me move into my new apartment, and I’m the father of another one’s child (but don’t tell him).

Q: Where do you sit?
A: We’ve grown fond of the first couple rows of the “stadium seating” part of the theater. I like the very front row of that section, as it allows me to put my feet up on the railing. The only theater we ever deal with that doesn’t have stadium seating is the Broadway Centre downtown; there, we tend to be toward the back, off to one side or the other. We always sit near the aisle, wherever we are.

When I go to the movies on my own (i.e., not at a “screening”), I tend to sit farther back, and in the middle (unless the theater is crowded, then I aim for the aisle). I’ll go back as far as necessary to avoid having anyone sitting behind me. I think I’m afraid of being attacked by predators.

Q: Do you stay through the credits?
A: Not unless there are hilarious outtakes or something. (By the way: I think ALL movies should have hilarious outtakes at the end. ALL MOVIES.) If they’re just straight credits, we tend to dash out the door as soon as they commence, to beat the rush. This means we’ve missed a few bits that come after the credits are completely over, but I consider the advantage of getting to the parking lot before the crowd does to far outweigh that.

Q: Do you take notes? What do you write? Does the note-taking make you miss important stuff in the movie?
A: Hey, one question at a time, Mr. Pushy. I do take notes. I’ll jot down a few key plot elements to make sure I get my facts straight, but mostly what I write are adjectives. As I’m watching a movie, I’m simultaneously processing it: What sort of movie is this? What are these characters’ personalities like? And so when good ways of describing the movie or the characters pop into my head, I write them down so I don’t forget.

The other major thing I tend to write down are events in the film that exemplify the movie or the characters: So-and-So does or says such-and-such, and if I reference that in the review, it will go a long way toward describing that character. (Amelie’s fascination with breaking the crust on creme brulee was the thing all the critics mentioned about her, for example, because it told us, in a nutshell, what sort of person she was.)

And no, I don’t tend to miss anything when I’m jotting. For one thing, I don’t jot much: At the most, it’s maybe 100 words over the course of the movie. But also, I’ve gotten used to finding a blank spot on my notepad in the dim light, setting my pen at the starting point, and then writing while I continue to watch the screen.

There is not necessarily any connection between note-taking and good film-reviewing, by the way. My Salt Lake Tribune colleague Sean Means takes pages and pages of notes, while Scott Renshaw at City Weekly writes almost nothing, yet they both write exceptionally well-structured, thoughtful reviews. So I suppose it’s different for everyone.

Q: Do you ever change your mind about a movie after seeing it? If so, why?
A: Meh, not really. Not drastically, anyway. A few times, I’ve given a film an A- instead of an A because I didn’t think it QUITE reached the level of “classic,” then watched the film again and realized I did, in fact, enjoy it just as much the second time (which is more or less my definition of a “classic,” a film that stands up to multiple viewings). “About a Boy” and “Moulin Rouge” come to mind.

For bad films, though, if I thought it was bad, I’m not liable to watch it again. I did find myself forced to watch “Resident Evil” and “Final Destination 2” each a second time, though, and found them both more tolerable than I’d first thought. In both cases, however, my subsequent slight change of heart can be attributed to watching them with a fun group on a fun night while eating fun pizza — external factors that it wouldn’t be fair to include when reviewing a film.

Q: How has being a movie critic changed your moviegoing experience? Do you find you enjoy movies more or less when you are actively critiquing them?
A: I get asked this a lot, usually more in the form of, “Doesn’t having to analyze a film ruin it for you?” Usually people ask this (or, rather, assume that movie-watching HAS been ruined for me) after I’ve negatively reviewed a movie they liked.

But the answer is no, taking notes and otherwise thinking about a film doesn’t taint the movie-watching experience. On the contrary, I think it makes me enjoy films more. The more I know about how they’re made, and why they’re made, and what they’re trying to do, the more I like them. For me, thinking about something makes it MORE fulfilling, not less. Even when I’m not reviewing a film, I still derive great satisfaction from considering it, looking at how it was shot, paying attention to details, and so forth.

Hollywood often makes films that it hopes you DON’T think about, and that wish is often granted, unfortunately. There is a difference between willingly suspending your disbelief because a film is creative or clever enough to have earned it, and simply checking your brain at the door and accepting whatever the movie tells you, no matter how stupid it is. I’m sorry, but Dennis Quaid walking from Philadelphia to New York on snowshoes in a matter of hours in “The Day After Tomorrow” just doesn’t make any SENSE. I’m not “over-analyzing” it; I’m not being a fussy movie critic who doesn’t know how to have fun; I’m just using basic human common sense. If a movie can only be enjoyed by refusing to employ even that minimal level of thinking, then it’s not worth your time.

Beaglely Blonde

0

We almost always had a dog in my family when I was growing up. The first one I remember was named Ticky-Tac (I believe I named him), and he was with us until my parents had to send him off to live with a family who had a bigger yard and higher fences so he wouldn’t run away all the time. I believe this was code for “we had him killed.” I got suspicious when they said Grandma had gone to live with the same family.

I would love to have a dog now. I live in an apartment, though, and while dogs are permitted here, I don’t think he’d be happy being cooped up all day with no yard to frolic and romp in. So I have a dog-substitute, Junko, the life-sized plastic Labrador that I bought at a furniture store. I happened to visit the home of a wealthy family in a gated community in Draper, Utah, recently, and saw the exact same fake dog in their foyer, so I know it’s tasteful.

I got to visit a real dog recently, while visiting my friends Rob and Curtis in Portland. They have a beagle named Demi. He is not named after Demi Moore, though he and Ms. Moore do both enjoy the company of young men and often drink from the toilet. But Demi the beagle is named after the young priest in “The Exorcist,” the one named Damien whose mother calls him Demi. (It’s more like “Dimmy,” but OK. I’m just impressed Rob and Curtis knew the reference.)

They got a beagle because when Rob was a child, he had a beagle who eventually died. Demi is sort of a replacement then, which, yes, is creepy.

Demi the beagle is a hyper little fellow, 4 years old and as dumb as a sack of cheerleaders. When he sees you, he is thrilled beyond comprehension and shows this by jumping on you. When you tell him “No!” or “Down!,” he will obey you for one second, and then forget everything, forget he’s already seen you, get excited to see you, and start the process all over again. I believe that inside his head, manning the controls, is a 4-year-old boy with A.D.D.

I adore Demi, and for the same reason I adore children: He makes no sense. He does exactly what he wants to, without regard for protocol or logic or hygiene, and he doesn’t criticize my driving. This makes him more bearable than most of my friends.

(You know how you can tell that dogs don’t judge? Because so many homeless people have them for pets. The dog thinks, “OK, so he can’t feed me all that often, but he feeds me when he can, and he’s always nice to me. So I stick with him.” A cat wouldn’t last 24 hours as the pet of a homeless person. “No food today? Eff that.”)

My role while visiting Demi and his owners was to be the doting grandmother who wants to spoil the kids. “Oh, let him sit on the couch with me!” I’d say. Or: “Heavens, let me give him some food off my plate, since he begged so adorably!” What mild progress Rob and Curtis had made in training him was surely undone by my indulgence of him.

One day we took Demi to a dog park. Portland has a lot of nature-oriented places like this, because Portland is full of trees and the people who hug them. This particular park has a large enclosed area where you can take your dog off its leash and let it (the dog) run around and scamper and fraternize with other dogs while the owners keep an eye on them. It’s like a junior high school dance, where the kids are on their own but closely guarded by dozens of chaperones who will put a stop to any extreme cases of making out or butt-sniffing.

Anyway, Demi had a grand time at the park, as it’s the one place he can bark without his owners telling him to shut up. (Grandma Eric: “Oh, mercy, let the dog bark if he wants to! He’s just sayin’ hi!”) He gamboled and cavorted with dogs up to three times his size, with no apparent class distinctions among them. You don’t see that with people. For one thing, you rarely see anyone who’s three times your size. But even if you did encounter an 18-foot, 600-pound man, there’s no way he’d hang out with you. He’d be with the other giants, knocking over trees and making fun of you.

We got a kick out of Demi’s enthusiasm and trouble-making. Any time two dogs would tussle, he would be there to bark his encouragement, like the weaselly teens in the ’50s biker movies who would dance around the perimeters of the fistfights and say, “Yeah, Johnny! Give it to ‘im good, Johnny! Show ‘im who’s boss!” I have to assume that if dogs were capable of negative emotions, they would consider Demi a nerd. But it’s impossible for any species to put on airs when that species spends more than 50 percent of its time licking itself. Which, again, is why Demi Moore is so down-to-earth.

A Very Long Engagement (French)

0

What possesses a man to make a movie that could be described as “Amelie” meets “Cold Mountain,” a film both whimsical and devastating in its depiction of war? And more to the point, how does a man so possessed manage to make it work?

French director Jean-Pierre Jeunet reunites with his “Amelie” star Audrey Tautou in “A Very Long Engagement,” and it may be the best film he’s ever made. It spotlights the absurdity of war along with its brutality, and underscores the indomitability of the human spirit with a “love conquers all” story line of uncommon poignance. It also has a farting dog and a woman who says “Doggie fart, gladdens my heart” every time. So you see what we’re dealing with here.

Tautou plays Mathilde, a girl of Amelie-esque mirthfulness encumbered by the travails of her life. Her parents dead, she lives with her kindly aunt and uncle on a farm in rural France, and she walks with a limp as a result of childhood polio. Her lifelong love Maneche (Gaspard Ulliel) has not been heard from since he was court-martialed three years ago, near the end of World War I. The court martial was for self-mutilation: He intentionally got shot in the hand in order to be sent home to his beloved. Four other men were charged for nearly identical crimes, all with injuries to their right hands. One of the men received his injury accidentally, using his gun to hit a rat that was scampering around his bed.

The men were sentenced to death, but officers either lazy or cruel chose to execute them by sending them out into No-Man’s-Land and letting them fend for themselves. Neither Mathilde nor anyone else — including the viewer — knows for sure whether any of the five survived. Mathilde is convinced she would know instinctively if Maneche were dead. But if he’s alive, where is he?

Mathilde hires a private investigator named Germain Pire (Ticky Holgado) who, like everyone else in the film, is a cutely idiosyncratic character, to look for information about Maneche’s fate. Pire finds witnesses and survivors from the particular trench that was the site of Maneche’s sentencing, but not many, and none with much information. Meanwhile, a woman named Tina Lombardi (Marion Cotillard), whore and girlfriend of a Corsican man who was among the five court-martialed, is finding officers responsible for her lover’s death and executing them herself in cruelly ingenious fashions appropriate to the occasion. War begets war, as you know.

Jeunet, who adapted the screenplay with regular writing partner Guillaume Laurant from Sebastien Japrisot’s novel, gives us just enough flashbacks to Mathilde and Maneche’s pre-war life to suggest the urgency and romanticism of their relationship. Her love for him has not faded in the intervening years, despite having had no word from him. Her apparent belief is that if he is alive, he still loves her. No other scenario occurs to her as a possibility.

Yet despite her head-in-the-clouds romanticism, she behaves with a certain pragmatism, too. She cannot travel the way her P.I. can, but she still finds clues in letters and belongings left behind by the five condemned soldiers. By learning more about them, she reasons, she can find out what happened to Maneche. If one of the five survived, then maybe Maneche did, too.

Because of this, we meet the families and loved ones of Maneche’s fellow soldiers, all with compelling stories of love, loss and tragedy. For example, there is Elodie Gordes (Jodie Foster), wife of Benjamin Gordes (Jean-Pierre Darroussin). Benjamin was infertile, but the pair had five children from previous marriages and adoptions. Gordes knew that if they had a sixth, the army would send him home. He asked his friend Bastoche (Jerome Kircher) to impregnate Elodie for him. Heartbreak and sorrow followed. Jodie Foster, speaking French like a native, performs as beautifully and passionately as she does in English, lending the film more gravitas and emotion.

Between her breakthrough performance as Amelie and this one, Tautou has come to embody impish optimism, so much that if you Google “Audrey Tautou” and “gamine,” you will get nearly 500 hits. Though there is much sadness in “A Very Long Engagement,” there is also a driving, underlying sense of hope. It is a powerful, sweet film.

Straight-Jacket

0

“Straight-Jacket” is not to be confused with “The Jacket,” which is about a man who can see the future when he wears a certain straitjacket. “Straight-Jacket,” on the other hand, is a pun title, about a hunky Hollywood actor in the 1950s who must hide his homosexuality by marrying a woman, in effect putting himself into a straight-jacket. Get it?!

Oh, the movie sure hopes you do. If double-entendre and vaudeville-style setups and punchlines aren’t your thing, then “Straight-Jacket” is not the broad, campy farce for you. Written and directed by Richard Day, it is a vast improvement over his last effort, “Girls Will be Girls,” a drag-queen comedy that kept repeating its one joke to the point of tedium. “Straight-Jacket,” on the other hand, is snappy and fast-paced, featuring several funny characters and an often frenzied verbal interaction between them.

It is the 1950s, at a time when America is afraid of Communists, Hollywood is afraid of Joe McCarthy, and everyone is afraid of homosexuals. One of Tinseltown’s leadingest of leading men in Guy Stone (perfectly played with Troy McClure-ish denseness by Matt Letscher), a chiseled chunk of matinee-idol arrogance, smiles and shallowness. Still, he appreciates his public. “I always say, without my fans I’d be no better than they are,” he tells one admirer.

Guy is as gay as a French horn, a fact he keeps hidden from the world for reasons that, in 1950s Hollywood, are obvious. He is absurdly promiscuous, though, bringing one meaningless fling after another back to his luxurious Hollywood Hills mansion. This lifestyle garners withering scorn from his effeminate Southern butler Victor (Michael Emerson) and cautions from his closeted-lesbian agent Jerry (Veronica Cartwright) and cigar-chomping SRO Pictures studio head Saul (Victor Raider-Wexler). Still, as long as he keeps a lid on it, there’s no harm done to his career.

His secret finally threatens to come to light, though, when he is photographed during a bust at a local gay bar. To do damage control — and to ensure he can still be chosen to play Ben-Hur in the upcoming epic — Jerry and Saul talk him into marrying a woman. What woman would go along with such a sham? No woman, of course. So they choose someone dumb enough not to know it’s a sham — Sally (Carrie Preston), Saul’s sweet, blond secretary who has adored Guy Stone for as long as she can remember. Soon they are married and on the magazines covers, being touted as America’s Sweethearts, while at home Guy is horrified that Sally has redecorated his house with furniture from — gasp! — Sears. (“I’ve tried reasoning with her, but the woman is impervious to droll remarks,” Victor says.) Even worse, she wants to SLEEP with Guy. Like, have sex with him, you know?

The whole charade is reprehensible, of course, and Guy is a jerk, so it’s good that this is a farce where people aren’t meant to be taken seriously — especially because, before you know it, Guy starts cheating on Sally. He falls in love with Rick Foster (Adam Greer), a left-leaning novelist whose pro-union book “Blood Mine” is being made into a film and who has been called back in to revise the screenplay, to make the thing seem less Communist and more rah-rah-patriotic. (The new title: “America Works!”)

Though these characters are intentionally two-dimensional — the right approach for a frothy comedy like this — Rick is just layered enough that I don’t believe he’d help a man cheat on his wife. He has stronger principles than that. But, without it, we don’t have a movie, so OK.

Sally must eventually find out she’s been a pawn in a publicity stunt, of course, and that will be sad for her, but it is not the film’s focus. Instead, we shift from social satire to social importance, as the film starts tackling issues of homophobia, and drawing parallels between McCarthy’s hunt for Communists and America’s hunt for homosexuals. In either case, the film says, people should be allowed to live as they please and not have to worry about being “outed” if they don’t want to be. Probably about 51 percent of the country disagrees with that, but this movie isn’t for them anyway.

The problem is that the film doesn’t really work as a political statement. As satire, it is often deliciously barbed and catty, the jokes flying fast and furious, every role played with the right level of kitschy comic enthusiasm … but when it tries to make its points seriously, it immediately loses me. Put the red nose back on and keep dancing, clown. That’s what we’re paying you for.

Alexander

0

I’ll say this for Oliver Stone: When he makes a mess, he makes a HUGE MESS. He doesn’t just create trainwrecks. He knocks the train off the rails, sets it on fire, then kills every person onboard. (And takes three hours to do it.)

“Alexander” is an excessive, massive film, “spectacular” only in the sense that it features many actors making spectacles of themselves. At 175 minutes in length yet not nearly deep enough to justify such extremes, it reeks with pretension. It is, to put it bluntly, a bad movie, certainly Stone’s worst.

Alexander the Great, a Macedonian king and conqueror, died in 323 B.C. Whatever else you didn’t know about him is told to us by Ptolemy (played in old age by Anthony Hopkins), dictating Greek history to dutiful scribes some years later. Ptolemy is not a particularly interesting history professor, given as he is to vague philosophical-sounding intonations about the greatness of Mr. The Great, but that doesn’t stop Stone from using him as a narrator throughout the film, both on screen and in voice-over.

Played by a Colin Farrell whose hair and accent have been slightly bleached, Alexander is the bastard son of King Philip (Val Kilmer) and his mistress Olympias (Angelina Jolie). His illegitimate status makes him an unlikely successor to the throne, a fact which Olympias remedies by getting Philip killed before he can produce any other viable heirs.

Alexander’s creepy relationship with Mom is one of the film’s several giggling points, and in fact Angelina Jolie’s entire performance is, I think, destined to become a camp classic, up there with Faye Dunaway in “Mommie Dearest.” (Jolie is one year older than Farrell, by the way.) She screams, schemes and moans with wild abandon, not to mention her fondness for snakes and her indescribable accent.

(We are not going to spend a lot of time discussing the accents in the film, because it’s useless. I think the cast members just chose them at random, perhaps by putting slips of paper into a hat and choosing. Jolie might be doing Greek, but if she is, she’s the only one. Several characters have Irish accents, except for Farrell, who IS Irish, but who has toned his brogue down a lot. Rosario Dawson’s accent changes constantly, though I will always recall with fondness the way she glares at one of Alexander’s boy-toys and says, “You love heem?”)

But back to the story. After several scenes set in Alexander’s early life, we meet him as a grown-up, a popular leader and commander of a massive army. He’s currently pursuing the Persian king Darius (Raz Degan), going to the ends of the earth if necessary, expanding Macedonia’s rule as he goes. His men love him, and some of his men REALLY love him, if you know what I mean. And what I mean is that sometimes they do it. The love of Alexander’s life is Hephaistion (Jared Leto), but for reasons not made entirely clear, Alexander marries a woman anyway.

Her name is Roxane (Rosario Dawson), a Babylonian girl, and though the only sex scene in the film is between her and Alexander, it is never suggested that he actually loves her. His fondness for the menfolk is given much more weight, even though wariness on the part of Warner Bros. forced Stone to keep that aspect from getting too graphic. This fact will be met with appreciation by those who don’t enjoy seeing gay sex scenes, of course, but it does seem silly to make a film about a gay historical figure, keep referring to his gayness, show him pining for his gay lovers, and then never actually let him be gay.

Anyway, Alexander continues conquering the world, battling Fate and trying to keep the history of flawed men who met their doom from repeating itself. Stone gives us plenty of jittery battle scenes, complete with wailing strings and shrieking choirs on the soundtrack, but since the only character we care even remotely about is Alexander himself, these scenes are somewhat useless. His soldiers, though they have names, don’t register as distinct characters; they’re just Bearded Guy or Guy With One Eye or Guy Who’s Too Pretty To Be A Soldier.

(The exception is Philotas, who turns out to be treacherous, whose name I remember only because I kept thinking they were saying “Flautas,” which is my favorite Mexican dish. But, like Oliver Stone, I digress.)

The screenplay, by Stone, Christopher Kyle (“K-19: The Widowmaker”) and Laeta Kalogridis, teems with outrageous dialogue, made outrageouser by the wide variety of inappropriate accents chosen apparently at random by the cast. After Rosario Dawson’s “You love heem?,” my favorite line is Colin Farrell shouting at his mother, “You birthed me in a sac of hate!” I cannot wait to blurt this out at Thanksgiving dinner.

Old Ptolemy tells us Alexander’s “failure towered over other men’s successes,” but you wouldn’t know it to watch the film. All Stone gives us is a succession of battles and scenes of half-hearted introspection, revealing almost nothing about the man Alexander, and even less about those around him. I honestly don’t know what Stone was trying to do here. I wonder if even he does.

Christmas with the Kranks

0

“Christmas with the Kranks” is about a family who decides to forgo all yuletide festivities one year. Well, you’d skip Christmas, too, if all you had to watch were “Surviving Christmas,” “The Polar Express” and “Christmas with the Kranks.” Movies like this make me want to skip everything, including the remainder of my natural life.

The sad part is that I’ve always thought Tim Allen looked a bit like my dad, and Jamie Lee Curtis always sorta reminded me of my mom, and here they finally are in a film together, and they’re complete idiots. They play Luther and Nora Krank, Chicago suburbanites whose only child, Blair (Julie Gonzalo), has joined the Peace Corps and will be in Peru for Christmas. Realizing Christmas won’t be the same now, Luther hits on a brilliant idea: He and Nora will skip Christmas altogether and go on a 10-day cruise instead! No gifts given or accepted, no decorations, no holiday parties, no chestnuts roasting, no stockings hung by the chimney (with care or without), no nothing. It will be a Christmas-free year for the Kranks.

The only problem with this plan — OK, actually, there are about one million problems with this plan, but the one that becomes most prominent is that the Kranks live on what is easily the most fascist, pro-Christmas block in the Christian world. Led by de facto neighborhood leader Vic Frohmeyer (Dan Aykroyd, again sullying his oft-sullied career), the Kranks’ decision not to post any decorations or take part in any of the usual neighborhood jollity is met with hostility and resentment. They are harassed at every turn by the local Christmas-observers, shunned and scorned by everyone in town. I pity any Jewish folk who happen to move into this neighborhood. As doggedly persuasive as the locals are, the poor Jews would be hanging up mistletoe and eating pork inside of a week.

Anyway, the movie is flawed in a number of ways, not the least of which is that it isn’t funny. Based on the John Grisham novel “Skipping Christmas” (the title was changed to avoid confusion with the aforementioned “Surviving Christmas”), adapted by Chris Columbus (author of “Gremlins” and “Nine Months”), and directed by Joe Roth (“America’s Sweethearts”), the film relies heavily on tired scenarios and awkward slapstick rather than on unusual situations or clever dialogue. There’s a scene where Luther gets Botox and his face becomes rigid — a highly original joke, I suppose, if you haven’t watched a single sitcom in the past two years. People plug in Christmas lights and get comically electrocuted; carolers slip on ice; Jamie Lee Curtis is caught in a bikini by her minister; oh, the wackiness! And I ask you: Has Tim Allen ever been in a movie in which he DIDN’T fall off a roof?

