Home Blog Page 57

The Sheik: Won’t You Be My Valentino?

0

Desert Star Playhouse is the most consistent theater in Utah.

It never deviates from the narrow niche is has carved for itself: Musical melodrama parodies of familiar stories, written in-house, with a troupe of regular actors and a live pianist.

But more to the point, the shows are reliably high in quality — not “theatre” with an “re,” for sure, but funny and goofy stuff that will entertain your average casual theatergoer for a couple hours.

All of which is a long way of explaining that once you’ve reviewed a few shows there, it’s hard to keep writing new reviews. I’m always tempted to say, “It’s typical Desert Star, and that’s a good thing,” and call it quits.

The current show, “The Sheik, or Won’t You Be My Valentino?,” is a characteristically silly and convoluted story about a pair of English explorers, Alice Hastings (Kerstin Anderson) and her prissy fiancé Percival Rampling (Ben E. Millet), who find an important artifact in Arabia. The good Sheik (Scott Holman, also director and writer, adapting from an old script by Peter Van Slyke) needs the artifact for good purposes, while his evil cousin the Wazir (Jack Drayton) wants it for selfish reasons. The Sheik falls in love with Alice, too, a love which he admits is “paper-thin,” since they’ve never really spent any time together. (Later, Percival confesses to someone that his engagement to Alice was just a plot convenience, and that his getting together with someone else would be “an acceptable plot twist.”)

On the Sheik’s side are Omir (Holly Braithwaite) and Ramin (Patrick Rosier); Ramin speaks mostly in lines from Tom Cruise movies, allegedly because he looks like Cruise, which he doesn’t. With the Wazir is his sorcerer, Yakmid (Matt Kohler) and his assistant Jasmine (Mary Parker Williams), who is ditzy and carries around a purse. She is one of the more amusing characters in the play, which is the same thing I said about Williams in the last show I saw her in at Desert Star.

Everyone is well-cast, and no cast member mugs or hams more than necessary. Holman is always good in leading roles, if for no other reason than he’s the best at ad-libbing, which is common in these shows. “The Sheik” is not the theater’s absolute funniest offering — one or two scenes drag it down — but it’s funny enough to be worth seeing, both for newcomers and Desert Star regulars.

Should you go? Seems like half the audience is always composed of regulars. See for yourself why that is.

Are We There Yet?

0

From the diary of Sister Dinah Johannsen Olsen, July 24, 1847:

This is the place? Seriously: THIS is the place?! Heavens preserve us, what a terrible, forsaken wasteland. Are we being punished? What’s the deal here?

No, wait, I see a lake! An enormous lake of water that looks cool and refreshing …! Oh. I’ve just been informed it’s a lake of saltwater. Well, hooray.

Must look for the positives. Shh, Jebby, Mama’s writing in her journal! Positives … well, we’re here, anyway. We can stop walking, and maybe my right foot will grow back. (I am no scientist; is this even possible?)

Eliza, be careful! Your ankle is showing under your skirts! Do you want the whole company seeing your business?

Where was I? Yes, positives. It will be good to build a home here in this nightmarish, barren purgatory, where surely even the daringest of persecutors will not bother to pursue us. I would chase my enemies a long way, but I would stop when I got to hell’s outer courtyard.

Little Joseph, the ox is biting you because he doesn’t like you poking him!

Wait, why would I actually write down the things I yelled at my children while I was trying to write? I must be going mad.

Yes, I am glad the journey is over. It was arduous and awful, with hardships at every turn. And you know what was the worst part of it? All the fiddle music. My goodness, couldn’t someone have brought along an accordion, or even a bagpipe? It’s non-stop fiddle music, ever since we left Nauvoo! That screechy, whiny instrument — it operates on the same principle as scraping your fingernails on a blackboard, you know — was surely designed by Satan himself. And every night, some well-meaning brother drags the thing out and plays to his heart’s content, while the rest of us are supposed to suddenly forget our troubles and dance the night away. Because after 12 hours of walking and trudging and digging and burying, there’s nothing like a vigorous two-step to help you relax.

The entire time, I wished Sister Emma Smith were here. Surely she would have had the gumption to remove the offending instrument from the brother’s hands and place it where the sun, as the lower classes say, does not shine. And that would have sent the message to the rest of the company: DON’T PLAY THE FIDDLE. Alas, I lack the fortitude necessary to behave so boldly. Instead, I suffer in silence, and occasionally in a less-silent manner, such as screaming.

But I will persevere. The journey is essentially over now, as we have arrived at our destination. Leapt from the frying pan and fallen into the fire, as it were. I’m told we shall make the desert bloom like a rose, and I think I have faith that is possible. But we sure have our work cut out for us. Getting this place suitable even for skunks and vultures to live in, let alone for any outsiders to join us, will be an Olympian task. And can I sit down first? Because seriously, not even joking, I’m so tired I could throw up.

I used to be a patriotic American, until the government proved worthless when it came to protecting our rights. Now we have had to flee westward, and even send our husbands to march in the war against Mexico! (Funny thing about polygamy: When a man leaves, he abandons six wives, instead of just one. It’s so much more efficient this way.) One thing’s for sure: We won’t be flying American flags on any 24th of July as long as any of us are alive!

I grumble too much. I ought to be more content. But it’s all so hard! One hesitates to ask for a sign, especially when one realizes that historically, most of the signs God has given have involved something falling from the sky or catching on fire. But still: How am I to know this horrible journey has been worthwhile? All the hunger, all the pain, all the fiddling — why?

I’ve just been told some of us are being asked to head south, to start a settlement called “Provo.”

Great. More walking.

But maybe that’s my sign. Maybe Provo will be my happy valley.

Maybe….

Tadpole

0

Demure farce and smart, almost scholarly comedy are the order of the day in “Tadpole,” one of the more delightfully entertaining films to emerge from this year’s Sundance Film Festival.

The title character — though no one calls him that anymore — is Oscar Grubman (Aaron Stanford), a very intelligent 15-year-old who speaks French, reads Voltaire, and is bored with the immature, thoughtless girls at the fancy-pants boarding school he attends. His best friend (Robert Iler) remarks that Oscar is a 40-year-old in a 15-year-old’s body.

While home in Manhattan for Thanksgiving, Oscar decides to profess his love for the woman he really wants: Eve (Sigourney Weaver), who happens to be his stepmother.

She is a biologist; his father Stanley (John Ritter) is a history professor at Columbia. They are wealthy and erudite, and so are their friends. High class, however, doesn’t stop Eve’s best friend Diane (Bebe Neuwirth) from seducing Oscar: That’s right, they sleep together. Only 10 years ago, such a development in a film probably would have caused more uproar than it does now. It helps that in this case, it’s handled tastefully and comically, and the point is made that Oscar is far more mature than most boys his age. (The legalities of such a coupling are not addressed, which is probably for the best in escapist fare such as this.)

There is a fantastic scene in a restaurant where Oscar pines for Eve, Diane looks for an excuse to spill what happened, and Stanley and Eve have no idea what’s going on. John Ritter is no stranger to farce, and the way he behaves here shows remarkable restraint and timing. Bebe Neuwirth, for her part, very nearly steals the show as a worldly, sassy-mouthed middle-aged vixen.

Newcomer Aaron Stanford is quite a find as Oscar. His character is a few degrees this side of Max Fisher, the protagonist of “Rushmore,” and Stanford plays him with realistic teen-age confusion. Sigourney Weaver, resplendent and graceful as ever, is a sight for sore eyes, particularly when those eyes are sore from watching too many women demean themselves in movies.

Writers Niels Mueller and Heather McGowan, whose words were shot on digital video by savvy director Gary Winick, do not dwell on the social unacceptability of the various issues brought up in “Tadpole.” At the center is teen-age love, not romantic taboos, and this modest, trifling comedy does the matter justice.

K-19: The Widowmaker

0

“K-19: The Widowmaker” causes me to swell with pride and patriotism for the Communist Party and the Motherland.

No, wait, that’s what it would do if I were Russian. As an American, I think, “Huh. So the Soviets had some trouble with their first nuclear submarine, back during the Cold War. How about that.”

This movie, directly competently by Kathryn Bigelow, is playing to the wrong audience. Americans are not liable to be enthralled by an overlooked chapter in Russian history, unless it’s portrayed in an especially enthralling manner, which is this not. This is standard stuff-goes-wrong-and-the-whole-crew-might die fare, with an attitude about it that we ought to care just because it’s based on a true story. A true story that happened to another nation that doesn’t even exist anymore.

It is 1961, and the Cold War is tense. The United States has submarines within striking distance of Moscow and Leningrad. The Russians want to launch test missiles from their new submarine, K-19, with the assumption JFK’s spy planes will see it and the U.S. will get the message that it ought not make the first strike against the Soviet Union.

The commander of K-19 is Capt. Polenin (Liam Neeson), but when he can’t whip his crew into shape fast enough for the over-demanding higher-ups, he’s replaced with Capt. Vostrikov (Harrison Ford), who is as cold and dispassionate as they come. He works the crew through rigorous drills to ensure their readiness if the time comes. Since a full hour of the movie is spent on these drills, you can be assured the time will come, though it’s not enough to justify having spent an hour on all those scenes of pretending to put out fires, pretending to launch missiles, etc.

If the idea of Harrison Ford as a Russian sounds bad, you’re right. He only does the Russian accent on about every other word, though. Overall, he sounds like Harrison Ford doing a bad Russian accent. His character is distant and unknowable, too — one of his least charismatic roles to date.

Liam Neeson, a bit more trained in the methods of acting, doesn’t do much better at inspiring sympathy from the audience or at the Russian accent. This is a film of men — not a single female in the cast — doing manly things like fixing reactor cores and such, but darned if there is ever much tension beyond the basic question of who will live and who will die. These aren’t people; these are shadowy figures in a murky story whose lives are not particularly meaningful to us.

Stuart Little 2

0

The first “Stuart Little” seemed to exist in a world apart from other movies. Its special effects were seamless, its humor guileless, its story well-told, its messages sweetly overdone. The acting, even among the humans, was gently cartoonish and stylized. I wondered, as I wondered again this year with “Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron,” how a major Hollywood studio ever got involved in such a worthwhile project.

The sequel is a mixed blessing, then. It is exactly the same as the first film — same sunny disposition, same cast, same director. But on the down side … it is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE FIRST FILM. Even the plot, in which sinister animals pull con jobs on the Little family, remains. It’s hard to recommend a film that’s so utterly a retread of its predecessor, but it’s hard NOT to recommend one where James Woods is the voice of an evil falcon named Falcon.

This time around, the emotional crises are as follows: Mrs. Little (Geena Davis) is being overprotective of anthropomorphic little Stuart the Canadian mouse (voice of Michael J. Fox, playing a character approximately his same size), and Stuart’s human brother George (Jonathan Lipnicki; I’m tired of him now) is making friends outside the family. Stuart is feeling lonely and smothered, but his adoptive dad (Hugh Laurie) tells him to find the silver lining on every cloud. That’s the Little way, he says, and you believe it: Mr. and Mrs. Little are Ward and June Cleaver incarnate, only somehow even more optimistic.

Stuart’s in luck. He rescues a wounded bird named Margalo (voice of Melanie Griffith) from the aforementioned Falcon, and the two become friends. But there is trouble afoot, and everyone learns valuable lessons about the importance of being honest and why you shouldn’t trust birds, or something.

The performances are uniformly charming; director Rob Minkoff has a skill, it would seem, for getting all of his actors to deliver performances cut from the same cloth. Nathan Lane gets the best lines as the voice of Snowbell, the Little family’s neurotic cat; he also gets the film’s obligatory poop jokes.

Unabashedly, “Stuart Little 2” is for kids. It is not interested in providing ironic, winking jokes to entertain their parents. And since kids don’t mind watching the same sort of thing repeatedly, there’s no reason not to take them to “Stuart Little 2.”

A&Ftermath

0

Citizens of Provo, unite! We have been dissed by Abercrombie & Fitch. And by “we” I mean “you,” because I live in Orem.

This chain of quasi-trendy clothing stores has caused furor before with its racy catalogues. The pictures in these catalogues feature lithe young men doing manly things like frolicking gaily in the surf or wrestling nakedly on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace, always demonstrating the best way to showcase A&F clothes, i.e., by not wearing them.

A&F also publishes a magazine, A&F Quarterly, and that is where the slam came from. In the current issue, whose cover has a shirtless man kissing and groping a scantily clad woman in the front seat of a car — please, kids, classy people move to the back — there is an article entitled “College Towns: The Good, the Bad and the Nasty.” Provo fell under the category of “bad”:

“Imagine a college where all 30,000 students have signed an honor code swearing off alcohol, sex and caffeine. [A&F apparently got a hold of the extra-special top-secret anti-caffeine Honor Code, while the rest of us have only seen the version that never mentions the word.] Now imagine the town that is host to said college, if you can. Welcome to Provo, Utah, home of the biggest Mormon college in the world, BYU. Provo’s got everything most college towns have, except fun. [We’re low on drug overdoses, drunken driving and abortions, too.] Clean Flicks edits their videos to remove smut. [Because for sure EVERYONE in Provo goes to Clean Flicks.] The only dance club in town is dry, but brags about its great smoothies. The city elders shut down the topless dancing joint, LeMar’s, and protested when 2 Live Crew came to perform last year. [Remember how we also protested Toby Keith? Yeah, that was funny.] Meanwhile, sex-starved students sublimate their libidos into such healthy activities as football, the International Ice Carving Contest and trips to the Malt Shoppe. [Don’t forget hiking the Y and being offended. BYU offers master’s programs in both of those.] For happy college-bound Mormons, this town is paradise; for the rest of us, it’s something else entirely.”

Nothing fun to do in Provo?! OK, that’s sort of true. But A&F has a store here. Wouldn’t the magazine at least count that as something worthwhile in this otherwise fun-forsaken town?