But the movie’s premise is fundamentally flawed anyway, in that we are never told WHY the Kranks are skipping Christmas. It’s not because it’s too expensive; if that were the reason, they would have no problem participating in the aspects of the season that are free. It’s not because they want to focus on the religious aspects of Christmas; indeed, those elements are scarcely mentioned. My best guess is that they feel Christmas has become over-commercialized and unreasonably hectic, but that is only a guess. Such motives are barely even hinted at within the film. (And even STILL, they could do the non-commercialized Christmas activities, like caroling or exchanging heartfelt gifts.)

Without any understanding of why the Kranks are being such grinches, it’s difficult to find amusement in the endless parade of scenes in which they are pressured by their friends and neighbors to celebrate Christmas. It all seems so random and capricious that all we can think is, “Well, yeah. Why WON’T you put up your Frosty the Snowman decoration?”

Tim Allen, perpetually a semi-clueless husband, is in his element here; it’s even the third Christmas film he’s done. It is impossible to be disappointed in anything he does because you always know exactly what it’s going to be before you see it. Jamie Lee Curtis makes me sad, though, reduced to over-the-top hysterics that are far beneath her comic abilities. The film isn’t as aggressively annoying as some are; it’s more pitiful. I feel sorry for this movie.

Finding Neverland

0

I know just enough about the life of “Peter Pan” author J.M. Barrie to know that “Finding Neverland” has taken some liberties with the facts. But I know enough about movies to know that I don’t care. The film’s loveliness has nothing to do with whether its events are true.

It was directed by Marc Forster, whose last work, “Monster’s Ball,” wouldn’t have made me suspect he was capable of such sweet, imaginative fare as this. The film is set in strictest reality, but it has magic glittering in the corners — which, as it happens, is exactly the way J.M. Barrie lived his life.

Barrie is played with astonishing perfection by Johnny Depp, who at this rate is going to become the best actor of his generation whether he wants the attention or not. Depp has long excelled at playing characters who are odd, outcast or strange, always giving them humanity, too, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen him combine quirkiness and soulfulness as well as he does here. J.M. Barrie comes across as unusual, for sure, but with emotions and passions that are universal.

The time is 1903, when Barrie’s latest play, “Little Mary,” has flopped on London’s West End. He has been spectacularly successful in the past, and his bank account proves it, but he is now in a creative slump. He spends most days sitting on a park bench with his large sheep dog, doodling, jotting and thinking, off in his own world.

It is at the park that he meets Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet), a young widow with four boys. They are immediately smitten with Barrie’s stories and extremely active imagination; Barrie, for his part, seems to relate better to children than to adults.

The only boy not impressed with Barrie is young Peter (Freddie Highmore). He has taken the death of his father harder than anyone else, it seems, and he remains sullen, a child trying to act like a grownup. He and Barrie are opposites. Barrie is inspired to write a play expressing his own fondest dream: It’s about a boy who gets to stay young forever.

Barrie’s personal life is a shambles, it need hardly be said. He spends all his time with the Davies family — not courting Sylvia, and certainly not behaving inappropriately with the children (he seems far too innocent, perhaps even asexual, to even consider such a thing), but simply playing and imagining. His wife Mary (Radha Mitchell) wants the social status that usually comes with money, but her husband is bored with snooty parties and finds adults in general to be dull. Mary doesn’t understand Mr. Barrie’s attachment to the Davieses, and neither does Sylvia’s mother (Julie Christie), whose actions at the end of the film give it its unfortunate too-easy resolution.

Barrie may have been born at exactly the right time. Edward VII was the king in 1907, but it was still the “Victorian Era” as far as society was concerned: stuffy, repressed and puritanical. Children were scarcely permitted to have fun at all, and so here comes J.M. Barrie — an adult with money and influence — to set them free and show them how childhood is supposed to be.

The film, adapted by David Magee from Allan Knee’s play, captures this attitude wonderfully. Several whimsical scene depict Barrie and the boys’ improvised adventure stories, included as if to prove the point that when you’re a child, few things have the power to uplift and heal like good old-fashioned fun. It’s pretty effective for adults, too.

The Work and the Glory

0

The thousands of people who have bought Gerald N. Lund’s historical fiction novel “The Work and the Glory” will probably be adequately entertained by the lavish new film version. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t say whether it is as overwhelmingly average as the film is, but I think they are probably comparable. It seems unlikely that the book was brimming with vitality and intrigue and the filmmakers just chose to omit it.

This is a film that teeters dangerously on the edge of boredom. It occasionally catches its balance with bright supporting characters or compelling scenes, but then it stumbles again with mild scenes of characters having spiritual crises. It never completely tips over into tedium, though, I’ll give it that, and it’s pleasant to look at, with sumptuous period costumes and production design.

Based on the first volume in Lund’s nine-part series, it is set in the late 1820s in Palmyra, N.Y., where a young fellow named Joseph Smith (Jonathan Scarfe) has gained notoriety for his account of having had a vision of God and Jesus Christ, and the subsequent visitation of an angel who told him where to obtain gold plates on which were engraved the account that he would later translate into The Book of Mormon. Some believe Joseph’s story, but most are derisive, and some are even dangerous.

Into this setting moves the fictional Steed family, eager to take advantage of the land rush going on in western New York. They are decent, God-fearing folks, though not actively religious. They hire Joseph and his brother Hyrum (Ryan Wood) to help clear their land, and thus the Steeds become intertwined with the Smiths’ history. The mother, Mary Ann (Brenda Strong), believes Joseph; her husband Benjamin (Sam Hennings) doesn’t; the children are about evenly split.

Their oldest son, the surly and at first subtly rebellious Joshua (Eric Johnson), falls in with the wrong crowd in Palmyra, drinking, growing facial hair and speaking in an ominous whisper just like the rowdies and thieves who inhabit the local saloons. (In this movie, the more beard you have, and the more you talk like Clint Eastwood, the more evil you are.) Joshua has a crush on local girl Lydia McBride (Tiffany Dupont), but guess who also likes her? Joshua’s brother Nathan (Alexander Carroll), who is clean-shaven, speaks in normal tones, and believes in Joseph Smith, whereas Joshua and his cronies just want to steal the gold plates (which they also profess not to believe in the existence of, so I’m not really sure where they’re coming from, theologically).

At heart, the film is an extremely demure love story, focusing on Nathan and Lydia, with bits of the Joshua triangle popping up occasionally. Lydia’s parents think Joseph Smith is a fake and won’t let her have anything to do with him, which creates problems for her and the devout Nathan. That, plus the various other characters’ religious angst, accounts for a good deal of the film’s running time — which means if watching average people struggle with their personal spiritual dramas doesn’t interest you, then you’re in for a long night, my friend.

Most of the acting is fine; I just don’t think the characters are drawn well enough to make them sufficiently compelling to sustain such an introspective story. Lund had an entire book to develop the characters, and knew he had eight more volumes in which to continue it. Director Russ Holt, who adapted the screenplay, had only 108 minutes.

The most charismatic presence in the film is Jonathan Scarfe, who makes Joseph Smith as personable yet enigmatic as he is supposed to have been. He has the unenviable task of telling the incredible story of Joseph’s first vision in a way that sounds sincere rather than fantastic. Scarfe conveys this flawlessly. Even if you don’t believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, in watching Scarfe’s performance, you can see how others might have.

But in the end, it’s more an episode than a movie. It introduces a dozen or so characters, gives them some things to do, then wraps up only a few loose threads before the film’s over and we’re left waiting for the sequel. Even a movie intended as the start of a “franchise” ought to have self-contained stories, and it ought to convince us that these people are worth watching. If Volume 1 of the book series is as flat as the movie portrays it, I doubt I would ever make it to Volume 2.

(Note: One question people always have about movies like this is how “Mormon” is it? There isn’t a whole lot of doctrine, and what there is generally receives an explanation, as it’s usually new to the characters, too. But the film is intrinsically “Mormon” in that I don’t think anyone who hasn’t been a member of the LDS Church for a long time will really “get” why the characters’ spiritual angst is such a big deal. I think it is probably a film that speaks only to Mormons, if to anyone.)

Notre Musique (French)

0

Jean-Luc Godard’s influence on modern cinema is beyond dispute. Even if you haven’t seen his films that were part of the French New Wave movement of the 1960s, you’ve seen homages to them, both intentional and subconscious, in the works of Quentin Tarantino and other avant-garde directors.

Godard, now 74, has been making films non-stop for 45 years, and “Notre Musique” shows he has not lost his flair for experimentation — that, or he’s simply made so many movies that “normal” bores him. Nonetheless, being a pioneer doesn’t give you a free pass. “Notre Musique” is an impenetrably ponderous, smarty-pants rumination on war (among other things), the very sort of film for which the term “artsy-fartsy” was devised. The only people I can imagine enjoying it are hard-core Godardites who have convinced themselves that they love everything he does.

The film is divided into three chapters, called “kingdoms”: hell, purgatory and paradise. The first is nothing more than several minutes of war footage, some real and some from movies, with discordant piano tinkling serving as punctuation. “Purgatory” and “paradise” are a little more straightforward, at least insofar as they have characters and a bit of a story, showing a literary conference in Sarajevo at which various people (including Godard himself, as himself) wax deep on matters of war, racism, death, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and so forth. Occasionally, some American Indians wander into the picture to speak in measured tones about the injustices they’ve suffered at the hands of the White Man.

Godard enjoys commenting on cinema itself almost as much as he enjoys commenting on humanity, and some of what he does here is interesting to me as a film buff: the observations on Howard Hawks’ work (“His Girl Friday”), the interpolation of movie clips with news footage, the fact that the whole thing is structured in so unapologetically obscure a fashion.

But in general, it is TOO obscure to be anything less than a lot of work for a person to sit through. Slogging through the references, philosophies and questions that comprise the film may be possible, but to what end? Even once you’ve sorted through it, I don’t know how much sense it will make.

Paris Hilton is a skank, but that’s beside the point.

0

The Fox network recently aired a bonus episode of “The Simple Life,” the show where Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie go from place to place, humiliating others and, if they had any sense of shame, themselves. The promos for this broadcast called it “a lost episode” of the series, adding that it contained footage that “we weren’t allowed to show you.”

Now, the series just aired this past summer. How did they manage to lose an episode already? It’s not like it’s a show from the ’50s, and all the tapes were destroyed in a fire. It’s from June! Frankly, if it truly had gotten lost, I would consider that a blemish on Fox’s reputation, not something to brag about.

And it contains footage they “weren’t allowed” to show us the first time? I don’t know all the ins and outs of the television industry, but I’m pretty sure that whatever circumstances existed that would have prevented something from being aired four months ago still prevail today.

It’s all just hype, of course. No episodes were “lost,” and they’re not showing us anything now that they COULDN’T air during the summer. It’s the network’s way of trying to convince us that a half-hour of outtakes and leftover footage is something SPECIAL, rather than the time-filler it really is.

But I wonder: do they actually fool anyone with this? Are TV audiences that gullible? I suppose some people must be. The fact that “The Simple Life” aired in the first place is proof of that. But I’m heartened to see that the “lost” episode in question finished almost last in the ratings for its time slot. So maybe there’s hope after all.

Must-Not-See TV

0

At first I thought all the uproar last week wasn’t because ABC aired “Saving Private Ryan,” but because it aired “Shaving Ryan’s Privates.” Then I realized I didn’t really think that, and I just wanted to make that joke. Then I was deeply ashamed.

Ever since Janet Jackson showed her off-putting, talentless breast to the nation during the Super Bowl and got CBS fined hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Federal Communications Commission, all the broadcasters have been skittish. Everyone’s afraid of getting in trouble with the FCC. Shots of naked butts are down 80 percent on “NYPD Blue,” PBS made Big Bird put some pants on, and Ted Koppel is no longer permitted to end “Nightline” by saying, “Good night, m*****-f*****s!” Even BBC-America had to cover up the faces of the ugly, ugly British people it shows. It’s crazy, I tells you! Crazy!

So in this atmosphere of paranoia, it is no surprise that some ABC affiliates were afraid to go along with the network’s planned broadcast of “Saving Private Ryan” on Veterans Day. The film contains a good many cuss words, not to mention its legendary opening sequence in which dozens of soldiers are killed in a variety of ways that are funny when Freddy Krueger does it but not when the Germans do it (which is sort of a double standard, but what can you do?).

ABC aired the film, also unedited, in 2001 and 2002 and got no trouble from the FCC. But things have changed now. Some things that used to be OK are no longer OK, thanks to Ms. Jackson’s mammilla, and the network affiliates were a-feared. The FCC, helpful as always, refused to say beforehand whether or not showing the film would be punishable, apparently unable to know what it thinks until outraged members of the community tell it what it thinks.

So about one-third of ABC affiliates chickened out and refused to show the film. When I read this, I thought, “That’s silly. They’re being paranoid for nothing! Who’s going to complain about showing ‘Saving Private Ryan’ on Veterans Day? And even if people did complain, there’s no way the FCC would take them seriously!”

Well, as usual, I had no idea what I was talking about. The very next morning, the uber-ultra-mega-conservative American Family Association complained to the FCC about the previous night’s “indecent” broadcast and called for fines to be levied against the offending stations. The FCC dutifully listened, and seems to be giving the complaints more credence than usual, all because of this new atmosphere of over-cautiousness.

Now, it’s not that I, as some people do, consider “Saving Private Ryan” to be totally the most bestest and awesomest movie ever. I recall my thoughts upon first watching it to be about like this:

“Man, war sure is awful…. OK, I get it, war is terrible…. OK! I believe you! KNOCK IT OFF!!… Oh, for heaven’s sake, there’s NO CALL FOR DECAPITATIONS! I GET IT! I’M SORRY! I’LL NEVER START ANOTHER WAR AS LONG AS I LIVE!!… FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY, MAKE IT STOP!!”

(Also, I was on a date, and we were holding hands, so it was kind of weird.)

Anyway, it’s the sort of movie I “respect” more than I “enjoy,” and I am in no hurry to watch it again. Which is why, when it aired on Veterans Day, I didn’t watch it. I didn’t mind that ABC was showing it; I just chose not to patronize ABC that particular night. There are six other nights of the week on which I can watch ABC.

Of course, I don’t have children, so I can’t exactly relate to how parents’ groups feel. Their position is that such things should not be broadcast over the public (i.e., non-cable) airwaves during prime-time hours because children might see them. They have a point: TV isn’t like a cineplex, where children can theoretically be barred from entering certain films. If it’s on broadcast television, it’s available to everyone. But while I get that it’s impossible to monitor your kids 24 hours a day, at the same time, I think it should be fairly easy to detect if they’re watching a movie on TV that is THREE HOURS LONG. They might be able to sneak a five-minute peek at Cinemax when your back is turned, but a three-hour film? And one that would probably be boring to them anyway? I think most parents are competent enough to get a handle on that.

Even if “Saving Private Ryan” were indecent — that is, if the violence and language were completely gratuitous and the film’s social value did not outweigh its harsh content — airing it on ABC would be a victimless crime. No one has to watch it, and parents can keep their kids away from it. And even if children do tune into ABC and get an eyeful of severed limbs, what’s the result? They cry? They have nightmares? One airing of “Saving Private Ryan” on Veterans Day will not turn our nation’s children into desensitized sociopaths. That’s what video games are for.

If the FCC does impose fines against the stations that aired the film, it will be the signal that the FCC as it is currently configured has ceased to be useful. It will be in good company, of course; the MPAA, which determines movie ratings, reached that point years ago. But I’m hopeful that the FCC will dismiss the complaints of the activist groups and use a little common sense when it decides what’s decent and what’s not. The fact that Paris Hilton is allowed to cavort and bray on public airwaves without censure is surely an indication that the FCC and I have very different ideas of what constitutes “obscenity.”

National Treasure

0

Despite its obvious desire to be a Generic Summer Blockbuster, “National Treasure” has only one huge explosion, a single brief car chase, and just a smattering of gunfire. This restraint goes a long way, actually; the film isn’t as loud or annoying as most of its bombastic blockbuster brethren. It’s not any smarter than those movies, either, though, and releasing it in November instead of July does nothing to convince me otherwise. It’s fun and occasionally amusing and it didn’t give me a headache. That’s not the sort of endorsement that gets you quoted in the ads, but it’s the best I can muster.

If you have read “The Da Vinci Code,” you already know the basic plot of “National Treasure.” The series of hidden clues and secret-society skulduggery has been confined specifically to America rather than all over Europe, but the premise is the same: Indiana Jones-ish historians and treasure-hunters go in search of a legendary mass of wealth (not the Holy Grail, but a big pile of gold and artifacts), led by clues that the Founding Fathers hid in plain sight in such locations as the Declaration of Independence.

Nicolas Cage, doing his mildly insane shtick that entertained us in such large, dumb movies as “Con Air,” “Face/Off” and “The Rock,” plays Benjamin Franklin Gates, a man whose life-long passion has been tracking down some treasure that supposedly changed hands constantly before finally being secreted somewhere by colonial Americans. The Masons are involved, and the Knights Templar, and of course Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Declaration-signers.

Ben comes to believe that there is a map hidden on the back of the Declaration of Independence, a belief that is met with great skepticism by National Archives director Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), who has actually SEEN the back of the Declaration and knows there’s no map on it. Ah, but it might have been written invisible ink, Ben says. Abigail is unmoved.

The problem is that Ben isn’t the only one privy to this information. His former associate Ian Howe (Sean Bean), who we knew right away would turn out to be a bad guy because he has a British accent, wants the treasure map, too, and unlike Ben, he doesn’t care if he has to destroy the Declaration to get it. (Lousy Brits never really took that document seriously in the first place, you know.) Ian plans to steal it from the National Archives, but since everyone thinks that’s impossible, no one cares when Ben warns them. Ben’s plan? To steal it first, thus protecting the document from Ian and also giving himself a chance to look for the invisible map on the back of it.

If “The Da Vinci Code” is the best book you’ve ever read, then I suppose “National Treasure” will be your favorite movie, too. They both feature highly complicated, rather clever plots, woven into a story brimming with stupid dialogue. “National Treasure,” directed with zealous energy by Jon Turteltaub (“Phenomenon,” “Cool Runnings”), is very smart at its core, even a little educational — do you know the name of the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, or how Manhattan’s central thoroughfare came to be called “Broadway”? — but it wears the clothes of an absurd Jerry Bruckheimer production.

Perhaps there is some acknowledgment that the basic premise of hidden clues pointing to an unimaginable cache of treasure is pure fantasy, and that no matter how much real history it’s couched in, it’s still going to be a little silly when you think about it. Which is why the movie encourages you, and I also encourage you, not to think about it. Cage is fun, and Justin Bartha gets off a few good one-liners as his wise-cracking, history-ignorant partner. There is a startling lack of imagination in places — Ben’s obligatory romance with Abigail, the fact that here is perhaps the one-millionth British character in a movie to be named “Ian” — but don’t focus on that. Focus on the fast-paced, appealingly goofy narrative, and dream about what YOU would do with all that treasure.

The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie

0

I’m one of the unenlightened souls who have never gotten around to watching the “SpongeBob SquarePants” TV cartoons that so many kids and adults are fond of these days, but now that I’ve seen the movie, I may have to start watching it, at least in small doses. Is it always so energetically merry, so unabashedly, single-mindedly silly? I’m not sure I could take it on a regular basis. Watching 82 minutes of it in a theater made me as giddy and hyper as if I’d eaten a pound of cotton candy and washed it down with crack.

SpongeBob SquarePants (voice of Tom Kenny), as you know, is a man-child sponge who lives in a pineapple under the sea, sort of the Pee-Wee Herman of the ocean. His best friend is Patrick (Bill Fagerbakke), a rather dumb starfish. Others have made speculations about these two, but I shall not.

As the film opens, SpongeBob is hoping to be made manager of the new Krusty Krab restaurant that is opening next door to the Krusty Krab restaurant in which he already works. But there is precious little time to worry about such matters, because the evil Plankton (Doug Lawrence), who runs the Chum Bucket across the street, has plans to steal Mr. Krab’s recipe for his famed Krabby Patty sandwich and run him out of business. To that end, he steals the crown of King Neptune (Jeffrey Tambor) and frames Mr. Krab for it. Before Mr. Krab is executed for the crime, it is up to SpongeBob and Patrick to journey to the dangerous Shell City, whence no traveler has ever returned, and retrieve the stolen crown.

The movie is crammed with the indefatigable lunacy of a Bugs Bunny cartoon, with everything from subtle pop-cultural references to funny voices to good old-fashioned cross-dressing played for laughs. It feels completely guileless, innocent even, but with subversive wit lurking just beneath the surface. (The images of SpongeBob’s ice cream-induced “hangover” are among the funniest, cleverest animation I’ve seen all year.)

At the preview screening I attended, the kids loved it, but I heard the adults laughing a lot more often. Kids aren’t even going to know who David Hasselhoff is, let alone why it’s funny that our heroes should meet him on a beach. But they will find it funny when he propels himself through the water and SpongeBob and Patrick ride him like a jet ski. I mean, who wouldn’t? Find it funny, I mean. Not ride David Hasselhoff like a jet ski.

Bad Education (Spanish)

0

The acclaimed Spanish film director Pedro Almodóvar channels another legend, Alfred Hitchcock, in “Bad Education,” a ribald story of desire, lust and obsession. Hitch knew these topics well, of course, though the social mores of his day didn’t allow him to be very explicit about it.

Times are different now, and Almodóvar (never one to shy away from explicitness) can and does give us all the sexual details. What makes the film intriguing, and more to the point Hitchcockian, is the careful way he reveals the facts, and people’s identities, and their relationships to each other. The film is not as straightforward as it first appears; it is film noir at its noirest, and the leggy dame who slinks into the man’s office to start trouble is a transvestite.

It begins in 1980 in the Madrid office of filmmaker Enrique Goded (Fele Martinez). He is scanning the newspapers, looking for stories that might make interesting films, when he is visited by a ghost from his past. It is Ignacio (Gael Garcia Bernal), who now calls himself Angel, with whom Enrique went to Catholic school as a youth. Ignacio and Enrique were each other’s first love back in school, but have had no contact since then. Flashbacks coming later in the film will tell us more of what happened to them.