To investigate, I went to the A&F store at the Shops at Riverwoods. Now, A&F employees are instructed not to go around saying, “Can I help you find something?,” but instead to wait for the customers to come to them. This is allegedly because A&F doesn’t want its employees to be a nuisance, but I suspect the real reason is that the employees were hired based on physical appearance rather than salesclerking abilities, and the company doesn’t want that to become obvious by letting them interact with the public, like how you lock your crazy cousin in the barn during family reunions.

Anyway, true to their word, the employees largely ignored me, which gave me plenty of space to examine the merchandise and do some shoplifting. A&F sells the same sort of clothes as the Gap, but at twice the price and with the words “Abercrombie & Fitch” plastered all over them. I don’t know why you’d pay $30 for a T-shirt that advertises someone else’s product. (Shouldn’t A&F be paying YOU?) But then, I also don’t understand how A&F even stays in business when its target market — gay teens, apparently — can’t afford to shop there.

But capitalism in general confuses me. Why does Hogi Yogi sell more sandwiches than Gandolfo’s? Why is Los Hermanos busier than El Azteca? And how can a town with a dollar theater be considered boring? I guess if there’s no surf to frolic in or a rug to wrestle on, the A&F people just don’t know how to enjoy themselves.

Eight Legged Freaks

0

“Eight Legged Freaks” is a film without ideas. It is a modern-day B movie, but it does nothing with the genre other than re-create it, and if we needed re-creations of formulaic, predictable movies, that need was not widely publicized.

For there have certainly been other movies about giant things invading towns, and several about giant spiders specifically. Radiation is usually the cause, and it is up to One Man to take the lead and save the town. All of that is present here.

So what is “Eight Legged Freaks”? It’s not a parody; not much from the genre is given any particular spin or held up to scrutiny. An homage, maybe? Not quite, for there is little in the film to suggest its makers have a great love for B-grade monster movies. It seems, rather cynically, like they just sort of remember the genre and decided to create a new entry in it — not out of affection or mockery, but out of simple pragmatism.

Fine, if your movie turns out good, but this one didn’t. Director Ellory Elkayem (who co-wrote the screenplay with first-timer Jesse Alexander) unleashes huge mutant spiders on an economically depressed Arizona desert town and then just waits to see what happens. The plot does not twist; it’s a straight line from beginning to end, with no surprises in between. Eventually, there is a conclusion, and you know it will be one of three: Either the resourceful townsfolk destroy all the spiders, or else the spiders take over the world, or else the townsfolk THINK they’ve destroyed all the spiders but we’re shown a sac of eggs about to hatch just before the final credits roll.

Our hero, allegedly, is played by David Arquette. I hope you will join me in protesting the idea that David Arquette can carry a film, for surely he cannot, and he does not do it in this case. He is outwitted and outclassed by Kari Wuhrer, who plays sexy sheriff Sam Parker. Her feebly rebellious daughter Ashley (Scarlett Johansson) and spider-knowledgeable nerd son Mike (Scott Terra) are on hand, too, as are various other average townspeople.

The spiders themselves make cute animal noises, which makes them not scary but not quite funny, either. They gush obscene amounts of goo when they are shot, which is funny. In one scene, one of them voraciously attacks its prey only to discover it’s a stuffed moose head. That, too, is amusing.

“Amusing” is what this film needs more of. It is not serious, by any means, but humor — e.g., one-liners, character quirks, situational comedy — is not a priority, either. What we get are Doug E. Doug as a deeply unfunny conspiracy-theory radio host, and Rick Overton as the fat, incompetent sheriff’s deputy. And I think merely the idea of giant spiders killing people at random is meant to be darkly funny, but it didn’t do it for me.

“Eight Legged Freaks” is not a bad movie, per se. One can sit through it and find bits of joy here and there, and even a smidgen of satisfaction upon leaving. But it is nowhere near what it could have been, had it lived up to the ideas implied within its boisterous title.

Ann Landers’ Final Column

0

Dear Ann Landers: My wife and I are expecting triplets. We were certain our family would rejoice with us, but we were wrong. The comments went like this: “You’re really going to have your hands full,” or “I hope you will have plenty of help.” What can we say when we get such rude comments? — Rejoicing East of the Rockies

Dear Rejoicing: I don’t feel well. My head is achy, and something’s not right in my throat. There’s an unusual tingling sensation in my chest.

Wait! Who turned out the lights? Oh, never mind. They’re back again. Everything is fuzzy, though. I can barely see the typewriter. I’d better lie down. — Ann

* * * * *

Dear Ann Landers: I have been married to a great guy for 23 years, but his mother is a pain in the neck. I try to show affection for her by buying her gifts for her birthday, Mother’s Day, Christmas and so on. She has returned every present I’ve ever given her. My husband says to forget her bad manners, but it hurts my feelings. Any ideas? — Confused in Colorado

Dear Confused: So cold. So very, very cold.

There is darkness all around me, even though it is daytime. Regrets of past mistakes haunt me; the present and future seem dim while the past is sharp and vivid. O lost opportunities! O misbegotten schemes! O unrequited love!

The cold. Oh, the cold.

Send her gift certificates.

Ahh! I’m shaking uncontrollably as I type this. I hope you will forgive any misspellings. I cannot feel my legs.

Why is it so cold? — Ann

* * * * *

Dear Ann Landers: I am dating a man who has an 8-year-old son. My boyfriend, “Tom,” believes he is raising the next Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods combined. The kid is constantly throwing balls inside the house — basketballs, footballs, golf balls, whatever. My boyfriend sees nothing wrong with it, but I cannot tolerate such behavior. Am I being unreasonable? — Hit or Miss in North Carolina

Dear Carolina: Yes, you’re being unreasonable. Tell the boy that he can play ball in the house — until he breaks something, and then he has to pay for it and play outside thereafter. That should keep him careful, while maintaining peace in your relationship with his dad.

Stabbing pain! I am racked to my very center by intense, searing pain. Nothing could have prepared me for this.

Am I shivering or having a seizure? Why can’t I control my muscles? Why is the room spinning?

The feud with my sister, the decades of spinsterhood — it all seems so meaningless now. Is this how it will end? — Ann

* * * * *

Dear Ann Landers: I’ve known “Anita” for 10 years and thought we were close. But eight months ago, I started a small business selling handcrafted jewelry, and last week, Anita informed me that she is going to start selling handcrafted jewelry, too. I am fuming that this so-called “friend” would go into competition with me. Please advise me. — Not Pleased in North Dakota

Dear Dakota: I feel Death’s clammy hand upon my shoulder.

Pain gone. All is peaceful.

So cold. So very, very cold.

Light ahead. Must … go toward it. Angels … sing … hallelujah. Talk … to Anita. Tell her … how you … feel. Woe and travail … slipping … away … from … memory. All … is well. Don’t lose … a friend … over it. At last … happiness … release … blissssssasdj;f;d/

The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course

0

If you love Steve Irwin the Crocodile Hunter but have always felt like a thief, a common thief, for watching him for free on TV, you’re in luck. Now you can go to a movie theater and PAY to watch his hilarious antics!

I said the same thing a week ago about “Powerpuff Girls,” and two weeks ago about “Hey, Arnold!” Why make a movie based on a TV show if you’re going to make it look like just another episode of the TV show?

“The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course,” to be fair, is only about half TV show. The other half is filled with a ridiculous and badly acted plot about a downed satellite whose data-containing “black box” has been lost in Australia, and the U.S. feds sent to retrieve it. The “collision course” of the title is that we know the box has been swallowed by a crocodile, which Steve and wife Terri are pursuing, so it’s only a matter of time before the Irwins meet up with the no-nonsense government agents.

It’s more than an hour into the film, in fact, before Steve and Terri interact with anyone other than their documentary crew. The movie switches back and forth a lot, and it’s easy to tell the difference: The government scenes are in a widescreen movie format, while the Crocodile Hunter scenes are in the TV-ratio format. That’s right folks, you don’t even get to see a widescreen version of Steve and his feats of derring-do.

Steve, an insane Australian idiot who trots the globe harassing animals, has an undeniable charm that is in full force here. In a way, it’s good no one tried to get him to act: His TV show is built around his natural curiosity and enthusiasm, so it’s probably best to get out of the way and let him just do his thing.

In fact, the scenes of Steve and Terri molesting snakes, spiders and crocodiles are the most entertaining in the film. (But again: You could watch this at home for free.) Everything else is, well, stupid, broadly acted by unknowns (except for Magda Szubanski, who played the farmer’s wife in “Babe”) and seemingly about half-aware of its own superfluousness.

There is an amusing fight between Steve and a wormy federal agent atop a speeding car. It is just like every other movie fight that takes place atop a speeding car except that in this case, one of the participants keeps looking at the camera and narrating the fight as though his opponent were an unusually incompetent form of wildlife. It’s nice to know the filmmakers wondered the same thing the rest of us do: Does Steve ALWAYS act like this, or only when he’s only out on assignment?

I cannot in good conscience recommend you spend money on a movie that ought to have stayed on TV, but if you’re such a die-hard Crocodile Hunter fan that you can’t pass it up, rest assured you will not be disappointed.

Reign of Fire

0

The screening times conflicted, and I had to choose between seeing “Reign of Fire” or “Stuart Little 2.” Naturally, I chose the movie about dragons over the one about a talking mouse.

As movies about dragons go, “Reign of Fire” is a pretty good one. It’s reasonably smart, rather imaginative and very hard-working. It’s probably as believable as a movie about dragons could be, and the dragons look real. It’s better than “Dragonslayer,” but not quite as good as “Pete’s Dragon.” I enjoyed it.

It is set in a ruined 2020, 12 years after dragons suddenly appeared in London and scorched their way to the top of the food chain. They live on ash, which is why they burn everything they see; they don’t care if humans are in the way, and they’re not opposed to eating them, too. The few clusters of people left alive have taken shelter in ruined castles and underground fortresses.

The leader of one such group is Quinn (Christian Bale), who was involved in the very first dragon sighting and has been running from them ever since. His horde, composed mostly of children whose melancholy prayers at night revolve around keeping safe from dragons, has little food and not much in the way of weapons. They exist in a castle in Northumberland, England.

Then along comes an American squadron of dragon-fighters, led by the bald, bearded, tattooed maniac Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey). He is part of a long line of over-the-top characters played by over-the-top actors who provide unintentional laughs in movies that otherwise are fairly straightforward. He challenges Quinn’s cower-in-the-castle mentality and wants to aggressively pursue and kill the flying firebreathers.

There’s a doomed, apocalyptic feel to the film that is sharp enough to give it an edge, but not so much that it becomes gloomy.

Also a plus is that it’s not afraid to be just a dragon movie. There are no parallels to current events, no ironic references to other dragon movies, no pretenses of being anything else. Director Rob Bowman (“The X-Files”) takes himself as seriously as he has to, but never forgets that he’s not making “Casablanca” here. The result is a movie whose action scenes are exciting and whose scary beasts are indeed scary.

Road to Perdition

0

“Road to Perdition” is a film where all the elements come together so organically that you can’t imagine it succeeding without every part intact.

Calling it a Tom Hanks vehicle doesn’t do justice to the director, screenwriter, cinematographer or supporting actors, and calling it a Sam Mendes film, in honor of the director, neglects everyone else. This movie could have relied on any one of its strengths and let the other jobs by filled by less talented people; instead, it strives for, and achieves, excellence in nearly every area. It is one of the best films of the year.

The subject matter is tricky: Our protagonist is a killer. Worse, our protagonist is a killer played by Tom Hanks. He is Michael Sullivan, who grew up without a father and was taken in by Irish organized crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) in the suburbs of 1930s Chicago. All Michael’s young sons, Michael Jr. and Peter, know about their dad is that he “works for Mr. Rooney,” who is like a rascally grandfather to them.

One rainy night, Michael Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) hides in Michael’s car and sees him and Rooney’s son Connor (Daniel Craig) carry out a mission that ends in several deaths. The younger Sullivan is horrified, his father no less so upon learning what his son has witnessed.

Michael assures the Rooneys that his son can keep a secret. John seems convinced. Connor, already established as a hot-head, is not so sure. Some terrible things happen, and then the two Michael Sullivans are on the road, seeking to perform one last mission that will put a stop to the killing forever. (The younger Michael leaves his bicycle behind in the snow, a fitting homage to the lost sled in “Citizen Kane.”)

Someone in the film says, “Sons are born to make trouble for their fathers,” and “Road to Perdition” is basically a film about the father-son relationship. What Michael Sullivan wants more than anything is for his son not to follow in his footsteps. What his son wants is his father’s approval.

This is only Mendes’ second film, after “American Beauty,” but already he commands attention. His work is smooth and careful, and he embraces subtlety.

He wisely re-teamed here with his “American Beauty” compatriots Thomas Newman, who wrote the haunting Irish-themed score, and Conrad L. Hall, whose cinematography is a work of art. Everything is attractively framed and handsomely photographed; like most great films, this one is as enjoyable to look at as it is to listen to.

We’re so used to seeing Tom Hanks act brilliantly that his excellent work here seems like par for the course. Watch his eyes. He acts with them, and he says more with them than with his dialogue. Michael Sullivan may be a killer, but no one with Tom Hanks’ eyes can be a truly bad man. He will probably be nominated for a well-deserved Oscar, as will Paul Newman, whose piercing blue eyes convey a lot in his performance, too.

Jude Law is noteworthy in a small role as a grisly photographer who does freelance work for Rooney, and Stanley Tucci is characteristically reliable as an associate of Al Capone’s. Young Tyler Hoechlin carries a heavy load admirably as Michael Jr.

Halloween: Resurrection

0

In the very popular deleted scenes found on the “Waiting for Guffman” DVD, there is a scene where Libby Mae uses a monologue from an unnamed, non-existent play to audition for the show. In the monologue, a woman lectures her brother, now insane and dying, on the evils he had previously perpetrated against her. Finally, she says, “I’ll see you in hell, Billy” and lets him die.