Ignacio — er, Angel — gives Enrique a story he’s written, a sort of autobiography with some embellishment, which we see enacted in the cinema of Enrique’s mind as he reads it. In the story, Angel performs as a drag queen named Zahara and occasionally uses his pretty face to hook up with men for purposes of robbing them. In his spare time, he confronts a priest from his old school (Daniel Gimenez Cacho) with a bit of blackmail, but does so as Zahara, telling the priest that Ignacio is dead.

Enrique knows a good film idea when he reads one, so he offers to write and direct a movie based on Angel’s story. One thing he does not stop to consider is that the author of an autobiographical story in which the protagonist is a hustler and a blackmailer might not be the best person to go into business with. But oh well.

Angel is thrilled to have his work turned into a movie, and he and Enrique begin a tentative friendship once again. He insists he wants to play the lead character, but Enrique tells him he’s too manly to play a transvestite — even though it was Angel whom Enrique imagined playing Zahara when he read the story, and he looked pretty good as a drag queen (or at least he did in Enrique’s imagination). Enrique pictured Angel’s sex scene pretty vividly, too, and continues to lust after the real-life Angel, the grown-up version of the boy he loved during his own boyhood. But Angel seems different now; something is askew.

To reveal any more of the plot would be both unfair and unwise, because I’m sure I would tell it wrong anyway. It becomes labyrinthine, full of twists and surprises, with people’s motivations and actions being second-guessed.

Through it all, Almodóvar keeps a steady hand on the proceedings, directing with his usual confidence and style, apparently fully capable of taking on favorable comparisons to Hitchcock. Garcia Bernal and Martinez both give smooth performances, though it is probably the former who will garner the most attention for his extra duty as a cross-dresser, a gay man and a zealous writer. Garcia Bernal’s characters in films such as “Amores Perros,” “Y Tu Mamá¡ Tambien” and “The Motorcycle Diaries” often have an angelic soulfulness to them. In this case, he’s actually playing one named Angel, and wouldn’t you know it, this is the time the name turns out to be ironic.

“Scrubs” hotline

1

If you watch “Scrubs” (which you should, since it’s second only to “Arrested Development” for being the Funniest Show Currently on Television), you know from last week’s episode that Turk just changed his cell phone number to 916-CALL-TURK (well, “CALL-TUR,” but he hopes people will dial the “K,” too).

Get this: If you call that number, it actually goes to the “Scrubs” set, and actors and crew members are actually answering it and talking to fans! I just called and talked to Scott (I believe it must be Scott Harris), a second assistant director. Word has it the cast members have been answering the phone, too, and that the executive producer even called them in on Thursday and Friday, when they weren’t shooting, just to answer the “Scrubs” Hotline!

How awesome is that? Scott was very friendly to me, asked my name and where I was calling from, and when I said, “I’ll let you get back to work,” he said, “Well, do you have any other questions about the show or anything?” It was like he wasn’t just answering the phone because his boss told him to for a crazy publicity stunt, but because he actually wanted to talk to fans about the show.

So if you’re a fan, call 916-CALL-TURK, and talk about the show with the people who work on it. You don’t see the jerks at “CSI” doing that.

Whacrilegious

0

Today’s topic: Are all Christians crazy? Short answer: No. (Long answer follows.)

As you know from being a human and living on Earth, some people are mentally unsound. Normally, this is not a problem. They’ll spout weird opinions or do eccentric things, but they don’t hurt anyone, and they provide society with entertainment. Whether it’s the ranting hobo who lives in the park, or Angelina Jolie, these harmless lunatics are part of what makes life interesting.

When mental instability is combined with religious fervor, however, it can lead to trouble, as evidenced by two men who recently found themselves in the news for being 1) Christian and 2) insane.

First we have the widely reported story from last month of a man who leapt into the lion’s den at the Taipei (Taiwan) Zoo in an attempt to convert the lions to Christianity. The man is reported to have shouted, “Jesus will save you!” to the two lions who lived there. He seemed to believe Jesus would save him, too, because he dared the lions to “Come bite me!,” whereupon one of the lions did in fact bite him, an outcome the man apparently did not foresee. Lucky for him, the lion didn’t like Chinese food. (KA-ZING!)

Now, any fool can tell you that lions eat Christians regularly. (Hello? A little place called the Colosseum? Ring any bells?) I suppose the man’s minimal thought process centered around the Old Testament story of Daniel, who also broke into a zoo in Taiwan and attempted to convert lions. I hope the man’s faith is not shattered now that he realizes that when you do insane things, sometimes God just lets you do them. He’s not Superman, for crying out loud, flying around rescuing people from their own idiocy. If He were, He’d never get anything done.

Next we come to evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, a man so crazy and so full of himself that every few years, he says something repulsive just to get himself back into the public eye. Somehow, these repulsive things translate into dollars for him and his ministry. The preachers who have been relying on tired old messages of hope and peace should take note.

Swaggart was a minister for the Assemblies of God Church for decades, and has been a TV preacher since the ’80s. But he didn’t come to the attention of people who don’t live in trailer parks until 1987, when, as you’ll recall, all the TV evangelists were working full-time at committing adultery, taking only the occasional break to accuse their fellow TV evangelists of it.

Was Jimmy Swaggart the one with the wife who wore all the makeup? No, that was Jim Bakker. Was he the one who said if he didn’t raise $10 million by a certain time, God would kill him? No that was Oral Roberts. Jimmy Swaggart was the one who, in March 1987, called Jim Bakker “a cancer in the body of Christ” for committing adultery. A year later, Swaggart was sobbing on TV, begging forgiveness because he had — you guessed it — committed adultery. “I have sinned against you” was his famous catchphrase, “you” in this case being pretty much everybody, but mostly God.

When the Assemblies of God sought to punish him by banning him from preaching on TV for two years, he said, “If I do not return to the pulpit this weekend, millions of people will go to hell.”

In 1984, he said, “Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest,” a statement so absurd that even the guy who jumped into the lion pit was like, “Man, that’s crazy.”

In his TV broadcast of Nov. 10, 2002, Swaggart called the prophet Muhammad a “sex deviant,” “pervert” and “pedophile.” He added that airports ought to keep an eye on all airline passengers “with a diaper on their head and a fan-belt around their waist.”

I give you this background so you will know the sort of ignorant buffoon we’re dealing with here. (Hint: If you make your living telling people how to be righteous, don’t do unrighteous things like commit adultery and spread hate.) In his show on Sept. 12 of this year, he made these very insightful comments about gay marriage:

“This utter, absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. (Pause for purposes of comedic timing.) I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. (Laughs and cheers from the audience; whistling sounds caused by air rushing past missing teeth.) … And I’m going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.” (More laughs and cheers; sound of tobacco being spit; pistols firing.)

Now, I get that he’s joking. I know that in the unlikely event that a gay man ever did look lustfully upon Jimmy Swaggart — they’re gay, Jim, not blind — he wouldn’t ACTUALLY kill him. A man like Swaggart has millions of God’s dollars. He could hire someone to do it. But he probably wouldn’t even do that. It’s a joke, that’s all.

The trouble is, Swaggart preaches to a lot of people who are, how shall I say it, stupid. And even among his really, really smart viewers, both of them, there are surely some who are prone to bigotry and violence who do not need subtle nudgings in that direction. Even if your conscious mind gets that it’s only a joke, your subconscious picks up the underlying idea, which in this case is that Jimmy Swaggart is not gay and doesn’t have any respect for people who are. It’s the sort of joke you can make in a small group, among people you know, where it’s OK to be appalling because they know you don’t mean it. But on TV? To millions of people? When you supposedly represent the Lord? Not a good idea.

Confused by all the uproar surrounding his “kill-any-gay-who-leers-at-me” comment, Swaggart eventually sort of offered a quasi-apology, kind of. He said, “If it’s an insult — I certainly didn’t think it was, but if they are offended, then I certainly offer an apology.” So with that heartfelt message, the gays got over it and went back to their full-time job of threatening marriage and destroying the family. (They thank Britney Spears for her help, by the way.)

It’s not fair to blame Christianity itself for the lunacy of men like Lion Guy and Jimmy Swaggart. Many misdeeds have been done in the NAME of Christianity over the years, but they run contrary to what Christianity actually represents, which is love and forgiveness. Religion doesn’t make these people crazy; it merely gives their craziness an avenue to express itself. Lion Guy probably just needs medication. And the best thing Jimmy Swaggart could do is convert to Judaism, because at least then there’d be the chance something could go wrong during the circumcision, and he’d never have to worry about committing adultery again.

Desperate networks

0

Entertainment Weekly reports that due to the success of “Desperate Housewives,” the networks have some 20 prime-time soaps in the works for next year. Then comes a dumb quote from a TV agent that I knew was coming: “When you see ‘Housewives’ growing in the ratings each week, it shows the entire community that there is an appetite for female, character-driven shows.”

No, moron. It shows that there is an appetite for GOOD shows.

Every time there’s a new hit series, the TV execs decide that means audiences want that type of show. “Friends” made waves, so obviously people are clamoring for sitcoms about unmarried 20-somethings, right? And when “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” was huge, that was clearly a sign that audiences hungered for game shows. TV execs figured people wanted these types of programs SO MUCH that they’d even watch bad ones. So everyone rushed to make imitations of the popular shows, and almost all of them failed. Now everyone will repeat their past failures by trying to duplicate the success of “Desperate Housewives” via more whimsical prime-time female-driven soap operas.

Don’t they get it? Audiences don’t sit around thinking, “Gee, I wish the prime-time soap opera would come back into vogue!” Or, “It sure has been a while since there’s been a good sitcom about a fat, working-class husband with a skinny, pretty wife.”

No, what people think is, “I wish there were more GOOD shows on TV, instead of just crap.” And: “I wish all the crappy shows didn’t have a dozen other crappy shows exactly like them.” It’s not that people like “comedies” or “dramas” or whatever other classifications you want to make. People will watch anything, regardless of genre, as long as it’s good.

Look at the current top 20 shows, ignoring specials or sports: “CSI,” “Desperate Housewives,” “Without a Trace,” “Survivor,” “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” “Lost,” “Cold Case,” “60 Minutes,” “ER,” “The Apprentice,” “Two and a Half Men,” “Everybody Loves Raymond,” “NCIS,” “Law & Order,” “Law & Order: SVU.” You’ve got six crime dramas, three reality shows, two sitcoms, a soap opera, a news program, a medical drama, and an adventure drama. That’s an extremely wide range of tastes. The only thing they all have in common is that they’re quality shows. Well, except “Two and a Half Men,” but there’s always an anomaly.

Seed of Chucky

0

The opening credits play over a computer-animated sequence in which many sperm cells swim through dark tunnels in search of an egg. Immediately after this, an ugly living doll kills a family, whereupon he wets his pants. No, it’s not the new Merchant-Ivory film! It’s “Seed of Chucky,” and they weren’t kidding about that “seed” thing.

The fifth film in the series that began with “Child’s Play,” about a doll inhabited by the soul of a serial killer, continues the trend begun somewhere along the line of focusing more on laughs than on scares. (At this point I have seen only the first and fifth films, so I am unable to pinpoint exactly when the balance between yuks and yucks shifted.) “Seed of Chucky” has more than a few laughs, usually campy and/or grotesque in subject matter — John Waters plays a small role — and not a single legitimate scare. Some victims are dispatched in creative, disgusting fashion, though, which is always a plus for fans of the genre.

It is some years since the last film, in which Chucky (voice of Brad Dourif) acquired a wife (voice of Jennifer Tilly). They have gone into some sort of hibernation, their inanimate forms now being animated electronically by a Hollywood studio to make, ironically, a film about a murderous living doll. When their long-lost son shows up, a gender-confused thing named either Glen or Glenda (voice of Billy Boyd), he reads an inscription on a talisman that awakens Chucky and Tiffany, who immediately yank the cables out of their backs and show they don’t need any special effects geeks to help them move around and kill people, THANK you very much.

Glen/Glenda, a highly amusing Tiny Tim-style English urchin, is appalled at his parents’ behavior and soon convinces Tiffany to repress her killer instincts. Chucky vows to go straight, too, but he doesn’t try very hard, and he wishes his son (or whatever) would join the family tradition.

Meanwhile, Chucky and Tiffany continue their ongoing quest to transfer their souls back into human bodies. The vessels they’ve chosen are the rapper-turned-director Redman and … Jennifer Tilly, both playing themselves with remarkable good-sportedness. (Not surprisingly, Tiffany thinks Jennifer Tilly has a beautiful voice.) There’s also an attempt to impregnate Jennifer Tilly with Chucky’s seed, but the less said about that, the better.

It is hard to sustain a feature film when your main characters are puppets. The Muppets did it by being endearing; “Team America: World Police” did it by being hilarious. “Seed of Chucky” doesn’t even try for “endearing,” obviously, and “hilarious” isn’t quite the word I’d use to describe the film. It’s funny, certainly, at times, and there are even some hints of artful direction from Don Mancini (who has written every installment, including this one, but has never directed until now). You have to admire a director who will include overt references to both Hitchcock and Ed Wood in the same movie.

But it is, after all, a movie about dolls that kill people, and is thus inherently silly. The more the film embraces its true nature, the better it is. When it goes for the gore and the scares, it’s as if it knows it won’t get away with it. The film is about as good as could be expected, considering it’s the fifth installment and its premise is absurd.

After the Sunset

0

In a perfect world, there would be a place to send actors who have outlived their usefulness, some sort of home or ranch where they could live out their days peacefully without trying to wedge themselves into movies where they don’t belong. Pierce Brosnan would live there, and so would Woody Harrelson, and “After the Sunset” wouldn’t exist. Ah, what a world that would be.

But in our imperfect world, Brosnan keeps playing the same role, merely changing the character’s name from James Bond to Thomas Crown or whatever. He is always smooth and rakish, always well-dressed, always a ladies man of the highest order, and often very boring.

Then there’s Harrelson, whose best work has been in sitcoms — as Woody on “Cheers,” of course, but also in his guest stint as Grace’s boyfriend on “Will & Grace” a couple years ago — and seldom in film. He has a dopey, plastic-faced quality to him, with a dumb grin that begs for smacking, and his performances are nearly always one-dimensional.

So here’s “After the Sunset,” a by-the-numbers jewel-heist caper about a retired thief who comes out of retirement for one last job, and also about the dogged lawman who relentlessly pursues him. I hate to keep harping on this point week after week, but do the people who make movies not realize that most of us have seen movies before and are therefore not impressed when the same formulas keep popping up again and again? Do they think they’re being original? Or do they know they’re being lazy and simply don’t care?

Brosnan is Max Burdett, the world’s foremost jewel thief, now retired with his girlfriend and partner Lola (Salma Hayek) on a Caribbean island. The lawman, Stan Lloyd (Harrelson), for whom Max is his Moby Dick, has followed them here because of an interesting fact: A cruise ship housing the enormous Napoleon Diamond (not to be confused with Napoleon Dynamite) will be stopping at this very island soon. Surely a sticky-fingered fellow like Max can’t resist a chance at this allegedly un-stealable item, and now Stan can be there to catch him at last.

Max keeps insisting he’s retired, though, both to Stan and to Lola. He tells the local kingpin (Don Cheadle) the same thing when said kingpin tries to hire him to steal the diamond. But we know the siren song of thievery will call out to him. The only question is when, and will he get away with it? (So I guess that’s two questions, sorry.)

The screenplay, by Paul Zbyszewski and Craig Rosenberg, both novices, is short on originality but occasionally makes up for it with the sort of glib, coy dialogue between adversaries that can make a movie like this fun. Max and Stan are only enemies in philosophy; personally, they really have nothing against each other, and the film occasionally makes good use of that fact, letting them commiserate when their respective girlfriends get mad at them for obsessing over their quarry (Stan’s pursuit of Max, Max’s pursuit of the diamond). There is potential for good comedy there, exploring the relationship between two men who, were it not for their divergent professions, would probably be drinking buddies.

But the film squanders most of those opportunities, instead giving us shtick like the bit where two men fall asleep on the same bed and wake up cuddling, har har. The director is Brett Ratner, whose excellent work in “Red Dragon” was apparently a fluke, since all of his other films — “Money Talks,” “Rush Hour,” “Rush Hour 2” and “The Family Man” — have been lame-humored misfires. If there’s a place for obsolete directors in my perfect world, maybe down the lane from the home for unnecessary actors, then he can go there.

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

0

For fans of “Bridget Jones’s Diary,” the sequel, “The Edge of Reason” (whatever THAT means), will feel like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a good picture. It falls into the traps that imperil almost all movie sequels: re-staging the same key moments, over-doing the things that were subtle the first time, and re-making all the same mistakes.

The hair-pulling sissy fight between Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) and Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant) was one of the first film’s high points — so why not have them fight again in the sequel! (To be fair, it IS funny a second time.) Bridget (Renee Zellweger) was occasionally tongue-tied around Mark before; so now that they’re dating, let’s have her say the wrong thing ALL the time! And remember how the first film dragged out its obvious resolution for five minutes longer than it needed to? In the sequel, the same obvious resolution is dragged out for 15 minutes! Hooray!

Bridget and Mark have been dating for six weeks now, their relationship defined by her constantly saying obnoxious, rude things in public settings and then wondering why Mark is miffed with her. They break up, I don’t know, maybe a hundred times over the course of the film, and it NEVER GETS OLD. (Until the second time.)

In between all that, Bridget does a lot of wacky things like skydiving, going skiing, accidentally taking drugs, and going to prison in Thailand. She also runs into Daniel Cleaver again, as caddish and glib as ever, just as she’s on one of her post-Mark rebounds.

Hugh Grant, it must be said, is the single most entertaining thing about the film. He’s looking every day of his 44 years — a life of whores and stammering has aged him, apparently — but he remains a charming, rakish presence, perfectly suited to this type of role.

Firth, of course, can do this kind of thing in his sleep, and his character seems flummoxed most of the time by Bridget’s behavior. You wonder what he even sees in her, so ditzy, outlandish and awkward is she.

Zellweger herself is not as lively or committed as she was the first time around, and the film matches her step for mediocre step. It all just feels so … obligatory. There is no new character development, and the screenplay — written by the same crew as the first film and adapted from Helen Fielding’s novel — is only weakly funny. If this were the first film in the series rather than the second, there wouldn’t be a second.

The Polar Express

0

Here’s what clout can get you: If anyone other than Robert Zemeckis and Tom Hanks were involved in making a film version of “The Polar Express,” no one would suspect for a minute that it would be any good. The children’s book it’s based on is something like 30 pages long — far too short to be adapted into a feature — and it has no story to speak of. (Boy doubts Santa Claus; boy gets on magic train that takes him to North Pole on Christmas Eve; boy believes.) If anyone else were doing this, you’d hear about it and say, “A movie version of ‘The Polar Express’? Computer-animated? Wow, that’s gonna suck.”

But since it’s Zemeckis and Hanks, we take notice. We give them the benefit of the doubt. We know it’s rare for either of them to make a truly BAD movie, and their joint efforts (“Forrest Gump” and “Cast Away”) were outstanding. So, like a skeptical kid caught up in the magic of Christmas Eve, we start to believe. “Maybe this movie is gonna be OK after all,” we think. “Maybe….”

And then, like the same kid sneaking downstairs to find Dad eating the cookies left out for Santa, we realize we were fools to ever believe that such a thing was possible. Screw you, Tom Hanks! Screw you, Robert Zemeckis! You made a dull, un-magical film!

Zemeckis, a special-effects guy from way back, had his team create new technology just to make a mediocre movie. The film is computer-animated, in a sense, with real actors’ motions being captured digitally and converted into animation. The result is that everything looks very realistic, as long as it stands still. Once it starts moving — and this applies to people, trains and animals — it looks fake and mechanical. People’s faces look especially creepy, like robots trying to approximate human behavior.

It’s hard to identify with characters who seem alien, and that problem is exacerbated by a screenplay that gives them nothing to do. Adapted from Chris Van Allsburg’s picture book by Zemeckis and frequent collaborator William Broyles Jr., the film stays true to the book without adding a lot of subplots or diversions. I admire the faithfulness, I suppose, but let’s remember: The book has about five minutes’ worth of text. The movie merely stretches it out. So now, where the book might simply say, “And Santa flew off into the night,” we have a spectacular visual of Santa flying off into the night … and it lasts for two minutes.

Our hero, whose name we do not learn, is a young boy whose belief in Santa Claus is beginning to wane. On Christmas Eve, a magical train pulls up outside his house and the conductor (Tom Hanks, who is also the narrator and a few other characters) invites him aboard. Where’s the train going? “Why, the North Pole, of course!” is the wonderfully Hanks-ian reply.

On the train, Hero Boy meets Lonely Boy (Peter Scolari), Hero Girl (Nona Gaye) and Know-It-All (Eddie Deezen), all fellow travelers on this crazy journey, presumably all Santa-doubters, too. As the train chugs northward, Hero Boy and friends get into a variety of train-related adventures: losing tickets, falling out windows, skidding across ice, encountering large herds of caribou, that sort of thing, all of it rendered grandly and beautifully and without any heart whatsoever.

There are also a couple musical numbers, including the singularly generic pop tune “When Christmas Comes to Town,” plaintively sung by Hero Girl and Lonely Boy (well, by two singers the producers brought in to sing for them) in a manner suggesting someone really, really wants the song to be nominated for an Oscar.

But then there is Tom Hanks. I caught “Saturday Night Live’s” “Best of Tom Hanks” rerun last week, and it occurred to me exactly why he’s so popular: enthusiasm. He committed to every character in every sketch in that show with abandon — not reckless abandon, but confident, skillful, cheerful abandon. Yeah, yeah, there’s the Method Acting stuff like gaining and losing all that weight for “Cast Away”; obviously that takes dedication. But the dedication that audiences really respond to is the commitment an actor makes IN THE MOMENT, on the screen. When Hanks plays a role — and he plays several in “The Polar Express” — he doesn’t just phone it in. He gives it the full weight of his intelligence, energy and talent. You just enjoy watching him.

Which is another reason “The Polar Express” doesn’t quite work: The stilted animation can’t keep up with Hanks’ effervescence. The Pixar folks managed it in the “Toy Story” films, but here the medium is too weighty to match the buoyancy in Hanks’ performances. Besides, all the vivacity in the world can’t help a movie that has no story.

Roger Hunsaker, Zombie President

0

My fellow Americans, I am honored to stand before you today as your newly elected president. I accept the concessions of President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. It was a hard-fought, divisive election, often marked by bloodshed, and I am proud to have emerged victorious and, for want of a better word, alive. I, Roger Hunsaker, vow to live up to the enormous expectations placed upon me as the first zombie president of the United States.

I know the prejudice I had to overcome to get to this point. Many Americans opposed the idea of having a president who was undead. They feared I would take my orders directly from the leaders of the zombie community and ignore the needs of the average, delicious American. Words like “monster” and “brain-eater” were bandied about — hate speech, pure and simple — and I won’t try to tell you it didn’t sting a little. And the torches carried by mobs of angry townspeople as I was chased from city to city on my campaign tour? Those stung even more.

But I remained confident in the essential goodness of the American people. I knew that when it came down to it, just the citizens and their ballots alone in the voting booth, my legions of undead waiting outside the polling locations to summarily devour all who opposed me, that the votes would be cast for me. And sure enough, when the votes were tallied, more than 80 percent of those cast by persons who were still alive and that were not smeared in blood had my name on them. Roger Hunsaker, first Zombie Party president of the United States!

My opponents wondered if a zombie ought to lead this nation. Senator Kerry said, and I quote, “I do not believe a zombie can do the job, except for the times when I do believe he can do the job.” And President Bush said, “Zombies is bad, real bad, and we doesn’t need none of them no how,” and then he fired pistols into the air. I respect both of these men, but I believe they underestimate my leadership abilities. Who leads a massive army of reanimated corpses that were brought back to life after a nuclear accident five years ago? Who has single-handedly torn the flesh from literally dozens of humans and devoured said flesh without wavering or second-guessing or seeking U.N. approval? I have, my friends. I have. I defy Kerry or Bush to point to anything in their individual records that even approaches my accomplishments in the areas of organ-harvesting or brain-sucking.

Do I have flaws? Of course I do. I am only human, or at least I was when I was alive. Sometimes my temper is quick, as when, during the second televised debate, Senator Kerry criticized my domestic policy and I tore his arm off with my teeth. Do I regret this? Yes. I ought to have done him the courtesy of removing his non-writing arm. And I ought to have at least waited until a commercial break before I began feasting on the severed limb. Dipping it in ranch dressing may have also been gratuitous.

But I believe swift, unambiguous action is sometimes called for in politics. Now that I have been elected, I will follow through on my promise to find, capture and devour Osama bin Laden. I will personally eat him, that is my pledge to you. I will also eat anyone we find in his immediate vicinity, as well as, possibly, members of the outgoing cabinet and certain members of Congress. The insurgents in Iraq who have rebelled against our presence there? They, too, will soon find themselves brain-less and blood-less, as U.S. military personnel are already being replaced with zombies — zombies who can get the job done. As you know, my fellow zombies and I have been in control of the U.S. military for several months already, following the pitiful attack the government made on my zombie compound outside of Denver.

I won’t lie to you, my fellow Americans. Hard times are upon us, and sacrifices must be made. Many of you did not survive the campaign, and many more will not survive my inauguration party. The handful of you who made it to the polls — stalwart, brave Americans, all — are to be commended for doing your civic duty in the face of terror and despite urgent warnings that citizens not leave their homes. The people of America have spoken in the most powerful way possible: with large-scale bombs and munitions. And that failed to destroy me and my fellow zombies. So then the people of America spoke in the second-most powerful way possible: by screaming and crying in fear while begging for their lives. And then they voted.

President Bush called me this morning from his secret underground hideout at Fox News headquarters, a heavily fortified lair in front of which the corpse of Bill O’Reilly has been placed as a means of warding off evil. (So far it has worked.) He conceded the election to me, even offering me the disputed electoral votes of Ohio, since there are no known survivors in that state anyhow. I appreciate his grace under fire, his cool manner in times of stress, and I remind him that my necromancers are even now researching ways to get around the O’Reilly curse so that I may invade the fortress and slay him.

Senator Kerry called me, too, from his home in Massachusetts. Much of what he said was unintelligible, as he was undergoing the transformation process from zombie-like human to actual zombie, the result of my biting him during the debate. He is being cared for around the clock by a team of doctors and scientists, most of whom, I presume, will not survive when the change is complete and Senator Kerry begins viciously attacking them with the sudden horrible strength of 10 men. At that point, I will extend a hand of fellowship — a left hand, of course, owing to Senator Kerry’s disability — and welcome him into my cabinet, should he desire a post there.

The time for partisanship is past. It is time to rebuild, and to unite all Americans against our common enemy: non-zombie humans. Join us now as we lurch and stagger into the future.

‘Desperate’ titles

0

ABC’s big new hit “Desperate Housewives” is an amusing, mildly trashy bit of fluff, somewhere between “The O.C.” and “Melrose Place” on the guilt-o-meter. But one of the most delightful things about it for me is something subtle: the episode titles.

The first three (after the pilot) — “Ah, But Underneath,” “Pretty Little Picture” and “Who’s That Woman” — are all titles of Stephen Sondheim songs, as I’m sure you immediately recognized. I hoped they would continue with that trend — there are a couple hundred titles to choose from, after all — but it ceased after those three episodes. Additional episodes, however, have also been song titles, by various non-Sondheim people: “Come in, Stranger” (Johnny Cash), “Running to Stand Still” (U2), “Anything You Can Do,” (from “Annie Get Your Gun”) and so on.

I wish the Sondheim thing would have continued. I would like to have seen an episode called “Cinderella at the Grave.” Because what would THAT be about?!

Alfie

0

The title character in “Alfie,” played with rakish charm by Jude Law, brags about his sex life so constantly and so single-mindedly that you begin to suspect he has never actually had sex. He’s an improbably shallow and arrogant creature, made all the more slap-worthy by how lovable he is.

Alfie, an Englishman in New York in the latest version of Bill Naughton’s play (famously made into a 1966 Michael Caine film), takes pride in his sexual conquests, and even more in his ability to remain uncommitted to any of the women involved. He flees emotional involvement, his occupation as a limo driver nicely symbolizing his transient, carefree lifestyle.

I find him loathsome. This is not particularly because of his wantonness, but because of his smarmy attitude about it, which warrants all the misfortune the screenplay can concoct for him. Happily, I can report that Alfie does indeed suffer misfortunes and that these make him re-examine his life. But I don’t feel sorry for him, and I think I’m supposed to. Oh well.

Things begin their descent for Alfie when he sleeps with the girlfriend (Nia Long) of his best friend (Omar Epps), which has the expected consequences, including pregnancy. (The girlfriend’s, not Alfie’s.) Then there is a mild health scare for Alfie that seems to be important but which only lasts for about five movie minutes, a thematic red herring that kills some time before Alfie’s REAL introspection begins.

Director Charles Shyer (who adapted the play with sitcom veteran Elaine Pope) couldn’t have wished for a better lead than Law. The man can act, first and foremost, a fact that redeems the film in its final 20 minutes and ultimately makes it worth recommending. It’s ultimately a serious-minded character drama, topped with a little comedy and randiness.

In addition, though Law will have appeared in six 2004 releases by year’s end, he has not yet made the public sick of him. His public persona is that of quiet charm, and so we are more willing to cut him some slack when he plays a character, like Alfie, who is hard to like. He is fast joining the ranks of actors who can do no wrong, actors like Tom Hanks and Steve Martin whose larger-than-life celebrityhood makes them beloved regardless of what they actually do. Law doesn’t “do” anything amazing in “Alfie.” He gives an honest, pitch-perfect performance in a film that is otherwise unremarkable.

The Incredibles

0

With each successive film, Pixar has become more advanced. Look at the original “Toy Story” — state-of-the-art and awe-inspiring in 1995 — and compare it to the latest film, the adventure comedy “The Incredibles.” “Toy Story” looks downright quaint by comparison.

But “The Incredibles” is Pixar’s most sophisticated film in other ways, too, not just technologically, but in terms of plot and character. It brilliantly duplicates the look and feel of superhero movies, while also bringing into play the complex emotions of its characters. This touch of humanity been done before, and in fact has been the hallmark of Pixar’s films — and the thing most lacking in imitations like “Shark Tale” — but never as deeply as in “The Incredibles,” a warm, funny, exciting film for which I feel more affection the more I think about it.

It is set in a retro-looking version of the present in cities like Municiberg and Metroville, where numerous superheroes work side-by-side in defeating the forces of evil that so frequently beset great metropolises like these. The heroes’ leader, if not officially then in spirit, is Mr. Incredible (voice of Craig T. Nelson), a Superman-esque do-gooder with general powers of strength and agility. He has a mild-mannered alter ego, of course, named Bob Parr, and Bob recently married a mild-mannered woman named Helen. Their little secret is that Helen is really Elastigirl (Holly Hunter), with the powers of physical elasticity implied by her name.

Alas, the modern world catches up with superdom when Mr. Incredible and friends start being the victims of lawsuits. A man claims he didn’t WANT to be saved from dying; passengers on a train say they were hurt when Mr. Incredible prevented their car from derailing; a newspaper headline wonders whether X-ray vision is an invasion of privacy. The tide of public opinion turns against the supers, and they are forced by government regulation to stop using their powers and to behave like normal citizens.

We pick up the story 15 years later. Bob is an insurance agent now, looking, with his massive chest stuffed into a shirt and tie, like a football player who suffered an injury and had to take a desk job. Helen is a housewife, taking care of their shy teenage daughter Violet (Sarah Vowell), hyperactive grade-school son Dash (Spencer Fox) and little baby Jack-Jack. The kids’ superpowers are developing naturally, but without license to practice them — superheroes aren’t even supposed to let anyone know they HAVE powers under the new laws, let alone use them — the kids are restless. Violet, especially, feels even more like a freak than teenage girls normally do.

Bob is depressed, too — he and Helen have fallen into a state of domestic tedium — until one day he is contacted by a mysterious woman named Mirage (Elizabeth Peña) who wants him to battle an artificially intelligent robotic weapon to see if it can be defeated. He gets to use his powers again, and Mirage pays him handsomely for it. Fighting new, more advanced versions of this weapon becomes a regular gig, boosting Bob’s morale — and by association that of his family — in the process. Who’s bankrolling the project and why? Bob doesn’t ask questions. And thus the trouble begins….

While Pixar’s previous films have been pretty straightforward comedies, “The Incredibles” is more accurately termed an adventure film. It is fiendishly funny when it wants to be, of course; comedy simply isn’t always the focus. There are fantastic sequences of action, mystery and suspense, all perpetrated with such a rip-roaring sense of imagination that you’d never guess the whole thing was a departure for Pixar. If it’s just a touch less … I don’t know, “instant classic” … than “Toy Story 2” or “Finding Nemo,” it’s forgivable. Even a film that is only 95 percent brilliant instead of the usual 100 percent brilliant is still pretty brilliant.

As always, the story is admirably efficient, requiring every second of its 115-minute running time, and brimming with clever references, inside jokes and a refreshing, whimsical sense of humor. The voice work is impeccable, because rather than casting big-name celebrities, Pixar casts whoever will be best for the part. You wouldn’t guess the guy from “Coach” would be perfect as an aging superhero, but then you hear him and you realize he’s ideal, his voice exactly the right mix of save-the-day bravado and ordinary-guy testosterone. I also greatly enjoyed Jason Lee as Syndrome, Mr. Incredible’s newest arch-enemy, and Brad Bird (also the film’s writer and director) as Edna Mode, fashion designer to the superheroes.

There Auto Be a Law

0

I’m not very good at budgeting money anyway, but I’m particularly bad when it comes to planning for the outrageous fees required to renew my car registration. I pay it one year, then immediately forget about it, the way trauma victims block out their experiences, and am caught off-guard the next year when the renewal notice comes. I’ll be going over my finances, determining whether I can afford to blow $100 at Old Navy, deciding that I not only can but SHOULD blow $100 at Old Navy — and then the notice will arrive in the mail, like an unwelcome houseguest or a bout with syphilis, showing up and ruining everything.

As a consequence of my lack of planning this year, I couldn’t come up with the cash before the registration expired on Sept. 30. It doesn’t help that my car is fairly new, which means registering it costs $150 for the “age-based uniform fee,”? plus $25.50 for the actual registration. By the time you factor in the safety and emissions inspections and replacing the windshield (don’t ask), we’re looking at $400 just to be allowed to drive my car, a car which already costs plenty, thank you very much.

And let me just say, it makes no sense that the newer your car is, the more it costs to register it. The fees should be the same for everyone, since we’re all driving on the same roads and causing the same wear and tear on them. I see no reason to penalize new-car buyers. Many of them, like me, have purchased Korean cars. Haven’t we suffered enough?

Anyway, I didn’t have the money right away, and so there was a space of a few weeks where I was a fugitive from the law. I was careful not to drive more than I had to during my lamming period, as I knew driving with expired plates was a ticketable offense, and goodness knows if I couldn’t afford to register the car, I couldn’t afford to pay tickets, either. And so the car remained parked for days at a time.

So imagine my surprise when I strolled past my parked car one day during the Unregistered Era and discovered a parking ticket on the windshield. “This must be a mistake,” I thought, complete with quotation marks. “I am parked perfectly legally, and in an unrestricted zone. What is the meaning of this outrage?”?

Sure enough: It was a ticket for having expired registration.

Now, I do not pretend to comprehend the intricate workings of the local government. I am but a humble, well-dressed wordsmith. And so I cannot fathom how having expired tags constitutes a “parking violation.” The condition of my license plate, and the dates indicated by the stickers on it, in no way affect the manner or location of my parking. They are entirely separate issues. Even if my car were on fire, it would not be a parking violation, so long as the flames did not extend beyond the boundaries of the parking space.

The greater issue, though, is the Catch-22-ness of my situation. I understand that you’re not supposed to drive with expired tags. That happens to be WHY I WASN’T DRIVING. But apparently, you’re not supposed to park, either. So what are you supposed to do when you can’t afford to renew your registration the very minute it’s due? Make your car invisible? Levitate it? Dig a ditch, drop it in, and put a tarp over it? I’m open to suggestions, DMV. Submit them to me before Nov. 30, or else severe penalties will be assessed.

Callas Forever

0

I may have missed the point when I jotted in my notes during “Callas Forever” that the film, a “what if?” scenario concerning the last days of legendary opera singer Maria Callas, had more opera scenes than it needed. “Callas Forever” is, I now realize, made expressly FOR opera fans, people who know and care who Maria Callas was. As such, it would be impossible for it to have “too many” opera scenes.

For people like me, who have casual, mildly suspicious feelings toward opera, and who are only dimly aware that a legend such as Callas existed — well, for us the film was not intended. It is Franco Zeffirelli’s tribute to one of his idols, written (with Martin Sherman) and directed by the Italian filmmaker as an enthusiastic, heartfelt eulogy for her. And if you didn’t know the deceased, don’t go to the funeral, you dig?

It is set in Paris in 1977, months before Callas’ death at 53. Maria (played with considerable passion by Fanny Ardant) is in decline. Her voice is way past its prime, her fans have mostly forsaken her, and she is still reeling from a concert in Japan that she considers to have been a disaster. For that matter, she is still reeling from the loss of Aristotle Onassis, who dumped her for Jackie Kennedy a decade earlier and who passed away in 1975. Maria rarely leaves her apartment now, spending most nights singing along to her old records, sobbing as she mourns the loss of her career, her voice and her lover.

Her former manager, Larry Kelly (Jeremy Irons), a gay, pony-tailed cad who now handles publicity for a punk rock group, finds Maria in this condition when he stops in Paris while on tour with the band. Seeking to reinvigorate her (or at least get her out of the house), he conceives a glorious idea that he calls “Callas Forever.” He wants to produce a film version of Bizet’s “Carmen” and have Maria play the title role, lip-synching to her old recording of the opera, from back when her voice was at its peak. She only recorded the role, never actually performed it onstage. Now’s her chance to fulfill a dream.

It takes some persuasion, but Maria eventually agrees to the project, though she has nagging doubts about such a project’s artistic integrity. Isn’t lip-synching to an old recording somehow deceptive, even if it’s still her singing?

The film splits its time between focusing on Maria’s last burst of energy at the end of her career, and Larry’s adoration of her, which takes priority over most other aspects of his life. Larry is probably a stand-in for Zeffirelli himself, who has directed stage productions of several operas (including “Carmen,” which he gets to re-stage quite a bit of here), and who was a devoted admirer of Maria Callas.

For Callas fans, the film offers a treat: Rather than have an actress or singer attempt to impersonate Callas’ voice, Zeffirelli uses her actual recordings on the soundtrack, and he uses them abundantly. That, coupled with the many scenes of Fanny Ardant as Maria Callas as Carmen, lip-synching to Callas’ “Carmen” recordings, make the film a tantalizing offer for devotees of the diva.

As a film, however, it’s a bit skimpy. Ardant and Irons are very good, as is the wonderful Joan Plowright as a reporter whom Maria confides in, and Zeffirelli ably captures the look and feel of Europe in the 1970s. But the film seldom dips below the surface. For all the time spent on Larry’s story, we hardly get to know him, and Maria ultimately comes off as just another Norma Desmond type, a huge star who has outgrown herself. I suspect “Callas Forever” is nothing more than Zeffirelli’s own wish-fulfillment, pretending to stage a production of “Carmen” with Fanny Ardant acting as proxy for his late, great star. If you want to peer in at his fantasy, go right ahead.

Paper Clips (documentary)

0

It was a middle school in tiny Whitwell, Tenn., that set out to collect 6 million paper clips to commemorate the 6 million Jews killed during the Nazi holocaust. The irony of such an act coming from the rural South is not lost on Whitwellians in “Paper Clips,” the documentary about their project.

One school administrator admits his own father is quick with a racist remark, and he notes that Southerners are easily stereotyped and discriminated against, too. The school’s principal, a tireless, indefatigable old woman named Linda Hooper, says Whitwell (population 1,600) has no Jews, no Catholics, and only a handful of blacks and Hispanics. The project is extraordinary anyway, but particularly considering it’s being spearheaded by a school of white Protestant redneck children. (I use the term “redneck” affectionately, at least as far as you know.)

The paper clip project, which spanned the years 1998-2003, honors lives and changes the lives of the honorers. The film, directed by Elliot Berlin and Joe Fab, neither of whom has any other previous credits, is constructed simply, even amateurishly, but the power of what’s being done comes through loud and clear. It is a case of the material being far better than the movie.

Through footage shot over the years of the project, and with some minor bits apparently re-enacted for the camera, we see the project spring to life in the 8th-grade language arts class. Student research discovered that the paper clip was invented in Norway (who knew?), and that during World War II, Norwegians would wear paper clips on their lapels as a silent protest against Hitler. And thus was the perfect item found to be collected in large numbers, to signify the lives lost in the concentration camps.

Letters are sent to news organizations and to famous people, asking them to contribute paper clips to help them reach their goal of 6 million. The going is slow at first, but encouraging. Celebrities contribute clips, and businesses send masses of them. But still, the pile has reached only 100,000 when the Washington Post and “NBC Nightly News” pick up the story — and from there, it snowballs.

In a matter of months, the school has collected 24 million paper clips (the number would eventually grow to 29 million) and 25,000 pieces of mail from all over the globe. Some people send huge boxes of paper clips bought in bulk; others send just a few, to represent specific people lost in the Holocaust, with accompanying letters to tell their stories. Each successive year of 8th-grade language arts students pick up where the last class left off, collecting and cataloguing all the contributions.

The project takes on a life of its own after a while. A group of Holocaust survivors comes to give first-hand accounts to the school and the town. A husband-and-wife journalist team from Germany become frequent guests, eventually setting out to find a German railroad car to serve as permanent repository for the paper clips and to double as a memorial and museum.

There is some scripted narration in the film, voiced by the participants and sounding wholly unnatural, that detracts from the movie’s otherwise earnest, trustworthy nature. But if the technique is sometimes regrettable, the basic story is unassailably good. It’s hard not to be moved by the survivors’ stories, by the students’ reactions, by the clear way that everyone’s lives are changed for the better by the paper clip project.

Angry Letter: women’s hockey; also, new FREE column

0

Some items of business.

First, despite my having written it 2 1/2 years ago, during the Olympics, a column about women’s hockey has received another angry letter. (It got one back when it was first published, too.) If her language is any indication, the writer may be a woman, but she’s no lady.

Second, I’ve written another column for City Weekly, published in this week’s (Nov. 4) issue. You can pick up a copy if you’re in the greater Salt Lake metropolitan area, or read it at their Web site, here.

Electile disfunction

1

I voted today. My local polling place is the activities room at a retirement center a block and a half from my apartment. The smell of old people and death permeated the place, but it did not overpower the musky scent of democracy in action.

I think it’s funny that people stand around on busy streets with signs telling you who to vote for. “You know, I was driving to the polling place without a CLUE who I was going to vote for, and now I know! Thank you, random stranger who holds signs. Thank you for pointing the way.”

Whoever wins the election, I just hope he wins by enough that everyone else will shut up about it. George W. Bush was hobbled right out of the starting gate with the 2000 election fiasco, with some people doubting his legitimacy as a leader even before he took office. Even if he’d been a fantastic, brilliant leader, I don’t know if he’d have ever gotten over that initial setback. Of course, if he wins today, then apparently he DID get over that initial setback. Time, and Newsweek, and CNN, and everyone else, will tell.

It Sox to be You

0

It is amazing to see humans persevere even in the face of insurmountable odds. You see it a lot during election years, when third-party candidates run for president without a hope of winning, without a hope of gaining more than even a few thousand votes, without a hope of even becoming footnotes in American history. You also saw it, for the past 85 years, when Red Sox fans would root for their team even though they knew they weren’t going to win, simply because they were the Red Sox, and the Red Sox always choke like a fat kid in the ninth round of a pie-eating contest.

But the Red Sox’ victory in last week’s World Series gives hope to all the losers in the world, all the people who keep on trying even though there’s no realistic chance of succeeding. Because even the impossible can happen sometimes. Every 86 years or so, anyway.

The Red Sox’ success must have been especially encouraging to Michael Peroutka. Who is Michael Peroutka, you ask? Oh, man, I bet he wishes you already knew. He’s a Maryland man running for president on the Constitution Party ticket, primarily as an alternative for people who consider George W. Bush too liberal. His platform is: “God, Family, Republic,” and isn’t it sad that whenever a politician has those principles as the foundation of his platform, he is always a nutcase? God, family and republic are all great things, and we would do well to focus on them a little more. Yet whenever someone DOES focus on them, he tends to be a lunatic. Sad, really.