Compare this with an early scene in “Halloween: Resurrection,” featuring Jamie Lee Curtis, wife of “Waiting for Guffman” mastermind Christopher Guest. She has captured her evil brother Michael Myers, who has previously perpetrated quite a number of crimes against her, and she intends to let him die. What does she say? “I’ll see you in hell.”

It probably wasn’t supposed to make me laugh, but 1) I had just watched the “Guffman” scenes a few nights earlier, and 2) She kissed Michael on the mouth before she said it. This is a pretty twisted relationship these two have, one of them mass-murdering and the other one giving the first one some pre-death lovin’.

And so begins “Halloween: Resurrection,” an unnecessary sequel to a brain-dead franchise.

As is often the case with these movies, the “resurrection” of the title is blatantly false. (Part 3, “Season of the Witch,” contained neither a season nor any witches; Part 5, “The Revenge of Michael Myers,” did not feature any scenes of Michael getting revenge; and “Halloween H20” contained no scenes revolving around water.) Michael has not come back to life, for indeed, he was never dead. At the end of “Halloween H20,” it was not Michael whom Laurie Strode (Curtis) beheaded. It was a paramedic whom Michael had dressed up in his costume as a decoy.

After learning she killed an innocent man, Laurie went nutters and has been rocking, stringy-haired and beady-eyed, in a mental institution ever since. (It is called the Grace Andersen Sanitarium, by the way, and you have to wonder what a person does to get a nuthouse named after her.)

In the aforementioned scene, Michael has come to kill her, but she’s been waiting. Naturally, her plan goes awry, and the dead one turns out to be her, leaving Michael free to roam the countryside, killing wantonly and with impunity.

Who’s on top and who’s on bottom now, huh?

It is then we encounter the film’s real plot, which involves a reality-TV Webcast called “Dangertainment.” Six college students will be placed in Michael Myers’ childhood home on Halloween night, with cameras all over the place (including on each contestant’s head) to capture the drama and trauma. You will not be surprised to learn that Michael shows up and kills most of them, and that sure enough, some horny teens have a go at doin’ it (fiddling while the ship goes down, as it were).

Part of me is glad movies in the post-“Scream” era have stopped being self-referential again and have gotten back to doing the things that “Scream” made fun of them for. But part of me also says, “What, have these kids never seen ‘Scream’? Don’t go to the basement, and don’t have sex, for crying out loud!”

Anyway, the man behind “Dangertainment” is played by a person called Busta Rhymes, again violating my assertion that you should not be allowed to appear in motion pictures unless you have a name. Mr. Rhymes has, I believe, the largest mouth this side of Steven Tyler, and it flaps constantly in this movie. If this were the “Friday the 13th” series, he and all the other unlikable characters would die as punishment for being unlikable. But since this is a “serious” slasher film, he instead turns out to be the character in the final reel who gets killed but then turns out not to be dead after all so that he can rescue the chaste, chased heroine. Sorry if I have spoiled it for you, but if that’s really a spoiler, then you have not seen very many slasher films, and you should, I don’t know, be grateful or something.

The college students are typical: dumb one, smart one, black one, horny one, slutty one, weird one. Did I mention that Smart One has an online boyfriend who is actually only in high school, and who is watching the proceedings online at a Halloween party? Well, she does, and he is. It’s actually a cool concept, because he’s able to send instant messages to her Palm Pilot with warnings like, “He’s coming up the stairs!” and “Don’t go in there!” He’s like us, except that he gets to interact with the characters, while we have to be content with yelling at a frustratingly unheedful movie screen.

It was true of “H20,” and it’s true of “Resurrection”: A bigger budget and more recognizable stars do not make a film good. Screenplay, direction and acting will do that, and all three have fled far, far away from “Resurrection.”

Actually, the direction, by Rick Rosenthal — who directed No. 2 and has been doing TV since — is not bad, insofar as things generally look right and there are a number of nifty POV shots thanks to the multiple cameras hanging around. Except that’s probably more the work of the cinematographer, now that I think about it. Rick’s main contributions, in my mind, were casting the film with idiots and then ruining what could have been a very creepy scene: In the aforementioned, it would have been much scarier if we saw the high school kid’s message, “He’s coming up the stairs!,” BEFORE we saw Michael coming up the stairs. Director Rick did it in the opposite order. Not scary. You suck, Rick.

Some unintentionally amusing elements of this film:

In the mental institution, Michael kills a security guard and then a second one goes looking for his missing partner. For some reason, the second guy’s first instinct is to look in the clothes dryer, which of course is where the first guy’s head turns out to be. But why did he look there? Is hiding in the dryer a common thing for security guards to do?

(It reminded me of this funny exchange my friend made up:
ADULT: What are you doing?
LITTLE JOHNNY: Nothing.
ADULT: What’s in the dryer?
LITTLE JOHNNY: Nobody.)

Also, to get to the dryer, the second guy pretty much has to step over the dead, headless body, yet he doesn’t notice it.

I was also entertained to learn that Michael’s childhood home has a dungeon.

Also, I liked when the high school kid called 911 and then said, “Hello, 911?” Movie characters always do this, and it’s silly. For one thing, 911 operators answer the phone, “911, what is your emergency?,” so any confusion about whether you’ve dialed 911 should be cleared up right there. For another thing, who else could you have called after dialing only three digits? Maybe you thought you dialed 911, but your finger slipped and you accidentally dialed 801-356-7272 and got Papa John’s Pizza in Provo, Utah?

Anyway, the “Halloween” series certainly isn’t over. Michael has killed Laurie Strode, his last living relative, but her son is still alive. He was played by Josh Hartnett in “H20,” but somehow I doubt anyone with even Josh Hartnett’s level of star power will agree to appear in another “Halloween” movie. When will Guffman show up and put a stop to this?

The Royal Treatment

0

Queen Elizabeth II Visits a Chatroom.