Anyway, it should not surprise you that Peroutka has followers in Utah, where I live. Peroutka’s Web site indicates he was “called to public service at an early age” — yes, “called,” apparently, though by whom the site does not say — and that he provides “leadership in support of the right to life, the right to keep and bear arms, and other Constitutional causes.” I note that people whose platforms rest on “God, Family, Republic” are usually big on guns, too.

The one note in Peroutka’s one-note campaign is the Constitution. All of his policies have their root in his reading of it. It’s his Bible, which is awkward, since the Bible is his Bible, too. If it’s not in the Constitution, he’s opposed to it. “The Federal Government should do nothing that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution,” he writes. This means, he says, that Medicare and the Department of Education are both out, since the Constitution says nothing about the federal government being involved in health care or education.

The amendments, he seems to take on a case-by-case basis. They’re not part of the original Constitution, of course, but some of them are OK. The Second Amendment, for example (the one about the guns), is God-given, but the 16th (establishing income tax) is pernicious.

On abortion, he says this: “I am so pro-life, that if elected I promise that abortion will end my first day in office.” His first day! I believe he plans to achieve this through the use of magic.

Peroutka’s major liability, aside from being crazy, is that he’s not a Republican or a Democrat. Like it or not, we have a two-party system in this country, and have had for nearly 200 years. The last time we had three viable candidates was in 1992, when an insane diminutive businessman named Ross Perot gave Bush Sr. and Clinton a run for their money. By 1996, he had skittered back into the woodpile and now works full-time as a historical footnote. No third-party candidate since then has even made a dent, but that doesn’t stop people like Peroutka and Ralph Nader from trying, if you can really call what Nader does “trying.”

Does Peroutka think he can win? Certainly not. At least, I hope not. I’d hate to think he’s delusional, too, on top of everything else. He probably runs in order to Make A Statement, as a Matter Of Principle. And people who vote for him might as well take their ballots and set them on fire, but at least they’re “voting their conscience,” as they say, as opposed to simply choosing the lesser of two evils, which is often what the two-party race comes down to. This year, it’s a choice between the hillbilly cowboy and the creepy-looking snob. Given that choice, I’d be tempted to vote for an obscure third-party candidate, too — or to not vote at all, which might actually be a more sensible thing. No sense wasting a ballot, after all.

But back to the Red Sox. I don’t even follow sports, and the powerful antidepressants have flatlined my emotions, but this was exciting for me. My interest was piqued early on because my roommate, Greg, is from Boston and is thus required by Massachusetts law to be an ardent Red Sox fan. (Michael Peroutka would have this law repealed immediately.) A few weeks ago, Greg said, “This is the year.” I said, “Don’t you people say that every year?” And he replied, “Yeah, but THIS is the year FOR REAL.”

And I shook my head sadly, dreading the day the Sox would be eliminated from the playoffs and Greg would become forlorn and despondent. Already he was glued to the TV every evening, watching the late-season games and occasionally muttering, “[Swear word]-ing Red Sox.” His love-hate relationship with his team was fascinating, not to mention vulgar.

Greg said he didn’t believe in superstitions or curses, and I tend to agree with him. Babe Ruth was a lot of things — obese, alcoholic, lecherous, etc. — but he wasn’t a shaman. He didn’t curse the Red Sox, nor did anyone else. The Red Sox cursed themselves by being crappy, and by letting that guy play who let that ball go through his legs during that one game.

But last Wednesday night, while TiVo was recording “Law & Order” for me, the Red Sox did the impossible and won the World Series. The people of Boston went on a beer-fueled city-wide rampage, overturning cars and dumping tea into the harbor with wild abandon. It had been 86 years since their beloved-behated Sox had won the World Series — or “86 [swear word]-ing years,” as Greg put it — and their celebration was well-deserved, not that the people of Boston really need an excuse to drink.

And so perhaps there is hope for the Peroutkas of the world. If the Red Sox can win the World Series, maybe anything is possible. Of course, the Constitution doesn’t say specifically that Peroutka CAN be president, so it will continue to be an uphill battle for him.

It’s All About Love

0

Is “It’s All About Love” really all about love? That’s funny, because what I thought it was all about was a scatter-brained writer/director being excessively odd while cameras are rolling.

That would be Danish director Thomas Vinterberg, who co-wrote with Mogens Rukov this visually stimulating but content-challenged film set in New York in 2021. Like so many directors before and after him, Vinterberg has confused style with substance, or has perhaps thought enough cool ideas relieve him of his responsibility to TELL A STORY, for crying out loud.

Our hero and narrator, John (Joaquin Phoenix), intones early on, “I’d like to tell you about the last six days of my life.” Intriguing enough. It’s summertime, and bodies of unloved people — homeless folks and the like — litter the streets of New York, generally ignored by most people because it was being unloved that killed them in the first place. In Uganda, people are mysteriously losing control of their personal gravity and floating above the Earth. Occasionally, the entire world freezes for a few minutes. The world is strange; that’s what the movie keeps telling us.

John is being divorced by Elena (Claire Danes), a world-famous figure-skater. He is supposed to meet her at the airport during a layover for a quick signing of some documents, but she is delayed, can’t meet him, and has her people bring him into Manhattan instead. Soon she is seeing herself — yes, herself — in a hotel corridor, and John’s seeing the Doppelganger, too, and next thing you know, they’re running, though I am not exactly clear on what they’re running from. There’s a plot or a conspiracy, apparently, and it’s life-threatening, I guess.

Halfway through the film, I gave up taking legitimate notes and wrote this: “What a mess this film is!”

Throughout the film, Sean Penn, as John’s brother, is flying in an airplane, constantly. He used to be afraid of flying, until he took pills to relieve him of it — but he took too many, so now he’s afraid NOT to fly.

Oh, and for some reason, John and Elena are Polish, except a lot of times their accents aren’t.

It’s interesting that Vinterberg, a Dogme 95 director, has chosen to do such a non-Dogme project, and even more interesting that he gets so many technical things so right. Visually, there’s a lot to see, and without the just-the-basic constraints of Dogme, he’s able to do some imaginative things in the story, too. Maybe that’s the problem: When he’s not reined in, he gets TOO wild, spewing every fanciful thought he’s ever had onto the screen without regard to clarity or coherence. Whatever the cause, “It’s All About Love” is a mess, and after a while, messes become very dull to watch.

Saw

0

There are few modern directors more worthy of emulation than David Fincher, an iconoclast who can make an utterly black outlook seem like the most enjoyable two hours you’ve ever spent. So it is with great pleasure that I introduce you to James Wan, whose first film, “Saw,” is the work of a man who I daresay has seen “Seven,” “The Game” and “Panic Room” a few times and who has learned from them. Here’s a guy who can out-dismal David Fincher.

“Saw” is a movie of ideas — clever, diabolical ideas, often very well-executed and entertaining, in a macabre, grisly sort of way. It is not a movie of words, as the dialogue tends to be rather standard, nor is it a movie of supreme originality, as it has the same dumb cops who never call for backup and who find the clues in the same ways as all the movie cops before them.

But the ideas — ooooh, the ideas. We open on two men, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and the young Adam (Leigh Whannell, who also scripted), each chained to walls opposite each other in a large, decrepit old bathroom in some kind of warehouse. Lying on the floor between them is a man who has evidently shot himself in the head. He holds a tape recorder in his hand. Playing back the tape, the men learn that if Lawrence does not kill Adam by 4 p.m., the person responsible for putting them there will kill Lawrence’s wife and daughter. How Lawrence is to murder Adam when they cannot reach each other and when weapons are scarce, I will leave for you to discover.

Adam is clueless who would put him here, or why, but Lawrence has an idea. This may be the work of the as-yet uncaught “Jigsaw Killer,” a murderer who places people in devious scenarios from which escape is possible but unpleasant, as a means of teaching them how wonderful it is to be alive. (In one glimpse, we see a woman who must fish a key out of a living man’s stomach in order to free herself from the device that will otherwise snap her jaw off.) Lawrence knows about this guy because the investigation, led by a detective named Tapp (Danny Glover), at one point led to him as a suspect. Why he and Adam should be targets now is a mystery to him.

See all the Saws:

“Saw” (2004) B+
“Saw II” (2005) C
“Saw III” (2006) B-
“Saw IV” (2007) C-
“Saw V” (2008) D
“Saw VI” (2009) C
“Saw 3D” (2010) C-
“Jigsaw” (2017) B-

In flashback, we see Tapp’s investigation, and some of the killer’s previous handiwork. It is during these scenes, particularly, that the film occasionally grows too ugly for its own good, where its cleverness and stylishness are not strong enough to outweigh the gruesomeness.

In general, however, the film is far more thrilling, suspenseful and outrageously entertaining than it is disgusting or horrifying. The story is fantastic, and if Whannell’s script doesn’t get all the talky parts quite right, he certainly nails the mechanics of telling the story: what to reveal, when to reveal it, and so on.

Wan’s direction is confident and even, surprisingly so for a first-time filmmaker. The pace is quick, the editing is sharp. It is a slick production, to be sure, and it works itself up to a whirling grand guignol of a finale that caused me and many around me to nearly soil our pants in surprise. A good soiling is a commendable way to end a film like this, and “Saw” does it. I think Fincher would like it, too.

Ray

0

For me, the measure of a biopic’s greatness is whether it makes a person I wasn’t particularly interested in before seem interesting. I was apathetic toward Muhammad Ali, and “Ali” didn’t change that. I never gave a thought to Andy Kaufman, but “Man on the Moon” made me think about him a lot. “Ray” belongs to the latter camp. I spent very little time pondering Ray Charles before — great pianist, overcame his blindness, very famous, sorry he died, and so forth — and now here I am appreciating his talents and finding him to be an interesting character.

The star of this film, as you have already heard, is Jamie Foxx. I think his dramatic turn in “Collateral,” in which he did not annoy me — a first for Jamie Foxx — prepared me for “Ray,” where he is shockingly good. He does a fine impersonation of Charles, first of all — the voice, the mannerisms, the piano style — but most film performances that are ONLY impersonations lose their impact when it comes to emotions. It’s one thing to behave like the famous guy everyone has seen on TV; it’s quite another to show us how that person would have acted in private. Foxx has the acting chops to back it up. He puts Charles into believable emotional situations and acts the way we imagine Charles would have acted, translating his public persona into a real character.

The film commences with Ray’s journey in 1948 from his north Florida home to Seattle, where he has a gig lined up as a blues pianist. He meets a fellow outside the club, a trumpet player. They chat a minute. When Ray introduces himself, the man replies, “I’m Quincy Jones.” Lovers of music and musical history titter with excitement.

The movie is like that. We see Ray get his trademark sunglasses, see him drop his surname, Robinson, since there was already a Ray Robinson in the public eye, see him improvise the song that became “What’d I Say.” We see the concert where one of his backup singers, a Ray-spurned lover named Margie (Regina King), growls the words to “Hit the Road, Jack” like she really, really means them. We see him get introduced first to marijuana, then to heroin. We see him record “Georgia on My Mind,” only to be banned from performing in Georgia after he refuses to play for segregated audiences.

Ray was not what you’d call a monogamous man. His marriage to Della Bea (the sublime Kerry Washington), a former gospel singer who at first is appalled at Ray’s mixing gospel tunes with R&B lyrics, is depicted as tumultuous in the way that tortured artists’ marriages are always depicted as tumultuous. There are the standard “you care more about your [music/art/writing/drugs/whatever] than you care about me” accusations, with the requisite “I hate your lifestyle but I sure love how rich we are” moments.

Director Taylor Hackford (“Proof of Life,” “The Devil’s Advocate”), who shares story credit with screenwriter James L. White, knows that music was the key to Ray Charles’ appeal. As a character, he is often selfish and destructive (though he does balance it with sympathetic moments), but as a musician and performer, there is no ambivalence. Hackford is therefore wise to infuse nearly every scene with music — catchy, rhythmic, soulful music — and thus infuse the film entire with energy.

Ultimately, it’s the music that keeps me drawn into the film, followed closely by Jamie Foxx’s soulful (in both senses of the word) performance. The time periods are recreated vividly, the direction is smooth, the film works. Now I think about Ray Charles a lot, too.

Birth

0

“Birth” is not a comedy, but it’s impossible to take it seriously, either. It is about a woman who comes to believe that a 10-year-old boy is the reincarnation of her dead husband, which means there are scenes in which the grown woman and the little boy make moon eyes at each other. There is also a scene, I am sorry to report, in which the woman and the boy take a bath together, though thankfully there is no questionable behavior beyond that. (I think the bath is questionable enough, thank you.)

It takes care and precision to make an audience go along with a premise as peril-fraught as this one, and “Birth” doesn’t quite manage it. Director Jonathan Glazer, whose debut picture “Sexy Beast” demonstrated his skill, though not the subtlety he would need for this sophomore effort, goes to great lengths to make “Birth” seem like a respectable art-house film that has somehow wandered into the multiplex. The musical score is classical, the title fonts are elegant, the characters are generally quiet and restrained — this is a film that wants very much to be admired, not giggled at. But Glazer is hamstrung by Milo Addica (“Monster’s Ball”) and Jean-Claude Carriere’s oh-so-European and oh-so-absurd script.

Nicole Kidman, sporting a dreadfully mannish haircut, stars as Anna, a wealthy, repressed Manhattanite whose wealthy, repressed family is thrilled to see her newly engaged to a wealthy, repressed man named Joseph (Danny Huston). Anna’s husband Sean, a college professor (wealthy and repressed, one assumes), died 10 years ago and Anna still bears the scars of that loss.

Old wounds are reopened when a young boy (Cameron Bright) shows up at Anna’s family’s penthouse during the engagement party and tells her he is Sean — HER Sean, the one who died. His name really is Sean, that’s easily verified; he’s the son of a working-class couple in Brooklyn. But Anna’s-dead-husband-Sean? He’s certainly morose and somber enough to be part of the family, but still. No one believes in reincarnation, least of all Anna. Except then she begins thinking about it, and she talks to the boy, and she starts wanting to believe. Her family — including Lauren Bacall as her mother, Peter Stormare as dead Sean’s brother and Anne Heche as dead Sean’s sister-in-law — is appalled.

These are people who, being characters in a film that is always in danger of teetering over the edge into unintentional hilarity, cannot come right out and say the things they’re thinking, the things WE would be thinking. They don’t ask the questions they should ask. To do so would be to reduce the film from high-concept drama to lowbrow comedy. Even as it is, it often inspires embarrassed laughter. Nicole Kidman is an amazing actress, and her performance here is top-notch, but I doubt there is a child actor alive who could pull off the Sean role with the sincerity and believability it requires.

Is Sean really Anna’s dead husband? I like the direction the film takes with that issue; it’s certainly not what I expected. The problem is, it dawdles too long before it finally gets there. More than halfway through the film, we’re still at the stage where Anna is telling him, “You’re not my husband, you’ll get over me when you meet someone your own age.” The answers finally come, but they’re too little, too late.

Enduring Love

0

There is a fatal accident involving a hot-air balloon at the beginning of “Enduring Love,” with several bystanders attempting unsuccessfully to prevent it. Witnessing a gruesome event like that will change a person, usually for the worse in the short run, but maybe eventually for the better. “Enduring Love” examines, in a quiet, ruminative manner — with bursts of high drama at a few key moments — the effect of this tragedy on minds both stable and unstable.

Joe (Daniel Craig), a university professor in London, becomes mildly obsessed with the incident, re-creating it in his mind and with whatever props he sees lying around that happen to be balloon-shaped. His live-in girlfriend, Claire (Samantha Morton), who was there, too, seems less bothered by it all. Of course, she didn’t actually go to the field where the body landed, like Joe did. She didn’t see the gore.

The only other bystander who saw what Joe saw is Jed (Rhys Ifans), whose immediate reaction was to kneel down in prayer. Following the accident, he begins turning up in Joe’s life, insisting Joe has something to say to him. Joe has no idea what Jed is expecting him to say. He is trying, at least externally, to move past that day in the field. Jed, on the other hand, seems to think a bond was forged.

Mingled with all this are scenes from Joe’s classroom, where he says that love and all other emotions are simply biological responses with no real meaning that humans attach meaning to. But if that’s the case, we want to say, shouldn’t it be much easier to get over negative emotions?

Daniel Craig’s performance as Joe is extremely compelling, a very naturalistic portrayal of a man swamped with conflicting emotions and beset with external conflicts. (Joe’s relationship with Claire suffers in the aftermath of the accident, too.)

And Rhys Ifans, in a rare dramatic role, surprises me with his depth. His character is by necessity kept in the periphery — the film doesn’t want us to know too much about him too soon — but the way he plays a quasi-stalker with a level of humanity often absent in such characters is impressive.

The film is directed by Roger Michell, working more in the realm of his thinky “Changing Lanes” than his non-thinky “Notting Hill.” Shooting from Joe Penhall’s adaptation, he distills some of the more internal themes from Ian McEwan’s novel into a concise, effective film.

Ask Eric Stuff 16

0

Well, lookee here! It’s time for another installment of “Ask Eric Stuff,” the fantastically popular feature wherein — follow me here — people ask Eric stuff. He’s Eric D. Snider, and he approves this column.

What should you do if you have a question you want Eric to sidestep in a future edition of “Ask Eric Stuff”? You should go to this page and submit it! After all the questions are submitted, one lucky person will be chosen at random to receive a valuable prize! This prize is so valuable we cannot even tell you what it is. We can tell you this, though: We’re totally lying about there being a prize.

Dear Eric: How do you sell a house that’s near the airport? It’s not in the flight path, and it’s not too noisy, but potential buyers always say they don’t want to live so close to the airport. What can we do? — Baffled in Buffalo
Dear Baffalo: Yikes, selling a house near the airport is hard. I recommend getting rid of that one and getting a different one, one that’s NOT near the airport, to sell instead.

Dear Eric: Does a Nader vote help Kerry or Bush more? — Politically Curious in the USA
Dear Polly: Now, how would I know who Nader’s voting for? You’d have to ask him.

Dear Eric: Why is it so hard to get peanuts on airplanes these days? — Nutty in Nantucket
Dear Nanny: I never really “got” that comic strip anywhere, let alone on an airplane.

Dear Eric: If you could be any plant, what would you be? — Horticulturally Inclined
Dear Hor: Robert Plant.

Dear Eric: My roommate and her boyfriend have been dating a long time, and I’m tired of them hanging out over here. How can I get them to hurry up and get married or break up already? — Missing My Couch
Dear Miss: Tell your roommate you have a crush on her boyfriend and are thinking of asking him out yourself.

Dear Eric: How can I get my wife to stop drinking Coke? — Addict Hubby in Herriman
Dear Herry: She drinks Coke? That’s crazy. It’s much more powerful if you snort it.

Dear Eric: Do you get angry letters now that you’re published only on the internet? — Offended in Suburbia
Dear Sub: No, I mostly just get letters from people asking if I get angry letters.

Dear Eric: I’m debating over joining the U.S. Air Force. What should I do? — Patriotic to the Max
Dear Max: Well, get someone else to fill out the essay portion of the application for you, Mr. “Debating Over.”

Dear Eric: How do you keep drips to a minimum when painting? — Lead on the Brain
Dear Brainiac: NyQuil is good for drips anytime. I don’t know what painting has to do with it.

Dear Eric: Why won’t my baby sleep through the night? — Sleepless in Tucson
Dear Tusc: Because your baby hates you.

Dear Eric: If you hadn’t gone to college, what do you think you’d be doing right now? — Nosey Neighbor
Dear Neigh: Probably working as a freelance writer on the Internet and doing occasional comedy shows.

Dear Eric: If you could be any fictional character from a book, who would you be? — In Love with Aragorn
Dear Sir: George Washington.

Dear Eric: Have you ever had a stalker? Alternatively, have you ever been a stalker? — Uninterested; Don’t Worry
Dear Interested: There’s a fine line between “stalking” and “being attentive.” Or at least that’s what I told the judge. The judge I was stalking. Don’t ever stalk a judge, by the way. They’re mean.

The Grudge

0

They’re remaking foreign films into English-language ones so fast now that they’ve lapped themselves: “The Grudge” opens in theaters while “Ju-On: The Grudge,” which it is based on, is still playing. I saw them within a week of each other (I saw the American one first, in case you’re curious), and I quickly realized it was useless to try to write two reviews when they are essentially the same movie. Of course, “Chasing Liberty” and “First Daughter” were essentially the same movie, too, and I managed to review both of them, so maybe I’m just lazy. You be the judge.

Rarely, if ever, has a foreign film been remade so closely. Takashi Shimizu directed both versions, some of the dialogue is the same (though translated into English, of course), the plots are nearly identical. Shimizu even uses the same sets and actors in several instances.

All of which begs the question, why remake it at all? The answer, of course, is that with rare, martial-arts-oriented exceptions, subtitled foreign films do not fare well in American theaters. “Ju-On” would have topped out at around $50 million, at the very most, even if it were released on 3,000 screens; “The Grudge” will gross four times that, all because the characters speak English rather than Japanese.

“Ju-On” does it more episodically, with chapter titles declaring the name of that segment’s main character, but both films tell the story of a house in Tokyo where a man once killed his wife and possibly his son and possibly himself. Now, several years later, all who enter the house seem to encounter a curse of some kind, insofar as they are soon beset by evil forces, haunted by the specters of the aforesaid wife and son, and eventually murdered.

The story is told out of sequence, jumping from past to present at various key moments, usually just as a person is being killed. This method mainly serves to make us think this ISN’T just a regular ol’ story about a haunted house in which all occupants die one by one. It’s particularly disorienting in the Japanese version, where unfortunately Shimizu cast actresses who look alike to play the various leads — same hair style and length, same height, etc. I’m not saying ALL Japanese women look alike; I’m just saying the ones in “Ju-On” do. If you don’t keep track of everyone’s names, you’re lost.

The American version streamlines it a bit, allowing for more focus on Sarah Michelle Geller’s character, an American girl volunteering at a care center while her boyfriend (Jason Behr) goes to school. Gone are the original’s subplots dealing with a detective who investigated previous murders and whose daughter came under the evil power of the house, too. I rather like that thread, as it shows the far-reaching power of the house, stretching across several years and affecting everyone even tangentially connected to it. The Geller version feels more compact, less broad in its scope, more like a traditional Hollywood thriller.