** QueenE2 enters the room **
JLoFan222: so i was like ‘not without my handbag!!!!!!!!
Tooltyme: what up queen?
AmnesiaSparkles: yo queenie
QueenE2: My, it certainly is lovely to see so many loyal subjects gathered here on this magic television set.
MonkeyBoi19: LOL @ jlofan
Nursferatu: hi queen
Tooltyme: lol handbag
QueenE2: I bid one and all a gracious how-do-you-do, and bring you the warmest wishes of the British Empire.
Swein29: who wants pot?
Zooropa12: *raises hand*
Swein29: ill email you some
MonkeyBoi19: LOL @ swien
Tooltyme: queen do you like to party?
Frimfram: anyone from montana?
QueenE2: Why, yes, we recently held quite an extravagant soiree in honor of the Jubilee.
JLoFan222: whats a sioree?
Nursferatu: its a kind of hat
AmnesiaSparkles: hats are funny
Tooltyme: can i have a hat?
Monkeyboi19: swien will email you 1
Swein29: ill email you one
Monkeyboi19: LOL
Frimfram: anyone from montana?
Tooltyme: queen wanna party w/ me?
QueenE2: While your offer is generous, I must reserve judgment until I am more fully apprised of your character and moral standing.
AmnesiaSparkles: wow someones full of herself
Nursferatu: totally
Chesty4U: anyone want nud pics of me/
Chesty4U: nude
Swein29: i do!
JLoFan222: are they hot?????
QueenE2: Such brazenness among our nation’s youth!
Tooltyme: i have nude pics of YOUR MOM!!!!!!!
QueenE2: I shan’t dignify that comment with a reply.
Zooropa12: he didnt mean your mom, queen
Tooltyme: yah, nobodys mom in particlr
QueenE2: It is difficult to tell, in this forum, who is addressing whom. But I shall persevere and get “the hang” of it, I am certain, my young friends!
Frimfram: anyone from montana?
QueenE2: Is Mr. or Ms. Frimfram addressing me?
Tooltyme: queen, youve never been in a chatroom b4?
AmnesiaSparkles: no, becuz queen is waaay old!!!!
MonkeyBoi19: LOL @ amnesia
QueenE2: No, Mr. Tyme, this is my first excursion into the world of the Inter-Net. I have come to see what sorts of issues facing the kingdom are particularly vexing to our youth.
Tooltyme: do you like porn?
Frimfram: anyone from montana?
Swein29: i like pron
Swein29: porn
JLoFan222: queen doesn’t like porn becuz she’s 2 old
Nursferatu: she is made out of dust
QueenE2: I say, this ribaldry begins to offend the sensibilities.
Tooltyme: what about being ribbed?
Zooropa12: condoms are ribbed
AmnesiaSparkle: i luv american idol!!!!!
Tooltyme: that show sux
JLoFan222: like queen
AmnesiaSparkle: it dosnt suck!!!
QueenE2: I do wish to enquire which issues the young people should like the monarchy to address.
Tooltyme: can you get us free beer?
MonkeyBoi19: LOL @ tool
Swein29: yah free beer
QueenE2: The impudence is astonishing.
Tooltyme: beer beer beer
QueenE2: I shall have you all beheaded!
Frimfram: anyone from montana?

1776

0

Once you get past the over-abundance of “Congress-is-worthless” jokes and corny Ben Franklin witticisms, you have in “1776” a fascinating civics lesson and a smartly entertaining show.

It is the story of the Second Continental Congress, which eventually drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence, but which first went through numerous internal struggles.

Those struggles make up the show’s plot. John Adams (E. Scott Wells) is the fiery advocate of independence; unfortunately, as several people observe, he is “obnoxious and disliked,” which lessens his chances of convincing the congress to sign any kind of declaration. Through Richard Henry Lee (Daniel Beck), he gets Virginia’s support, which opens the door. Still, though, the document has to be written, and once it is, there are disagreements about almost every word in it. (Anyone who has ever tried to write something by committee will cringe in recognition during that scene.)

Conflict abounds. Pennsylvania is overly cautious, desiring mostly to retain ties to England. Delaware tends to side with Pennsylvania. The Carolinas stick together. New York keeps abstaining, courteously. It’s “hot as hell” (or, as SCERA has white-washed the lyrics, “hot and smells”) in Philadelphia. Thomas Jefferson (Kyle Fotheringham), assigned to draft the declaration, cannot write until his wife arrives and relieves his writer’s block, if you know what I mean. You know how the show’s going to end, but darned if it doesn’t build some suspense along the way.

This show is not often produced, in part because it requires a couple dozen men and only two women — the opposite of how the gender ratios run in most theaters’ talent pools. Agnes Broberg, directing the show at the SCERA Shell, is to be commended for finding enough men to fill the roles, and, even more impressively, for generally finding men around the right age, too.

That said, not every role is acted with as much charisma or flair as you’d want in a Founding Father. As Thomas Jefferson, Kyle Fotheringham is trying to do “dignified” and comes off as bored; Bill Card does more or less the same thing as Adams’ opponent John Dickinson. I sense conviction in both performances, but it’s focused down a blind alley, emotionally speaking.

E. Scott Wells is passionate and convincing as the determined John Adams. His singing voice was strained opening night, but his acting is more than adequate (and for a musical, there’s surprisingly little singing in this show anyway).

Daniel Beck only has one major scene as Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee, but he makes the most of it with an energetically funny performance. His number, “The Lees of Old Virginia,” is the best song of the night.

Randy Honaker plays friendly coot Benjamin Franklin well, and Russell Card has a jolting turn as pro-slavery Edward Rutledge, whose “Molasses to Rum” song is downright haunting. (Ditto “Momma Look Sharp,” a song from the front lines of the war, sung plaintively by David Peterson.) The costumes, mostly on loan from Pioneer Theatre Company, look authentic and lend an air of professionalism to the show.

Should you go? Yeah. The story of the signing of the Declaration of Independence comes to life even if not all of the characters do.

Dear World

0

Jerry Herman’s “Dear World” opened and closed on Broadway in 1969, suffering from a bloated production that ran contrary to the composer’s vision of a small, intimate show.

Now, a mere 33 years later, Sundance is staging the premiere of a revised “Dear World” that is truer to Herman’s original intent. The great outdoors setting at Sundance may not be what you’d call “intimate,” but the performances are quirky and lovable, and so is the show.

I fear the beauty of “Dear World” may be lost on some people. It has fewer songs and more talking than some musicals, and its style is daft and sometimes surreal. The story is slight and parable-like. I didn’t know what Herman meant when he described the show in an interview as “fragile.” Now I know. It’s like the child you feel is most precious because it’s a little different from the others, and you’re afraid the rest of the world won’t appreciate it.

The show, directed by Philip Himberg, is set in Paris just after World War II, when the citizens are still sweeping up the last vestiges of the Nazi occupation — physically, anyway. In every other way, the war has changed Paris forever.

That is not true for Countess Aurelia (Maureen McGovern), though, the madwoman of Chaillot for whom men’s names change every hour and to whom “the sun is always shining, right behind the clouds.” She takes Pollyanna’s optimism and advances it to the next level: full-blown insanity. She lives life the way it used to be, not the way it is. When informed of how hearts have hardened since the recent travails, she sings a song called “I Don’t Want to Know.”

Evil is represented by three suit-wearing industrialists, all called “president” (Eric Bjarnson, Aaron DeJesus, Rock White), who are told by a prospector (Jim Pitts) that beneath Aurelia’s cafe sits an enormous lake of oil. They conspire to level most of Paris, drill the oil, and make themselves richer than they already are.

Aurelia, learning of the plot from the presidents’ conscience-wracked intern Julian (Jason Celaya), must thwart it. She enlists the aid of her two fellow madwomen (Joan Barber and Dee Macaluso), her cafe waitress Nina (Britani Bateman), a waiter (Bijan A. Zaimi), a police sergeant (Ary Kian), a mute (Michael J. Eger) and a sewerman (Max Robinson).

And that’s more or less it. The story takes place entirely in one day; it is meant as a fable, to make larger points by means of small, simple ones. The word “war” is never used. The story applies to all eras in which people have recently suffered, regardless of what caused it. You will find modern applications.

The presidents and the prospector are all fantastically buffoonish, dancing some very funny choreography and acting in a style more cartoon than evil. (Their bomb is a Looney Tunes-style black ball with a fuse, labeled “Le Bomb.”) Also turning in a fine comic performance is Max Robinson as the baggy-pantsed clown sewerman.

Joan Barber and Dee Macaluso are Constance and Gabrielle, Aurelia’s mad friends. Gabrielle has an imaginary dog whom she speaks to, sometimes even when she has left the imaginary dog at home. Constance hears voices from her home appliances. Both speak with a delivery that is utterly hysterical. If their characters make no sense, it is balanced by how drop-dead funny they are.

And then there is Maureen McGovern, filling the role originated by Angela Lansbury and, judging by the cast recording of the original production and with all due respect to Ms. Lansbury, doing a better job of it. McGovern’s voice is fantastic; that was never in question. But the self-described “singer who acts” handles the acting with incredible grace, humor and fire. Aurelia does not seem like a delusional old fool who won’t face reality; instead, she is an idealist who truly believes — and convinces the audience — that one person can change the world.

“Dear World” has ample great humor, but it is the gentle, poignant moments that will stick with you. Such a lovely show; I hope the world appreciates it.

Should you go? Definitely. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you might see Redford in the audience.

Seating Disorder

0

There was some hoopla a few weeks ago about Southwest Airlines, and how it double-charges fat people because it hates them. Then I read a press release at www.Southwest.com decrying the news media’s “sensationalizing” of the issue, so I figured I should look into it and set things straight and make some jokes about fat people.

The controversy began when an internal memo escaped the confines of Southwest headquarters, which are in a shack on the outskirts of Barstow, Calif. (This is also where Southwest keeps its plane.) The memo was to remind employees of a 22-year-old policy stating that customers must pay for as many seats as they occupy, and that ticket agents, if necessary, should remind customers of this fact, preferably in a loud voice and using the expressions “jumbo” and “tons-o’-fun.”

The difficult question is what constitutes “occupying” a seat. Most plus-sized folks do not literally take up an ENTIRE second seat; the ones who do realize it and are already in the habit of buying two seats or flying on under-booked flights or shipping themselves as cargo. But Southwest’s policy applies even to those occupying a portion of a second seat. Presumably, this would also apply to bony women who take up residence on both armrests and do not give them up no matter how forcefully you elbow them, or people who decide the legroom in front of YOUR seat belongs to them, too.

So how much spillage constitutes “occupying”? Where do you draw the line? What, should Southwest put a box at the ticket counter, and you have to stand in the box, and if you don’t fit completely inside it, you have to pay for another seat?

YES. That would be GREAT. I would spend hours at the airport, just watching people get in the Fat Box.

I am of two minds about this issue, which is two more than usual when it comes to issues. On the one hand, fat people generally know they are fat — though you see some whose choice in clothing indicates otherwise — and don’t need to be told again. It would be humiliating, not to mention expensive, to be asked to buy another ticket. And how much would they pay for the second seat? Everyone knows airline ticket prices are chosen randomly, and that no two people on any flight ever paid the same amount. Which random fare would apply to the second seat?

Also, let’s face it, airline seats have been getting smaller over the years. Even normal-sized people do not sit comfortably. But the press release at Southwest’s Web site says that on average, only six seats per flight represent a profit for the airline. If they were to replace, for example, nine seats with six seats, “we would have to double our fares to maintain our profit margin.”

I’m pretty sure this is a big fat lie — let us pity the poor airlines who can’t seem to turn a profit! — but whatever. The point is, the airlines are not going to make their seats any larger or more comfortable until they get some competition in the field of high-speed travel. (Hey, inventor of the jetpack, where are you?)

But on the other hand, holy CRAP, would you mind STAYING IN YOUR OWN SEAT and QUIT CROWDING ME?!! One time I was at the awards ceremony for the Sundance Film Festival, and the man next to me was very, very fat, so much that I literally had to sit one-cheeked on my chair because half the seat was occupied by this other man. I finally got fed up and said, “Mr. Ebert, if you don’t mind….”

No, I kid. It wasn’t Ebert. But my point is, if you’ve ever been in a situation where the person next to you was spilling into your chair, you can understand the reasoning behind Southwest’s rule. They want all their passengers to be comfortable. So again, I think the jetpacks are the way to go.

Me Without You

0

“I don’t know who I am when we’re not us!” cries Marina (Anna Friel) in Sandra Goldbacher’s “Me Without You,” a piercing examination of poisonous friendships and the reasons we persist with them.

Who Marina is without Holly (Michelle Williams) is a mystery; indeed, the two make little sense without each other. And yet, they are remarkably bad for one another, Marina being too free-spirited and dangerous and Holly being too neurotic and careful. In a musical comedy, they would sing a jaunty friend song like “We’ll Always Be Bosom Buddies” or “We’re Gonna Go Through It Together.” In the somber drama of this film, though, they quarrel and reconcile repeatedly.

After scenes set in 1973 and 1978, on the outskirts of London, we come to 1982, where the lifelong friends and next-door neighbors are college students pursuing the same American professor, Daniel (Kyle MacLachan), who has no idea what he’s getting himself into. Marina, the daughter of a broken home that includes a wandering father (Nicky Henson) and a hard-drinking showgirl mother (Trudie Styler), is too uncultured for the likes of Daniel. Holly, the nice Jewish girl with utterly devoted parents, is quite smart but too talkative and worried. The fact that Daniel sees them both will be trouble.

There is other trouble, though, in the form of Marina’s brother Nat (Oliver Milburn), whom Holly has had a crush on forever, culminating in a brief fling before he took off for France. He’s back now, just as things with Daniel are boiling. Trouble, trouble, trouble.

The coming-of-age melodramatics employed here are fairly standard, but there is treasure in the intensely intimate friendship shared by these women, which I think men cannot entirely relate to. The consequences of such a close association are presented in all their histrionic glory, acted with pitch-perfect insight by Friel and Williams.

Goldbacher co-wrote the screenplay with Laurence Coriat, who also wrote Michael Winterbottom’s similarly brooding “Wonderland” (1999). Goldbacher’s direction here is impressive, pointedly evoking everything from hazy mid-’70s daytime drug-and-sex parties to mid-’80s Depeche Mode-centered dance clubs.

For my tastes, the film wraps itself up too quickly, though the repercussions of what’s shown to us in the end are fascinating to consider. How can a friendship so caustic — and yet so vital to the happiness of either party — ever truly end? One suspects that no matter what, they’ll always be bosom buddies.

Read My Lips (French)

0

Carla the frumpy secretary and Paul the harsh parolee have little in common, which in many films would result in an opposites-attract romance. Refreshingly, “Read My Lips” keeps that possibility in the distance, though each party certainly entertains notions of it. The focus instead is on how they can help (and use) each other to get what they want.