Both versions are very big on the jump-scares, where things occur suddenly and make you wet yourself. The appearance of the creepy androgynous Japanese boy (Yuya Ozeki) and his forlorn mother (Takako Fuji) is always a startling development, especially when either of them makes their weird bullfrog-croaking sound that is generally a harbinger of death. (The characters are played by the same actors in both films, which makes me wonder if they’ll become typecast as creepy Japanese people who show up and kill you. Is there a big market for that?)

In fact, there is nearly enough atmosphere and general creepiness to make you forget that neither film really adds up to anything. We learn very early on that something awful happened in this house and now everyone who enters will die. Then, at the end of the film, we discover that, um, something awful happened in this house and now everyone who enters will die. There is no twist, no “reveal,” no tying up of all the clues to make us see the clever plotting that was lurking beneath the surface all along. It’s disappointing to realize that the film truly IS nothing more than a series of people dying, albeit in armrest-gripping fashion. It’s good for a lark, but we usually like our thrillers to have something more to them.

The Grudge: C
1 hr., 36 min.
PG-13 for a little mild sexuality, some profanity, lots of scary stuff, some blood

Ju-On: The Grudge (Japanese): B-
1 hr., 31 min.; in Japanese with subtitles
R for “some disturbing images,” including some blood and violence; should have been PG-13

Undertow

0

David Gordon Green’s “Undertow” opens the same way his beautiful “All the Real Girls” did, with two teens in love gazing at each other and sharing whispered conversation. But in short order the film turns away from Green’s usual style of atmosphere and character drama and develops, of all things, a plot.

The results are not completely successful. Green’s strengths are not in telling stories but in painting pictures and evoking moods. But “Undertow” often manages to have it both ways, to show a compelling storyline and to be contemplative. Sometimes the mechanics of the plot serve the greater good by putting the characters into situations in which Green’s writing and directing skills can be put to truly excellent use.

It is set in rural Georgia in what could either be today or 25 years ago. A widower named John Munn (Dermot Mulroney) has a tiny farm and two sons, 16-year-old Chris (Jamie Bell) and 10-year-old Tim (Devon Alan). Chris is the Romeo we saw at the beginning, just prior to his being chased away by the girl’s father on account of Chris being a no-account — a barefoot no-account at that, which proves to be a liability when, in his flight, he steps on a board with a nail in it.

Chris has been in and out of trouble since the family moved to the boondocks following their mother’s death. Young Tim is in poor health owing to his having pica, a syndrome wherein victims compulsively eat non-food items. Tim has a particular fondness, if you can call it that, for dirt and paint.

Events are set in motion when John’s brother, the extremely no-account Uncle Deel (Josh Lucas), shows up for reasons he does not explain. We soon realize he wants his share of his and father’s collection of Mexican gold coins, allegedly worth thousands of dollars. The lengths to which he will go to get these coins are, to put it mildly, unsettling.

Chris and Tim eventually find themselves wandering through the backwoods of the South, taking care of each other and relying on the kindness of strangers when they can. Their relationship, well-played by Jamie Bell (of “Billy Elliot”) and Devon Alan, feels natural and real. Honest relationships are a hallmark of Green’s films, and this is no exception.

It is tempting to dismiss the whole lot of them as white-trash hillbillies, and I suppose that would be an accurate assessment. But the film succeeds in making them sympathetic, fully realized characters. They are fascinating to watch, not because they are different from the mainstream, but because they are, in spite of their differences, very familiar.

The urgent musical score by Philip Glass improves the film; in fact, I daresay most films are improved by a Philip Glass score. The cinematography, by Green regular Tim Orr, beautifully captures the rural environment and contributes greatly to the film’s overall feel.

That “feel” is ultimately what plants the movie firmly in excellent territory. The story itself, though occasionally compelling, is mostly just a means to an end, a way to show these particular people reacting to a series of events. It’s the people who are most interesting, not the things that happen to them. As with “All the Real Girls,” I found myself wanting to hang out in this world for a little while longer.

I Heart Huckabees

0

“I Heart Huckabees” is the sort of self-consciously surreal comedy that Charlie Kaufman would write, a la “Being John Malkovich” or “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” In fact, I believe it would have benefited from Kaufman’s involvement, for writer/director David O. Russell — though clever as all get-out — can only occasionally wrangle all his odd elements into a cohesive film.

In this high-minded, everyone-is-connected comedy, we meet a variety of people who are, in fact, connected. Their common thread is the “existential detective” agency of Bernard (Dustin Hoffman) and Vivian Jaffe (Lily Tomlin), a rumpled, middle-aged, slightly daft married couple who investigate people’s lives for them, help them deconstruct themselves, and give them the means of finding peace in the world. Lots of people mistake them for therapists, an error which they and their clients find offensive.

Into Vivian and Bernard’s office walks Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman), a poet-activist who heads the local chapter of the Open Spaces Coalition, a tree-hugger movement that has recently been battling Huckabees. Huckabees is a chain of stores with a Target-esque visual style and a Wal-Mart-esque plan for world domination whose contribution to urban sprawl has made it unpopular in the public eye. Albert and Open Spaces have struck a deal with Huckabees, fronted by the super-smooth Brad Stand (Jude Law), to save a particular wetland area, thus preserving some nature for Open Spaces and giving Huckabees some positive P.R.

But that’s not what Albert is concerned about. What’s aroused his curiosity is the coincidence of running into the same tall African man on three occasions around town. He wants the existential detectives to find out what the coincidence means — for surely everything in life means something — and solve the mystery for him. Vivian and Bernard begin surveillance of Albert, insisting some detail of his daily routine must hold the key, and in so doing begin to offer advice and guidance on the other, non-African-stranger parts of Albert’s existence — his jealousy of Brad Stand (who has wrested control of Open Spaces from him), and his awkward relationship with his parents, for example.

Meanwhile, Brad Stand and his girlfriend, Huckabees model Dawn Campbell (Naomi Watts), learn of Vivian and Bernard’s services and philosophies and come to embrace them, with varied results. In addition, Albert is teamed up with Tommy Corn (Mark Wahlberg), a fireman on a similar path who is led astray by Caterine Vauban (Isabelle Huppert), a rogue existential detective who preaches nihilism and randomness — the opposite of the Jaffes’ everything-means-something belief system.

The film hopscotches from one set of characters to the next, passing the point of view along like a baton. It does so merrily and cheerfully, finding comedy in the Jaffes’ old-married-couple sentence-finishing, in a run-in with the strange African man’s adoptive born-again-Christian family, in the effect that Dawn’s new-found beliefs have on her sense of fashion. (Think bonnets.)

Jason Schwartzman is, as always, a nerdy, affable leading man, and a comic actor able to hold his own with the likes of Lily Tomlin. Witness this exchange, made 10 times funnier by Tomlin and Schwartzman’s delivery:

VIVIAN: Have you ever transcended time and space?
ALBERT: Yes. No. Time, not space. No, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

But the film gets weirder as it goes, particularly in Caterine’s relationship with her new disciples Tommy and Albert, which takes an unexplained twist that involves pushing each other’s faces in the mud. (I have not even mentioned the part where Tommy and Albert hit each other in the face with large rubber balls.)

Whatever Russell is ultimately trying to say, he does a better job at trying our patience. We are accustomed to smart comedies with punchy dialogue that require some effort; but we are also used to that effort being rewarded in the end with some sort of payoff or resolution. “I Heart Huckabees” is quirky enough for me to recommend it — Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin are especially a treat — but its self-satisfied braininess diminishes what could have been a truly wonderful film.

Surviving Christmas

0

The most offensive thing about “Surviving Christmas,” of course, is that it was released two months before Christmas — heck, nine days before HALLOWEEN, even. But watching it, I suspect it wouldn’t produce an ounce of holiday cheer even if it were released on the day itself and you watched it with Santa Claus sitting next to you funneling egg nog down your throat.

This is a rancid, wrong-headed comedy that passes the point of plausibility about 10 minutes in and never looks back. It’s pre-fabricated, factory-made drivel that actually makes less sense as it goes, as if it’s playing a game, trying to see how much worse it can get. By the end, it’s barely even a movie anymore. It’s some kind of pageant of horror.

It’s about a slimy, materialistic man named Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) who needs to learn the True Meaning of Christmas and who, as you have already guessed from watching 1,000 other films about slimy, materialistic men who need to learn the True Meaning of Christmas, works as an advertising executive. His latest idea is to market a brand of alcoholic egg nog by telling customers that drinking it is the only way they’ll be able to handle holidays with their families. He’s that sort of guy.

He hates his own family passionately, for reasons that are withheld from us until the third act, so they can be revealed during a Tender Moment. But in a moment of wistfulness, he returns to his childhood home in suburban Chicago, where the Valco family now lives, and pays them $250,000 to be his family for the holidays, to give him a regular old-fashioned family Christmas with all the trimmings. He moves into his old room (displacing the porn-addicted teenage son), tells the daughter that since he didn’t have a sister, she needs to be the South American maid, and hires an actor to be his grandfather, to make the picture complete.

The film was directed by Mike Mitchell, whose major credit before this was “Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo” — which is funny, because “Surviving Christmas” feels like it should have starred someone like Rob Schneider or Adam Sandler. A premise this untenable needs more wackiness applied to its execution if it’s to have any hope of succeeding. I doubt it would have been good anyway — note that David Spade starred in the similarly themed “Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star” and had little success with it — but at least it would have had a fighting chance. Ben Affleck gets the sleazy thing down, with that toothy, insincere grin of his, but he’s unable to balance it with the vulnerability and inner goodness that it needs. Instead of being someone we love to hate, he’s just someone we hate.

The Valcos are played by James Gandolfini and Catherine O’Hara, both well-cast, with particular credit going to O’Hara for bringing her characteristic dry wit and commitment to the role of a tired, bored housewife. Christina Applegate does what she can as the college-age daughter, too, though the eventual romance between hers and Affleck’s characters is the very definition of obligatory.

Four writers are credited. Deborah Kaplan and Harry Elfont wrote “A Very Brady Sequel,” “The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas” and “Josie and the Pussycats” — all TV-to-film adaptations, which explains why “Surviving Christmas” feels so much like a sitcom (even down to the last-minute-dinner-guests-who-are-uptight-and-won’t-stand-for-any-shenanigans plot device). Their co-writers are Jeffrey Ventimilia and Joshua Sternin, who previously wrote for several different sitcoms, which explains why — well, see my previous note.

The comedy is weak, usually on the order of Drew telling Mr. Valco how to behave and Mr. Valco wanting to kill Drew but resisting because he wants the $250,000. There is potential for genuine sentiment in the scene where Drew offers to buy the dowdy Mrs. Valco a makeover, but it’s ruined when what she gets instead of a lovely new hairdo and some makeup styling is a whore-style makeover, complete with whore-style photo shoot by one of Drew’s photographer buddies. The film can’t decide whether it wants to be dark or merry, and it bungles nearly every attempt at doing either. It has been a year brimming with bad comedies — “White Chicks,” “Baby Geniuses 2,” “Without a Paddle” — but this one competes admirably with all of them.

Vera Drake

0

The title character in “Vera Drake” is a plump, middle-aged wife and mother who works cheerfully as a housekeeper for rich people and performs a dizzying succession of good deeds in her spare time. She visits shut-ins, invites lonely bachelors over for tea with the family, sews patches on friends’ tattered clothing — oh, and often appears at women’s houses to perform their abortions.

What is most extraordinary about this film, written and directed by that master of British dreariness Mike Leigh (“All or Nothing,” “Secrets & Lies”) and set in early 1950s London, is that while it is about abortion, it is not JUST about abortion, nor even JUST about the abortionist. Every character is richly drawn, every detail is perfect. Where many filmmakers would treat abortion as an enormous entree and serve it up without a thought to presentation, Leigh uses it as a centerpiece and surrounds it with an elegant buffet.

Vera is acted with Oscar-worthy precision by Imelda Staunton, and if five better performances yet emerge this year and bump her out of the running, then it will have been a stunning year for actresses indeed. She makes the character more complex than she could have been, showing genuine sympathy for the people she attends to, yet remaining briskly efficient. She is nearly always out of breath from bustling about. Her instructions to her abortion patients, we realize, are almost word-for-word the same each time, and when she stops by the home of a shut-in — including her own aged mother — her conversation is not just light and merry but extremely brief. She never seems at a loss for words, because when all else fails, she suggests making tea, a superficial solution to what are often difficult problems. We know she’s not terribly well-educated, and you get the feeling she’s perhaps a little simple-minded, too, as if her desire to do good in the world is often at odds with her inability to process all the pain and suffering she sees.

Yet at the same time, it could all be on purpose. Her polite cordiality could be a calculation to keep her from becoming emotionally attached to the people she helps. Her husband Stan (Phil Davis) and grown children Sid (Daniel Mays) and Ethel (Alex Kelly) adore her, look up to her, let her run the household with the same unassuming power that she runs everything else. She is either brilliant, or else in over her head. If the film were twice as long, I suspect I would learn twice as much about the character through Staunton’s textured performance of her.

Around here are more interesting details and fascinating characters. Stan works as a mechanic with his brother Frank (Adrian Scarborough), whose materialistic wife Joyce (Heather Craney) keeps them steadily in debt. Sid is a tailor and a smooth-talker. Ethel is mousy and shy and works in a factory testing light bulbs. She probably wanted to be just like Mum earlier on but has now realized she’s not cut out for it. No one knows about Vera’s secret occupation.

We don’t know how or when Vera started doing abortions, but the woman who arranges them for her is a cold, bespectacled woman named Lily (Ruth Sheen). She’s a businesswoman who sells rationed sugar and other supplies to her friends and who also accepts payment of two shillings for the abortions. Vera sees none of this. She’s just doing it to be helpful.

The first half of the film establishes the world of Vera Drake, of her family and acquaintances and lifestyle. In the second half, it comes crashing down. The legal status of abortions is not exactly explained — we see a doctor offering to perform one for 150 pounds, but it’s not clear whether he ought to be — but for an unlicensed woman to go from house to house doing them is definitely illegal, and Vera is apprehended. Leigh shows us the entire grueling process, arrest, interrogation, bail hearing and trial. Vera remains heartbreakingly sweet and complacent throughout, insisting she was only doing the Christian thing by “helping girls out.”

The film barely addresses the rightness of wrongness of abortion; such matters are not the point. What matters is that Vera Drake believes what she is doing is right. Politics are beside the point.

No claim is made that “Vera Drake” is based on a true story, but it has the mark of a film that is, including a certain lack of focus near the end as it wanders toward its conclusion. Certainly there were women like Vera in England (and America, I’d wager) in the 1950s and before, when abortion was either illegal or only vaguely legal and seldom discussed. Every detail of the film breathes with authenticity, fully creating the grimy, working-class world of post-war London, and the characters talk, behave and look exactly like real people. (There is not what you’d call a handsome face anywhere to be found.) To watch it is to be transported 5 1/2 decades back in time and thrust into another world.

The Machinist

0

(Note: This review was done without the cooperation of — indeed, against the wishes of — Paramount Classics, which at this time denied online film critics access to press screenings of its movies. Apparently they weren’t sure this whole “Internet” thing was going to take off.)

The key to making a good thriller with a twist ending is to focus on the thrills, not the twists. Films like “The Sixth Sense” and “Memento” work because they are enjoyable even before you find out all the details at the end. Films like “The Forgotten” and “The Village” don’t work because without their surprises, there’s nothing to them.

“The Machinist” gets it right. Its “surprise” turns out to be simple and not terribly surprising, but that isn’t a deficit, because the film doesn’t rely on it. An unsettling psychological thriller despite being composed of old, familiar parts, the film has an atmosphere that’s as scary and tense as anything else this year.

Much attention has been paid to Christian Bale, who lost more than 60 pounds to play the title role, a haunted blue-collar worker named Trevor Reznik. Trevor hasn’t slept in a year and looks like he hasn’t eaten in at least that long. Currently weighing in at 120 pounds, he is a ghastly skeleton of a man, a Gollum-ish specter who has begun to freak out his co-workers with his gaunt appearance and zombie-like demeanor.

His insomnia isn’t because he’s not tired; on the contrary, he is exhausted. One day he is distracted by a fellow employee, an evil-smiling bald man named Ivan (John Sharian), and his lack of concentration causes another co-worker to lose an arm on one of the machines. When Trevor tells his bosses he was caught off-guard by Ivan’s behavior, they tell him what we have already suspected, which is that there is no one named Ivan working at the factory.

Trevor fears he is losing his mind. He has a conversation with a diner waitress named Marie (Aitana Sanchez-Gijon) that mirrors one he’d had earlier with Stevie (Jennifer Jason Leigh), the prostitute who has become his de facto girlfriend. Is it deja vu? Did one of the conversations not actually happen? Or is there something else afoot here?

The screenplay, by Scott Kosar (whose other work has been on remakes: “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and the upcoming “Amityville Horror”), oozes with creepiness that is not, when everything is laid out, just random (like, say, much of the creepiness in “The Grudge”): a refrigerator that oozes blood; a hangman game magneted to said refrigerator. Trevor’s obsession with Ivan and the lengths to which he will go to find out who he is are astounding, and even absurd at first — until you consider all the facts and realize he is behaving just as a person would in his situation.

Director Brad Anderson has previously given us the amusing romantic comedy “Next Stop Wonderland,” some episodes of “The Shield” and “The Wire,” and a horror flick called “Session 9” that I have not seen but that takes place in an abandoned mental hospital, so I am intrigued. It is probably the latter that gave him the most useful warm-up for “The Machinist,” and he works the new film’s suspenseful elements like a virtuoso. He maintains a recurring motif of stick figures (including Trevor himself, of course), allows for several plausible explanations of the hangman game, and presents a vivid, hellish trip through an amusement-park ride that is utterly haunting.

Bale’s performance as a stricken ghost of a man is compelling, though overshadowed a bit by his horrific appearance. I can’t think of another instance of an actor doing so much to himself in order to look so bad. The effect is achieved, I guess: Trevor comes off as a pitiable, grotesque creature. Once he determines what’s destroying him, perhaps he’ll be able to get some sleep, and maybe a bite to eat.

Sideways

0

Now that Alexander Payne has made four films (“Citizen Ruth,” “Election,” “About Schmidt” and the new “Sideways”) that have all been excellent, we can officially declare him one of the best directors currently working. A 1.000 batting average is nothing to sneeze at. This is someone you need to pay attention to.

His films aren’t as eye-catching as David Fincher’s or Wes Anderson’s, to name two other relatively new directors with excellent winning streaks. But they crackle with subversive wit while investigating serious themes that most directors wouldn’t know how to address without becoming lost in a morass of self-importance. “About Schmidt” showed an aging man realizing he’d outlived his usefulness … yet it also showed Kathy Bates naked. Obviously, Payne knows how to mix his comedy with his drama, and there’s always a sweet side to it.

Co-writing with Jim Taylor, as always, and adapting Rex Pickett’s novel, Payne gives us another complicated, befuddled protagonist in Miles Raymond (Paul Giamatti). Miles is a would-be novelist, recently divorced, more than a little rumpled, and somewhat useless when it comes to dependability. His hobby is wine, which he loves to discuss, debate and (especially) drink.

His best friend, a semi-employed actor named Jack (Thomas Haden Church), is getting married in a week, so the two drive to California’s wine country for a few days of imbibing and other pre-nuptial debauchery.

Jack’s a piece of work, too, crass in his speech and extremely laid-back, an aging party animal whose 40-year-old body hasn’t yet informed his libido that it’s time to calm down. They’re a fine pair, Miles and Jack, one too neurotic to have a one-night stand, the other so intent on it, despite being already engaged, that he can’t think of anything else.

They meet two women in wine country, a waitress named Maya (Virginia Madsen) whom Miles has always had a crush on, and Stephanie (Sandra Oh), one of many people in the area employed by a winery. Jack and Stephanie hook up almost immediately, but Miles’ timidity and frustration act as barriers between him and Maya. The fact that Jack is getting married in a week remains unspoken, and both women believe Miles’ epic novel “The Day After Yesterday” is about to be published when in fact all presses have rejected it. And so begins a week of deceit.

As expected, there are serious themes at play here, including the importance of honesty with oneself as well as one’s associates, and there is a good deal of introspection on Miles’ part. He cites his favorite wine-making grape as being a particularly high-maintenance variety of pinot that is “thin-skinned and temperamental”; the viewer understands that Miles has chosen a grape that is exactly like himself.

But the movie remains consistently funny, too, due in large part to Church’s daft performance as the blunt-spoken Jack, a combination of whacked-out writing and an excellent deadpan delivery. Giamatti, a virtuoso of nervous self-loathing (witness his performance as Harvey Pekar in “American Splendor”), interacts with Church impeccably, and their friendship seems at once believable and too funny to be believed.

Once the week of deceit has turned into a week of learning life lessons, the film has a bit of trouble resolving itself, as if Payne knows where he wants to go but isn’t sure how to get there. When he arrives, though, it is endearing to behold, and we realize we’ve just seen another first-class entry from, yes, one of the best directors currently working.

Lightning in a Bottle (documentary)

0

Like all concert films, “Lightning in a Bottle” is only as good as the viewer’s perception of the subject matter. If you don’t care for blues music, the film will almost certainly hold no appeal for you. If you dig the blues, or are passionate about music in general and can thus appreciate musicians performing even genres that are not your first choice, the movie will be like Christmas.

In 2003, in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the advent of blues music, some 50 great blues singers and musicians were assembled for a benefit concert at Radio City Music Hall. Everyone was there; as the great blues pianist Dr. John puts it, “It looks like they looked in the yellow pages under ‘Blues.'” The film is that concert, with occasional glimpses of rehearsals and backstage conversations.

Martin Scorsese, who introduces the show and executive-produced the film, says they wanted to tell the story of the blues, and the movie, directed by Antoine Fuqua (“Training Day,” “King Arthur”), does just that. The songs were carefully chosen by musical director Steve Jordan to highlight all the movements and sub-genres of the blues, with the younger artists assigned to perform them when the originators are no longer with us. Hence, new-comers like Keb’ Mo’ and India.Arie aren’t there to showcase their own music; instead, they accept their assignments to sing specific tunes that fit within Jordan’s vision.

The effect is remarkable. Interspersed with the songs is footage of early-20th-century musicians talking about their music and their lives, and we realize that to tell the history of the blues means to tell the history of blacks in America, too. Lead Belly’s song “Jim Crow Blues,” sung by Odetta, addresses the subjugation of African-Americans head-on, but the blues in general were influenced by such somber affairs.

And the music! Here’s David “Honeyboy” Edwards, 88 years old at the time of the concert, sitting in a chair, singing his own “Gamblin’ Man” and playing the guitar like it’s an appendage. There’s John Fogarty singing Lead Belly’s “Midnight Special” and doing it with such growling intensity as to remove all doubt that he was an appropriate choice to perform. Or what about Solomon Burke, an enormous, thunder-voiced man in a natty suit sitting in a giant chair and singing his own “Down in the Valley,” the 1965 song that he once sang in front of the Klan? All of the singers are identified by on-screen captions, as are the song titles, original performers and year of composition. It is as much a lesson in musical appreciation as it is a thrilling concert.

I do question why, in some cases, lesser names singing less significant songs are given more screen time than their betters, and I wonder what Aerosmith is doing there at all. (Of course, wherever Aerosmith is, I always wonder what they’re doing there.)

From rehearsal footage, we get the great moment when Odetta, a too-serious aging blues chanteuse, chews out the band for overpowering the vocals of Ruth Brown. Brown, a dignified but light-hearted old legend, deflects Odetta’s intercession, saying, “I’m so glad to have the gig, I’ll scream (if I have to).”

Even if you are only dimly aware of such names as Ruth Brown and B.B. King and Dr. John, it is satisfying to see them greet each other backstage, to hug and kiss and offer praise of one another’s talents. It’s like the Academy Awards, except that these artists, working in a non-mainstream genre, are much more humble about themselves than the big-heads on the red carpet. They seem like good folks, hard-working and dedicated to their music, and all part of the same community. And bless ’em, they seem pretty happy, too, for blues singers.

Greet Expectations

0

The English language is very efficient. Complex ideas can be expressed in so few words that detailed, explicit conversations are often unnecessary. For example, if your wife says, “Does this dress make me look fat?,” you can convey the message of “Well, it’s not a very flattering dress because it doesn’t bring out your beautiful eyes or your gorgeous smile” simply by saying, “Yes.”

Or take what happened at the bank last week. I said this to the teller: “You’ll notice my account became overdrawn a few days ago, by $4.72, and that I made a deposit to rectify the problem less than 24 hours later. I wonder if you could possibly reverse the $25 overdraft fee you charged me, considering that I’ve been a loyal Washington Mutual customer for six years, and that it was only $4.72 and for less than 24 hours, and that I’ve never asked for such consideration before.” And the teller responded: “No.” Thus in one word she summed up her company’s entire philosophy, which is, “We will greet you warmly by name when you enter your local branch because we want you to feel comfortable and appreciated, but don’t think that means we like you or want to help you or that we have any human feelings such as ‘compassion’ or ‘understanding,’ you miserable b******.” (Hey, don’t look at me, I’m just quoting the corporate handbook.)

Probably the most efficient part of English is in the way we greet each other. In the 1800s, acquaintances would have conversations like this when they happened to pass each other in the street:

WOMAN: Good morning to you, Mr. Harkenfarken.
MAN: And a good morning to you as well, Mrs. Hooganfloogan.
WOMAN: How does the day find you, sir?
MAN: It finds me very well, thank you so much indeed for asking. How are you, madam?
WOMAN: I am most superbly well, thank you.

I don’t know how anything ever got done in those days, what with all the time consumed by being cordial. No wonder nothing good got invented until the 20th century. Today, the preceding conversation might be condensed into this:

WOMAN: Hey.
MAN: Hey.

And with the right inflection and body language, all the same information can be expressed, without all the wordiness and curtsying and hat-tipping and what-have-you.

So it’s important to choose your standard greeting, the one you use all the time when you run into acquaintances, very carefully. It has to be something you can say automatically and effortlessly, so tongue-twisters are a bad idea. Also, since you’ll be using it in a wide variety of circumstances, it should not be obscene.

Some other standard greetings you should avoid:

“Howdy do?”
“What’s cookin’, Smokey?”
“Whaddup, G?”
“There he is!”
“Ahoy, wench.”

I think it would be fun to greet everyone the way you greet a dog, rubbing the person’s head and saying (if his name is Bob), “Who’s a good boy?! Is Bob a good boy?! Yes he is! Yes he is! Who’s a good boy?!” Let’s start this trend. You first.

My standard salutation is “Hey, how’s it going?,” though sometimes it is abbreviated to just “Hey.” Either way, it’s very simple, and it requires no thinking on the other person’s part, because he can just respond with his own standard greeting, whatever it may be. Even though mine ends with a question mark, an answer is not necessarily required. In fact, in modern society, this is a perfectly valid conversation:

“Hey, how’s it going?”
“Hey.”

“Hey” doesn’t really answer the question of how it’s going, but “How’s it going?” doesn’t really mean I want to know how it’s going, either. If I REALLY want to know how it’s going, I’ll say, “How ARE you?” — quite different from “How are YOU?,” which is the same as “How’s it going?” — and stop and talk to the person. But for just passing by, I deliver the “How’s it going?” and continue on about my business.

My roommate Greg has one that throws me off every time. I don’t believe he grasps the philosophy behind casual greetings, because his requires an actual ANSWER. He always says: “What’s going on?” Now, he says it in the same tone of voice that you’d say “Hello” or “Hey there” or whatever. But it’s a question, and it’s a very open-ended question at that. “Pretty good” or “fine” would not be appropriate responses to this, nor would the delivery of a standard greeting. “What’s going on?” seems to demand a considered response.

And so every time he says it — which, since we live together, can be three or four times a day — I fumble for an answer. Does he actually want to know what’s going on, like what I’m DOING? Well, I don’t always know what I’m doing. Maybe I’m not doing anything. But I hate to just say “Nothing,” because then it sounds like I’m a slacker who’s not doing anything. So I’ve started responding, “WHY THE THIRD DEGREE, GREG?!?” He thinks I’m joking, and that saves me from answering the question. Still, it’s a lot of work for what’s supposed to be casual conversation. See the problems I have to put up with?

Eulogy

0

“Eulogy” is little more than a string of jokes stuffed into a contrived storyline, but a lot of the jokes are funny, so maybe it all balances out. I’ve certainly had worse times at the movies, though I’ve had far, far better, too.

It’s a dark-ish comedy set at the funeral of family man (played in flashbacks by Rip Torn) who wasn’t really liked by anyone in the family. Only his granddaughter Katie (Zooey Deschanel) and his wife Charlotte (Piper Laurie) have any fondness for him; his children all remember him only as a traveling salesman who was barely home and who couldn’t get their names right when he was.

They’re all various forms of screwed up. Kate’s dad Daniel (Hank Azaria) made one TV commercial as a kid and failed in the acting business almost immediately thereafter; he now works in porn, as did his late wife. Daniel’s brother Skip (Ray Romano), a hack lawyer, is a crass horndog, as are his twin teenage boys (Curtis and Keith Garcia). Their sister Alice (Debra Winger) is a cold control freak whose husband and three children never speak, either out of fear or because Alice never stops talking herself. The fourth sibling, Lucy (Kelly Preston), shows up for the funeral with her lesbian partner Judy (Famke Janssen), and the two announce marriage plans.

The family convenes a couple days before the funeral, enough time for Katie — Grandpa’s favorite — to write a eulogy. Trouble is, no one can come up with anything nice to say about him, and there’s barely time anyway, what with all the bickering that must be done and the old wounds that must be reopened.

Written and directed by new filmmaker Michael Clancy, the picture is wildly uneven in its tone and style, flitting from verbal humor (Katie was told her porn-star mom was “a social worker who died from caring too much”) to dark comedy (Grandma Collins’s many “hilarious” injuries) to situational awkwardness (a townsperson witnesses Katie renting a porn title from the local video store; someone falls out of a treehouse onto a car’s windshield while the occupants are making out). The most honest laughs are in the first categories, as Ray Romano especially has his share of funny lines, solidly delivered. The other types of comedy are much less successful, relying on increasingly broad and unlikely scenarios.

And yet the film remains likable, mostly, on a certain level, even if not a moment of it is believable. While we wouldn’t want any of these petty idiots in our own families, they are sporadically amusing to watch from the safe distance of a theater seat.

Shall We Dance

0

The point that “Shall We Dance” thinks it’s making is that dance has the power to change people’s hearts and minds. But that point is underdeveloped and mishandled. So the point it winds up making instead is that Jennifer Lopez is SO PRETTY that a happily married man will flirt with infidelity and take dance lessons just so he can be in the same room as her. That may be true, but the movie still bites.

It stars Richard Gere as John Clark, a Chicago estate lawyer with a good, albeit humdrum, life. He’s been married to his wife Beverly (Susan Sarandon) for 19 years, they have two perfectly normal teenage children, and everything seems fine, very fine indeed.

Then one day while riding the El train, John sees a gorgeous, sullen woman standing in the window of an upstairs dance studio in the bad part of town. He is captivated by her. After passing the same window on several subsequent days and always seeing the same gorgeous, sullen woman standing there — she reminds me of the dog in “The Triplets of Belleville” who runs upstairs to watch the train pass every hour — he hesitantly approaches the dance studio and signs up for lessons.

The woman is named Paulina, and of course she is played by J-Lo, a woman I firmly believe that every person in America is tired of. Paulina was a world-class ballroom dancer until a defeat last year, after which her partner-slash-boyfriend dumped her. She has now returned to Miss Mitzi’s dance academy to be depressed and to dance in semi-darkness in the room adjacent to the one where the students are (except for when the train passes, at which point she is always standing forlornly in the window).

John is one of only three class members. The other two are the obese Vern (Omar Miller), seeking to lose weight before asking his girlfriend to marry him; and Chic (Bobby Cannavale), the uber-straight ladies’ man who, in movie parlance, is so completely heterosexual and testosterone-driven that he must, in fact, be a closet homosexual. Their instructor is Miss Mitzi (Anita Gillette), a charming older woman. They are harangued and bothered by Bobbie (Lisa Ann Walter), a brassy bottle-blonde who practices at the studio so one day she can be a big famous dancer, and who is obnoxious to strangers and wears stretch pants everywhere in the meantime.

The film’s aforementioned biting stems from its absolute refusal to explain why John does anything. Paulina leads him to the dance studio, and while he obviously is attracted to her, he shows no signs of wanting to initiate an affair. He’s certainly not unhappy with his wife, whom he loves. So what’s he doing there?

The dance lessons are already inexplicable, but then there’s more: He keeps the dancing a secret from his wife and children. This makes Beverly suspect he is having an affair, which makes her hire a private investigator (Richard Jenkins), who tells her that in fact he is taking dancing lessons. I ask you this, movie: If Beverly was going to find out anyway, wouldn’t it have been easier to just have John TELL HER? Then you wouldn’t have had to include the P.I. at all, and you’d have saved precious time.

John eventually gives Beverly his reason for not having told her about the dance lessons up front: He didn’t want to admit that he wanted to be happier. Her reaction is the same as mine. We both thought, “Wait, you were unhappy? How come I didn’t know?” The film, directed by Peter Chelsom (“Town & Country,” “Serendipity”), only spends about two minutes establishing John and Beverly’s marriage, but even that would be enough time to show a secret longing or an unsatisfied desire. Even if John himself doesn’t know what he wants, there are ways of conveying, through carefully chosen dialogue and action, that something’s missing. The film does none of that. And so for most of the movie, we have no idea why anything is happening.

It’s a simple-minded film, really, chock-full of tiny subplots among the dance-class members that are given only a passing glance before they’re finally “resolved.” Miss Mitzi is seen taking little swigs of liquor from a flask. Why? So that later, we can see her pull out the flask, consider it a moment, then put it back, having apparently conquered the problem of alcoholism that we never knew she had. And there’s Chic, the aforementioned really-really-straight guy who’s somewhat homophobic who turns out to be gay — a fact we learn in a five-second clip in the middle of a montage just before the closing credits. Blink and you’ll miss the resolution of this fascinating character arc.

There are good movies about the transformative power of dance, but all this one does is parade stock characters around the screen, hint at tiny changes they’ve made in their lives, and then parade them around some more. Audrey Wells (“Under the Tuscan Sun”), who adapted the screenplay from the 1997 Japanese film on which it is based, has missed the point of the original, and director Chelsom doesn’t have a clue, either.

Team America: World Police

0

About 75 percent of the laughs in “Team America: World Police” would have remained intact even if the film were shot with live actors, because it’s a funny script. The other 25 percent are there because the film was shot with marionettes, and anything a marionette does is funny. Even walking, even fighting, and especially having sex or vomiting. When a marionette has sex or vomits, you are watching comedy gold, my friends.

“Team America” was written and directed by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, whom you know as the boys behind “South Park.” (They had a third co-writer, Pam Brady, also a regular “South Park” contributor.) The film has exactly the same mix of trenchant socio-political satire, juvenile sex and bodily function jokes, and politically incorrect audacity as the TV show, and that’s probably all you need to know. If you find “South Park” funny, you’ll howl at “Team America.” Otherwise, heaven help you if you try to watch this movie.

Team America is a heroic band of do-gooders, on the order of Sky Captain or the Thunderbirds. (The old “Thunderbirds” TV show, which also used marionettes, was no doubt the inspiration for Parker and Stone’s foray into the medium.) When there’s trouble — lately in the form of international terrorism — Team America arrives on the scene to apprehend or kill the evil-doers, and usually to make a huge mess in the process. Often the mess is worse than the initial threat, which is why much of the world hates Team America, as do many Hollywood actors, all members of the Film Actors Guild (or F.A.G.).

Team America, oblivious to complaints and to its own occasional ineptitude — accidentally knocking over the Eiffel Tower is met with a “Whoops!” — has its headquarters inside Mt. Rushmore, where they are led by the no-nonsense Charlton Heston-ish figure of Spottswoode (voiced by Daran Norris). The rest of the team includes a hothead, a pretty blonde, a martial arts expert, and so on.

When word reaches Team America that a major terrorist plot is being devised, they approach noted Broadway actor Gary Johnston (Trey Parker) with a plan. They want him to use his acting skills to infiltrate the terrorists and foil the plot. Gary is hesitant, but he finally agrees, coaxed somewhat by his affection for the pretty blonde, Lisa (Kristen Miller).

The terrorist plot, by the way, is organized by North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, who is the film’s breakout character. He is a true Parker/Stone creation, equal parts clever satire and sophomoric cheap shots, and he sounds and behaves like Cartman. Since he’s Asian, he replaces his L’s with R’s when he speaks, a joke that is proudly, unapologetically politically incorrect, and which contributes to his wistful song “I’m So Ronery,” one of several brilliantly funny numbers that “Team America: World Police” contributes to society. (Also among them: “Everyone Has AIDS,” from Gary’s “Rent” spoof, called “Lease”; the patriotic “America: F*** Yeah!”; and “‘Pearl Harbor’ Sucked, and I Miss You.”)

As they do in “South Park,” our boys mock everyone equally in “Team America,” and they do it with finesse. There is no mention of George W. Bush; in fact, there is no implication that America even HAS a president. Team America represents U.S. foreign policy, of course, and plenty of fun is had at its expense. But there is also some ruthless satire of liberal Hollywood actors and their need to voice opinions on everything. When the final battle occurs, some of these actors meet the goriest deaths of anyone in the film. (Marionette gore?! What will they think of next!)

But more than that, the film is also a dead-on parody of big-budget action movies. The Team America characters often speak in tersely worded clichés and make melodramatic pronouncements, and all of the action scenes are amusing low-budget interpretations of a typical Jerry Bruckheimer production.

The puppets are well-made, and many of the models and sets are extremely impressive. Animation, especially the cheap kind Parker and Stone favor, would have been millions of dollars cheaper, but not nearly as funny. This is a frenetic, shocking, hysterical comedy, and I can say without reservation that it features the funniest sex scene ever filmed. Try to top THAT, Muppets.

Being Julia

0

It is startling to realize “Being Julia” is only Annette Bening’s 17th film, and that she’s only been on the scene since 1990. She has the grace and magnetism of a legend, a genuine sophistication and star quality that make her watchable in nearly anything.

This includes “Being Julia,” a film that is only good but in which Bening is fantastic. Based on the Somerset Maugham novel “Theater,” it is a darkly funny tale of those two old stand-bys, love and obsession, specifically as they relate to the theater.

Bening plays Julia Lambert, a spectacular diva who, at this point (London, 1938), is the most beloved stage actress in England. She stars nightly in a stiff melodrama, earning one ovation after another for her portrayal of a lovelorn women, but as she carefully points out, she doesn’t actually FEEL any of those emotions. If she did, she’d go mad.

Her life offstage is not much different. She is always “on,” always ready to greet her public, keen to be talked about in the newspapers and gossiped about on the street. She has an odd sort of marriage with her manager, Michael (Jeremy Irons), who is either oblivious or apathetic to Julia’s affairs and who is both her biggest fan and harshest critic. (“I’m a b****!” she wails in a moment of self-pity. “Nevertheless…” is the start of his reply.)

Her latest lover, Charles (Bruce Greenwood), has just broken up with her, but she’s in luck: A fresh-faced young American lad named Tom Fennel (Shaun Evans) is in town, ostensibly hoping to learn about the theater business but apparently quite interested in learning about British actresses’ underthings, too. He is a huge Julia Lambert fan, and she is flattered by the advances of a man young enough to be her son.

Her actual son, Roger (Tom Sturridge), usually off at boarding school, doesn’t know what to make of his mother. “You have a performance for everyone,” he says. “I’m not sure you exist.”

He has a point. While it would be a blast to associate with a Julia Lambert, to be related to one would be awful. She is not far off from Bette Davis’ character in “All About Eve,” and “Being Julia” even borrows a few pages from that film in its last act, where Julia’s status as Diva No. 1 is threatened by a mostly untalented engenue named Avice Crichton (Lucy Punch). Her jealousy of the girl is exacerbated by the fact that Avice is sleeping with Tom Fennel, too. What’s a dyed-in-the-wool drama queen to do? Julia’s solution is more entertaining than believable, a rather disappointing end to an otherwise serviceable movie, but Bening demonstrates such wicked glee in doing it that it’s hard to fault her.

Adapted by Ronald Harwood (“The Pianist”) and directed by Hungarian filmmaker Istvan Szabo (“Sunshine”), the movie has sharp, high-class comedy and drama to spare but isn’t sure what to do with anyone except Julia. When she is not in it, the film becomes noticeably less engaging. Her expressive eyes, her beautiful face, her enthusiasm and passion – it’s impossible to take your eyes off her when she’s on the screen, not just because she’s lovely but because she makes being Julia seem so darned fun.

P.S.

0

“P.S.” is the movie the Lifetime Network would make if they could get away with F-words on basic cable. It is about a woman who has to Find Herself, and who has a hot romance with a younger man while she’s looking. What more do you want? Am I right, ladies?!

The film starts out being about reincarnation, maybe, though not seriously about it as “Birth” is. Louise Harrington (Laura Linney), director of admissions for the art program at Columbia University, notices an application from one F. Scott Feinstadt. This is noteworthy because 20 years ago, she was in love with an F. Scott Feinstadt, who was also an artist, but who died in a car accident. On a whim, she calls this new F. Scott and arranges an admissions interview with him. She has to meet the kid who has the same name and same profession as the old F. Scott.

F. Scott (Topher Grace) — who in fact goes by F. Scott, not just Scott — is a laid-back artist of the non-abstract school, full of mad, youthful energy and a confidence that borders on arrogance. Louise is captivated by him, and by his resemblance to her dead boyfriend. They wind up at her house, where some awkward, ravenous sex is engaged in. A relationship starts.

But the movie isn’t really about the possible reincarnation of F. Scott Feinstadt. It’s about Louise’s inability to let anything go without perfecting it first. She only barely recovered from F. Scott’s death, and her marriage to Peter Harrington (Gabriel Byrne) ended in divorce, though he remains her best friend. When she learns, much after the fact, that he cheated on her during their marriage, she is devastated by the revelation, not because she feels betrayed, but because it ruins the picture she had of her marriage. It introduces loose threads where everything had been tidied up.

Written and directed by Dylan Kidd (whose debut film, “Roger Dodger,” showed so much more promise than this) and based on the novel by Helen Schulman, the film inelegantly squeezes Louise’s two family members into the picture. Her mother (Lois Smith) belittles her regularly, unconsciously, and probably lovingly. Her brother (Paul Rudd), a recovering addict and a full-fledged prodigal son, she is jealous and suspicious of. He seems to have let go of the past, and she can’t relate to that. Mom and brother are in the film not as characters but as devices to help Louise understand herself better. They have no meaning apart from her; when she is not on the screen with them, they cease to exist.

Laura Linney and Topher Grace are two very compelling actors, each with talent, charm and dignity to spare. They elevate the material a bit, but they can’t escape the fact that the movie only has vague goals set for itself. An uncertain movie is an uncertain movie, no matter how good the acting is.

Anatomy of Hell

0

Catherine Breillat begins her miserable new film “Anatomy of Hell” with a title card reminding us of the illusory nature of movies. “For the actress’ most intimate scenes, a body double was used,” we are told, as if this will somehow comfort us.

The actress in question, Amira Casar, does some alarming things with her lady parts in this movie, things that I, as a gentleman, will not discuss in great detail in this review. Breillat’s camera doesn’t miss a moment of it, because indeed, those alarming things are the movie’s raison d’etre. But don’t worry — a body double was used! Thank goodness! For a moment I was afraid that an actual professional actress had exposed and abused herself on film, but it turns out it was just a no-name body double. Who cares what THEY do?

This is an un-erotic sex movie, filmed in a sterile white room and full of joyless cavorting, and featuring probably the least titillating nudity ever captured on celluloid. It is about a man who hates women and a woman who hates men, written and directed by a woman who evidently hates women, too, and who shows remarkable contempt and disrespect for her audience as well. I hate this movie, but only because it hated me first. I only wish I had seen it last fall, when it was first released in the U.S., so it could have taken its rightful place on my list of the worst films of 2004.

The film is about two people, identified only as The Woman (Amira Casar) and The Man (Rocco Siffredi). They meet in the bathroom of a gay dance club, where she is slitting her wrists and is rescued by him. We are not told specifically why she is suicidal, but I do think that if a pretty girl like her would spend less time at gay dance clubs, she might feel better about herself.

When the man asks her why she cut herself, she replies, “Because I’m a woman.” And the philosophical mumbo-jumbo begins!

The woman offers to pay the man handsomely if he will come to her house every night and watch her. She is not clear on what, exactly, she will be doing that requires watching, but when he gets there for his first night on the job, it quickly becomes a cynical conversation about women and men. She observes that naked women inspire “disgust or brutality” in men, and he goes on to lecture her on women’s inherent obscenity. He is gay, but he claims to speak for all men regardless of sexual preference.

She is naked. He takes a lipstick and draws circles around her lady business. And then they have sex. It is mirthless and unpleasant, both for us to watch and apparently for them to have. He cries afterward, for no discernible reason. His thoughts are narrated in a woman’s voice. This is one of the Frenchest movies I have ever seen.

I gave it another chance:

1/18/2012: Re-Views: ‘Anatomy of Hell’ (2004)

He returns on subsequent nights, experimenting with his curiosity about — and hatred for — the female anatomy. In long, often wordless scenes, he mistreats her body in vile ways with a variety of implements, all of which she accepts without question. (Let’s just say he puts the “hoe” in “skanky ho,” and I mean that literally.) For her part, she educates him on the mysteries of the menstrual cycle in a particular graphic, unsettling manner. I cannot think of any bodily fluid that is not represented vividly in this film.

Through it all, Breillat maintains one constant: Her movie is boring. I noted that her last film, the unpleasant but in many ways admirable “Fat Girl,” felt padded at only 82 minutes; “Anatomy of Hell” feels padded, too, and it’s only 73 minutes. Can Breillat tell a story? Can she make a point? Or is she so caught up in her own self-proclaimed avant-garde genius that she doesn’t have time to film anything presentable? As a legitimate filmmaker she is venomous and unwatchable; as a pornographer she is unarousing. Clearly film is not her medium.

Perhaps my description of the movie has made you morbidly curious to see it. Please believe me when I tell you that this would be a mistake. It is a lurid, obscene, pointless film, utterly without artistic merit or redeeming social value. It is gross, disgusting and perverse, a vile collection of misogyny, misandry and misanthropy. Do not watch it. If it must be watched, make your body double watch it for you.

Haven’t Got Time for the Payin’

0

I hate paying for parking. You give money to someone, and what do you get in return? Nothing. You hand the money over, park your car, and leave the scene, usually to go spend more money somewhere else. All you’re paying for is the right to not drive your car for a while. Well, it’s your car! You should be able to not drive it whenever you want!

Even worse than paying for parking, of course, is paying for parking tickets, not just because they cost more, but because they indicate you were thwarted. You didn’t want to pay to park, so you found an illegal spot and gambled you’d be back before anyone noticed, and you failed, caught by The Man (who in this case is usually a woman, but still).

Having read the preceding paragraphs, it will not surprise you to learn that I am the recipient of parking tickets. If you are a longtime reader, it may not even surprise you to learn that these tickets were issued by BYU.

I wrote a column about getting parking tickets at BYU way back in 1997, when as a student there I single-handedly funded the new library with my parking tickets. If you get enough tickets, even if you pay them all, BYU eventually bans you from parking on campus anymore. This seems counter-intuitive, since the whole purpose of parking tickets is to make money, and why not let frequent recipients keep racking them up? I suppose it’s similar to how bartenders are required to stop selling you alcohol after a certain point, even though it would be more profitable for them to let you buy drinks until you pass out. At some point, if you can’t take care of yourself, someone has to take care of you for you.

Anyway, I was banned from parking in 1997, but was subsequently forgiven and permitted on campus again. I kept my nose clean, at least metaphorically, until I graduated in 1999. Then, in the early part of 2000, when I had to visit campus often for Garrens Comedy Troupe rehearsals, I racked up another eight tickets in rapid succession. This clearly was not my fault, however. We were rehearsing in a building that was not adjacent to any public parking, so I had two choices: walk a great distance, or park right next to the building in a faculty spot. Obviously, the decision was made for me.

So I got these tickets, and as is always the case when I am given a bill for something, my first thought was: How can I get out of paying this? (You should see me at tithing settlement.) Then it occurred to me that since I was no longer a student there, BYU had no power over me. All their usual threats — withholding transcripts, preventing class registration, damning to hell — held no sway when I wasn’t under their tutelage. So I decided not to pay the tickets at all, to see what, if anything, they would do.

And here’s what they do: They send a polite bill every month asking me to pay them.

It isn’t even a letter. It’s on green paper, with the heading “ACCOUNT STATEMENT,” followed by a list of my outstanding “transactions” with the Student Financial Services office. The total amount owed is $190. There is a part of the bill that can be detached and mailed in with my payment. An addressed envelope is enclosed.

I have received this document every month for the past four years. When I have moved, BYU has found my new address and the monthly bills have followed me. The bills never change; they never become more threatening or demanding, the way they would if a collection agency or even a human being were involved, rather than just a computer; there’s never even a letter enclosed. It’s just a statement of my “account.”

But here’s the thing — and BYU, if you are reading this, please pay close attention — I AM NEVER GOING TO PAY YOU. As long as I live, I will never pay those parking tickets, and my next of kin will be instructed not to pay them, either, and so on, through all eternity. It’s not that I dispute having earned them, or that I feel you are not deserving of my money. It’s that you’ve given me no incentive to pay them. A simple green-papered bill sent in the mail every month? Come on, BYU. You’ll have to do better than that. People who REALLY want to collect money from me send reminder letters and assign late fees and dispatch goons to confront me at my home. Frankly, I’m a little offended that you’d think you could get $190 from me just by ASKING. What sort of fool do you take me for?

(Note to BYU: If this column inspires you to send me a real letter and begin actively trying to get the money from me, I’m still not paying it. Like I have $190 lying around!)

Primer

0

“Primer” deals with time travel, but not in a particularly science-fiction-y way. The science portion is explained, but not in simple enough terms for dumb guys like me to understand. I guess if they explained it TOO clearly, it would either demonstrate how implausible it is, or else it would be SO plausible that everyone would go out and start building their own working time machines, and the movie would lose its novelty.

It is about four men, computer guys, it appears, who wear shirts and ties all the time, even when the ties are loosened and the sleeves are rolled up because they’re sitting around a kitchen table, talking about technical stuff. They’ve developed some kind of product (the movie is not exactly clear on what it is) in the garage, and selling it has turned into a small cottage industry for them.

Two of the men, family man Aaron (Shane Carruth, also the writer and director) and his bachelor friend Abe (David Sullivan), begin private discussions away from the other two, though. They’ve noticed an odd side effect of the whatever-it-is out in the garage, that it seems to be capable of stopping time, at least in a small, confined area. Keeping their research a secret, they expand on the anomaly and soon have de facto time machines in a storage unit outside of town.

The machines are essentially just boxes, possibly owing to the film’s very low budget (reportedly $7,000), but that’s of little importance. As far as I’m concerned, a time machine can be as simple as a phone booth or a DeLorean. What’s unusual about these is how they function. You can’t just choose a time to go to; they can only go backwards, and only in real time. So if you enter the box at noon and sit there for two hours, when you come out, it will be 10 a.m., two hours before you went in. Aaron and Abe use it mostly for day trips, then, waiting until the market closes to see which stocks go up, then going back to that morning so they can buy them.

The paradoxes of time and causality are explored, and if they’d been explored better, the film would have been great. It unfolds intriguingly, revealing information a little at a time, until everything is laid out and we see … well, we’re not sure what we see. An incident at a party involving a gun is referred to, and we gather that there is some desire to go back and try to fix things, but the film eventually becomes too obtuse for its own good, leaving things murky when they ought to have been explained in full. We are left with a fascinating, well-played story that dissolves in the end — a pity, really, since it has so much potential up to that point.

Raise Your Voice

0

No one expects quality from these silly wish-fulfillment movies that tweenage girls like, but “Raise Your Voice” is more inept than most. It perpetrates every cliché of the “follow your dreams” genre, which is bad enough, and then compounds the agony with laughably incompetent directing and storytelling.

It stars Hilary Duff, making her fifth film appearance in 19 months, for an average of one movie every 15 weeks since last March (and that’s not even including the ones she released under her other name, Mandy Moore). Her last film, “A Cinderella Story,” started sucking less than three months ago, and in fact is still sucking in some theaters this very day. There has been a glut of Hilary Duff, is my point, and I cling to the hope that “Raise Your Voice” will convince Hollywood that there is such a thing as too much of a mediocre thing.

In the grand tradition of Mariah Carey in “Glitter” and Jessica Alba in “Honey,” Hilary Duff plays Terri Fletcher, a 16-year-old Flagstaff girl with a dream. She wants to shake off the dust of this one-horse town and become a singer. She is allegedly gifted enough to be accepted into the Bristol-Hillman Music Conservatory’s three-week summer camp for high school students — but unfortunately, her dim-bulbed, toothpick- and scenery-chewing father Simon (David Keith) won’t let her go. Why? Because it’s in L.A., and L.A. is where teenage girls get raped and murdered, basically. (Pshaw, like that doesn’t happen in Flagstaff! Like, ALL THE TIME!!!!)

Before Terri even has a chance to worry about it, though, the movie throws her a curveball in the form of a loved one being killed in a car accident. As always, this accident was caused by a drunk driver running a red light; drunk drivers running red lights are the No. 1 cause of loved-one deaths in movies, and “Raise Your Voice” is not the sort of movie to buck trends.

Since grumpy dad won’t let Terri go to the conservatory, she and her sympathetic mother (Rita Wilson) hatch a scheme. They tell Dad that Terri has gone to stay with her Aunt Nina (Rebecca De Mornay) in Palm Desert for a few weeks, when in fact she’s in L.A. (I guess Dad doesn’t see the coincidence of Terri being 90 minutes from the conservatory during the exact period of time she was hoping to be AT the conservatory. Dad isn’t bright, I don’t mind telling you.)

Once Terri gets to Bristol-Hillman, the movie has to shift from weepy family melodrama to “Fame”-inspired suffer-for-your-art melodrama. There are montages of students in various voice or instrument classes, rehearsing tirelessly, keeping late hours, having impromptu jam sessions with their fellow student-musicians on the quad, and so forth. Terri keeps bursting into tears and packing up her stuff with the intention of going home, so unable is she to deal with the rigors of such an intensive program.

And how does the movie convey these rigors, you ask? Well, in one scene, Terri can’t hit the high notes in Handel’s “Messiah.” And as if THAT wren’t enough, she’s ALSO unliked by the snobby, popular Robin (Lauren C. Mayhew). How can you expect her to cope with such hardships? Who do you think she is, Job?!

The movie keeps insisting that Terri is an “outsider” in the program, but I don’t really get that. She’s pretty, thin and dresses fashionably, just like the popular girls. She’s only an outsider because someone thought audiences would respond better to an underdog story than they would to a story about a pretty girl who gets what she wants. They’re probably right, but still.

For that matter, I’m not sure why Terri’s even in the conservatory program to begin with. The only instrument she plays is piano, and that only barely. Mostly she’s a singer — but her voice is one of those breathy pop voices, not a classical voice such as would be welcome at a snooty conservatory where students are singing Italian operas and Handel’s “Messiah.”

I’m equally perplexed by the end-of-term final projects students must give in order to compete for a scholarship. All the training is classical, but most of the performances at the talent show are modern, even avant garde. I can’t imagine the stern Russian voice teacher being impressed because someone made her violin sound like an electric guitar, can you? Nor do I think he would care that Terri and her British boyfriend Jay (Oliver James) teamed up to write a bland, forgettable pop song, though this does not stop the movie from making us hear the entire song, from beginning to end.

The director is Sean McNamara, purveyor of such fine children’s fare as “3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain” and the Disney Channel’s “That’s So Raven” and “Even Stevens.” I don’t think he has any idea what he’s doing. Not that first-time writer Sam Schreiber’s hole-riddled screenplay helps him much, but the directing is sloppy and artificial. There are numerous shots of people playing instruments, as you might expect, and seldom does it look even remotely like the actors are actually playing. I mean, not even close. And the one time Hilary Duff is supposed to get her opera part right, it’s quite clearly someone else’s voice dubbed in, with Duff badly lip-synching it. If you can’t compose convincing shots of people performing or singing, maybe you shouldn’t direct a movie about people who perform and sing. I’m just sayin’.

You know that dumb old comedy bit where someone asks two people what they’d doing, and since they don’t want to say what they’re actually doing, they lie, and give two different answers simultaneously? For example, one says, “Watching TV” while the second says, “Eating dinner”? And then they try again, this time trading responses, so now the first one says, “Eating dinner” while the second one says, “Watching TV”? This movie has one of those bits.

And you know that old romantic-comedy plot device where the forceful ex-girlfriend of the guy tries to patch it up with him and plants a kiss on him JUST at the moment the current girlfriend walks in? And then the current girlfriend refuses to listen as the guy explains that he did NOT initiate the kiss, and that in fact he was about to smack the ex-girlfriend off of him when she walked in? This movie has one of those, too.

In fact, I daresay the movie has every cliché and formula you could imagine, each more sloppily executed than the last. It has no spark, no wit, and no purpose other than to convince the world that Hilary Duff is a celebrity. I wasn’t buyin’ it 19 months ago, and I’m not buyin’ it now.

Taxi

0

So Jimmy Fallon leaves “Saturday Night Live” and immediately starts making bad movies. And the circle of life continues.

“Taxi” is the sort of bad movie that any hack director with a big budget, willing actors, and a shortage of good ideas can make. Like most action-comedies of recent years, it believes “loud and fast” are the same thing as “funny,” and also that African-Americans being loose and sassy while their white counterparts are bumbling and squeamish is sure-fire comedy.

On that skeleton of a concept the film hangs its flimsy plot. A New York City bike messenger named Belle (Queen Latifah) has just achieved her goal of becoming a cab driver, and she comes to the job prepared: She has spent the last five years pimping out her vehicle with various turbo boosters and other “Fast and the Furious”-style paraphernalia. How she obtained a New York City yellow cab to work on in her garage all that time is anybody’s guess, as is the question of how she convinced her new cabbie bosses to let her drive it, especially with all its illegal alterations, rather than a company-issued vehicle.

At any rate, thanks to her hair-raising driving and maneuvering skills, she can now make it from midtown to JFK in less than 15 minutes. This makes her the perfect accomplice when an on-foot police officer named Washburn (Jimmy Fallon) hops into her cab one day and orders her to proceed to a nearby bank where there is a robbery in progress. Washburn is a terrible driver and previously was relieved of his license by his impossibly hot lieutenant (Jennifer Esposito).

The robbers barely escape after a chase through Manhattan, but the cops figure out it’s part of a string of robberies, which means Washburn and his new buddy Belle will get to pursue them some more.

The movie, based loosely on a French film, was written by Ben Garant (of TV’s heavily improvised “Reno 911,” suggesting his skills are in improv, not writing) and directed by Tim Story (“Barbershop”). Its action sequences are competently shot and edited, but its comedy is a lame assemblage of old jokes and awkward punchlines, a typical cop comedy where the police never call for backup and are always shooting things. I give it credit for this, though: At least the “odd couple” angle between Belle and Washburn isn’t overplayed. They work more as partners than as adversaries, which is a welcome relief.

Latifah and Fallon are both funny people, and you can see them occasionally straining to break free of the mediocre script’s confines. Spiced up a bit more, this would be a fine role for Latifah’s sensibilities. I wish I could say the same for Fallon, but the baby-faced man with the dorm-slacker demeanor looks like anything BUT a police officer, and he makes no attempts to, you know, maybe ACT like one. He acts like himself, a move that might work in some circumstances but that absolutely fails when he’s playing as specific a character as a New York City police officer. Maybe Fallon is a good actor, but we’ll have to wait for another movie to find out.

Friday Night Lights

0

The people of Odessa, Texas, take high school football seriously, and “Friday Night Lights” treats it with just as much reverence. I saw the film in a theater full of high school football teams, and rather than being the rowdy, major league tools that football players usually are, they sat in respectful silence. I guess for them, this was like going to church.

I have no such veneration for football, but “Friday Night Lights” is a humdinger of a sports film, shot so it has the bleak, stark colors of a war movie, with gritty handheld camerawork to match. This is serious business, this high school football.

It’s based on the true story of Odessa’s 1988 Permian High School football season, as recounted in H.G. “Buzz” Bissinger’s book “Friday Night Lights: A Town, a Team, and a Dream.” The film, directed by Bissinger’s cousin Peter Berg and adapted by Berg and David Aaron Cohen, embraces wholeheartedly every sports-flick cliché, from the paternal coach to the hotshot quarterback to the thrilling last-minute victories — but man, does it ever make them work. Berg stays true to the film’s real-life roots and recreates everything matter-of-factly. Scenes that would be awkwardly melodramatic in lesser films — a player learning his injuries will prevent him from ever taking the field again; a young man’s run-ins with his abusive father — are charged with emotion, but the emotion feels honest, rather than maudlin.

The coach is Gary Gaines (Billy Bob Thornton), worshipped by the town as long as the team is winning, which is has generally done in past years. The film begins with the pre-season drills and ends with the final championship game, and Gaines’ players are idolized by the small working-class town in between. This is a place where Friday nights find most local businesses closed with signs saying “Going to the game!” in the window. (If it seems strange that a town would focus this much on high school football, watch the documentary “Go Tigers!,” which tells of a Ohio town that puts Odessa to shame.)

Mike Winchell (Lucas Black) cares for his aged mother (Connie Cooper), suffering from the onset of dementia, and must deal with additional pressure when he becomes starting quarterback following a knee injury for hotshot Boobie Miles (Derek Luke). (Boobie believed himself to be indestructible, making his destruction both poetic and predictable, but his pain is no less heartrending to watch.) Don Billingsley (Garrett Hedlund) is a good player but not a great one, and this angers his alcoholic father (Tim McGraw — yes, Tim McGraw), who won a state championship playing for this same team and whose only passion now is to see his son relive his own glory days. Other players come in and out of focus, but it is those three — Mike, Boobie and Don — whose compelling stories are given the most attention.

Well, actually, what’s given the most attention is the team as a unit, and more particularly, football, every aspect of it. The final game occupies fully 25 minutes of screen time, awesomely staged and filmed with a you-are-there mentality. After some games, we see a weary Gaines driving home, listening to the armchair quarterbacking of the know-it-all fans who call into the AM radio sports stations. He particularly does this after his team has lost, a form of self-flagellation that is only one of many details that ring true in the screenplay and in Thornton’s down-to-earth performance.

I like that the film simply drops us into Odessa without explaining every little thing. We don’t know exactly what’s wrong with Mike’s mother, for example, or why they call Mr. Miles “Boobie,” or why the Permian Panthers’ nickname is “MoJo.” I’m sure all of this is common knowledge to the locals, but we’re outsiders here. “Friday Night Lights” tells an engrossing story with such conviction and honesty, embedded in a surplus of stylistic flourishes, that it becomes one of the best sports movies in recent memory.

Criminal

0

The Argentine film “Nine Queens” (“Nueve Reinas”) played in the United States in 2002 and grossed $1.2 million, respectable for a foreign-language art-house film. I wrote in my review that the film was so wonderfully entertaining that “if (it) were in English, it would play on 3,000 screens and make $150 million.” Surely its only obstacle was American moviegoers’ general hesitance to see subtitled movies.

The people at Warner Bros. thought so, too, and the film has been remade as “Criminal,” directed by Steven Soderbergh’s second-unit director Gregory Jacobs and written by Jacobs and Soderbergh. Warner Independent has released it, and it’s playing on fewer than 100 screens, and will probably gross no more than $3 million, consigned to the fate of “artsy” movies that mass audiences don’t like.

Which is silly, because it’s exactly the kind of movie mass audiences DO like: smart, funny, fast-paced and frivolous. I’m telling you, if you put it on 3,000 screens and backed it up with the appropriate marketing, you’d have a $150 million hit. Why can’t I run a movie studio?!

Anyway, this story of cons, double-crosses and swindles is set in Los Angeles, City of Lies. We first meet Rodrigo (Diego Luna), a soulful, fresh-faced Mexican lad from the barrio who is pulling small cons in a casino — not very well, as he is caught right away and is about to be rousted by security. He’s rescued, though, by Richard Gaddis (John C. Reilly), a smoother, more experienced con man who needs a new partner and who recognizes the qualities Rodrigo has that he doesn’t: Rodrigo is young and looks innocent. People will trust a face like his. The only way Richard can get people to trust him is by wearing nice suits and being quick on his feet.

Rodrigo needs $75,000 to help his father pay off gambling debts, though as with most explanations in this film, that sounds like a lie. He and Richard stumble upon a scheme to sell counterfeits of valuable old treasury notes to a Scottish billionaire (Peter Mullan) who’s in town for only a few days and who is known to be a collector of such artifacts.

The billionaire is staying at the Biltmore Hotel, where Richard’s estranged sister Valerie (Maggie Gyllenhaal) works. The two are not on speaking terms because, unsurprisingly, Richard has tried to con her out of her inheritance following their mother’s death. Litigation between the siblings is ongoing. Richard is not, to put it gently, a very nice person. He’s different from most heist-movie characters in that we kind of WANT him to get caught, just because he deserves it so much.

Oh, but he’s smooth. Reilly, a reliable actor in all cases, is at the top of his game here. His character uses almost the exact same delivery when he’s conning as when he’s having honest conversation, making it impossible to tell which is which, and Reilly imbues the guy with a calm confidence that belies the sweaty desperation of which it is born. Richard does most of the swearing in the film, and it always sounds like he’s compensating for his average looks and too-whiny voice by dropping F-bombs to sound tough. For whatever reason, Richard views the world as owing him a living, and he’s glad to separate people from their money, no matter who they are.

Diego Luna’s Rodrigo, plagued with a conscience, seems reluctant to engage in Richard’s most heartless schemes (scamming old grandmothers, for example), but is torn between that and his father’s needs. He makes lovey-dovey eyes at Valerie, Richard’s sister, reminding us that he’s really still just a kid. He’s in over his head.

And the twists? What a delight they are! If you saw “Nine Queens,” you already know this film, as very little has been changed. So I will quote myself again:

“Some caper films insist on one twist after another, often stretching the limits of probability; we’re asked to believe that some pretty elaborate schemes were set up and some major coincidences relied upon. ‘(Criminal),’ though, is content to pull the rug out from under us only a few times, and when it’s over, there is no ambiguity. We know exactly who everyone is, and what everyone was up to all along — and it makes perfect sense. In fact, once we see the conclusion, we realize it’s the only outcome that COULD make sense, given what we already know.”

“Criminal” isn’t quite as witty or gritty as “Nine Queens,” and it admittedly holds less appeal if you already know what’s going to happen. But if you didn’t see “Nine Queens” — and odds are you didn’t — see it, now that it’s in English. Prove me right.