Director Jacques Audiard (co-writing with Tonino Benacquista) has created a unique film, if not an entirely successful one. Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is mostly deaf but can read lips, a skill that comes in handy as she and her ruffian secretarial assistant Paul (Vincent Cassel) set out to clear Paul of some old debts via making a heist.

Their relationship is the film’s focus. Carla, mousy and harried and unappreciated at the office, has rage seething beneath her surface. With Paul, the rage is out in the open, but he has goodness within him. They are able to draw on each other’s strengths and vices to strengthen their own positions, all while resisting the impulses that would seem to draw them together romantically. Watch Carla wear one of Paul’s blood-stained shirts in the privacy of her bedroom and see how deep the emotions run.

The acting is outstanding, as is Audiard’s smooth direction, particularly in moments from Carla’s point-of-view. Where the film is not as stellar is in the pace, which is sometimes intolerably slow, and in a subplot concerning Paul’s parole officer, which takes up space but adds up to nothing.

Yet taken as a whole, “Read My Lips” is an engaging, erotic — though sexless — thriller, with elements of black comedy thrown in for good measure. The French are good at making “cinema,” and sometimes they make decent “movies,” too.

Butt Seriously, Folks

0

If you assk me, this whole Toby Keith thing hass gotten out of hand.

The controversy so far: Country singer Toby Keith performed at Stadium of Fire on Thursday, and some people were bothered because he wass planning to sing his song “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American),” which contains a certain three-letter swear word. I assume you know which word I mean.

When I heard about the Toby Keith controversy, my first thought wass: Who? Then I did some research and found out he’s actually quite famous in country music circles, which I do not feel snobbish in mentioning are circles I do not travel in, due to my having completed high school.

But I wanted to fairly assess the situation before assigning guilt, so I listened to the song. It’s an angry, assertive number, one that assails the listener with an assemblage of patriotic catchphrases and other assorted jingoistic assaults. Also, it uses the word “ass.”

This is what hass upset people. The line, in context, says, “You’ll be sorry you messed with the U.S. of A./’Cause we’ll put a boot in your (A-word)/It’s the American way.”

I question whether inserting a boot into an unnamed enemy’s posterior is actually the American way. Capitalism, democracy, building a comfortable home with a white picket fence — that’s the American way, I thought. But if Mr. Keith is to be believed, the American way consists of intentionally misplacing your footwear.

At any rate, that’s what the song says, and it uses that offensive word to say it. (It also uses the word “hell,” in an earlier verse, but no one seems to be bothered by that.) Representatives of the ironically named Freedom Festival, which sponsors Stadium of Fire, were prepared to “bleep” out the word by launching fireworks when he sang it.

Alan Osmond, who is well acquainted with high-quality family entertainment that no one can stand to listen to, and who is on the Board of Trustees for the Freedom Festival, wass quoted in Wednesday’s Daily Herald: “If he says something wrong, I’ve assked the fireworks people to blast off two big fireworks — loud ones — right when he says it wrong,” Osmond said. “Or they may shoot it off anyway, even if he says it right. No one will hear it, anyway.”

In other words, the Freedom Festival — which hired Toby Keith in the first place — planned to censor Toby Keith regardlass of whether he sang the word. Better safe than sorry, I guess. Prudence is an asset, I assure you.

BYU passed the buck and let the Freedom Festival decide what to do. But to use BYU’s LaVell Edwards Stadium, the Freedom Fasstival hass to make performers adhere to BYU’s contract, which allows “no profanity, vulgarity or obscene or suggestive language.” The word in question falls under most people’s definition of “vulgarity,” but not under their definition of “terrible, obscene vulgarity that I can’t stand hearing or my ears will catch on fire.” In other words, I suspect most of the people complaining have, in their homes, videos and DVDs in which people say this word and worse. They probably associate with persons who occassionally let such a word slip, too.

I’m not saying profanity is OK. I’m saying hearing one word that most people agree is on the low end of the swearing totem pole is not going to ruin the evening for anyone, except for people who allow their evenings to be ruined by very trivial things. And there’s little that can be done to help those people anyway, because they’ve got boots in their — well, never mind.

Annie Get Your Gun

0

Some may take it as a bad omen when a horse relieves itself onstage early in the opening night performance, but it didn’t seem to bother the cast of Tuacahn’s production of “Annie Get Your Gun.” This show is one of the jewels of the summer theater season, and no interference from an equine party-pooper is going to change that.

The now-familiar story of the Irving Berlin musical is of backwoods sharpshooter Annie Oakley and her romance (and rivalry) with Frank Butler while both worked in Buffalo Bill Cody’s traveling Wild West show.

Annie is a great role for an actress who has a flair for comedy and a willingness to deglamorize herself. Luckily, we have Mindy Smoot Robbins, who graduated from BYU and played a similar rags-to-riches character in “My Fair Lady” there. Her voice is beautiful, her timing is sharp — she works madly, singing, dancing, acting, and never breaking a sweat (at least, not that you can see from the cheap seats). She is hysterical in the funny scenes and tender in the emotional scenes. It is one of the finest musical performances you’ll see on a Utah stage this year.

In the 1946 Broadway production, Ray Middleton had the thankless task of playing Frank Butler opposite the dynamo known as Ethel Merman. At Tuacahn, it is the talented Andrew Husmann who must live in Annie’s shadow. His baritone voice is powerful, and if the role of Frank were written as anything more than a foil for Annie, I don’t doubt he could fill it. In the “Anything You Can Do” number, Husmann and Robbins complement each other nicely.

Husband and wife Nathan and Suzie Balser play the secondary couple, Tommy Keeler and Winnie Tate. Their moment in the spotlight, “I Hope,” is adorable, evolving into one of the show’s biggest dance numbers. (Katherine Tueller Schmid’s costume design is particularly effective here, with a sea of white gloves contrasting nicely with black tuxedos, all moving in unison to Derryl Yeager’s choreography.)

I also enjoyed Janelle M. Lannan as Winnie’s throaty-voiced Gorgon of a sister, Dolly; her counterpart is Douglas M. Bilitch, doing a Jon Lovitz impression as huckster Charlie Davenport. They are amusing, as is Keith Weirich as Sitting Bull.

Heck, they’re all good in this cast, and they have a good director in Jim Bennett. The “Moonshine Lullaby” and Indian tribal dance scenes often drag this show down, but in this production, they move along brightly.

Bennett also has not succumbed to the temptations of the spacious Tuacahn Amphitheatre, and he has not over-done “Annie Get Your Gun.” Scenes that can reasonably be expanded to fill the stage are expanded; scenes with just two people talking remain that way. It manages to be extravagant and intimate at the same time. This is a classy, professional production.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

0

When Tuacahn did “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” three years ago, the mantra was: Why? Because We Can.

Additions don’t need to add to the story; they don’t even need to make sense. We’ve got this huge amphitheatre, and we’re going to use it, artistic integrity be damned! Extravagance is its own justification.

This time, the show has only gotten bigger, longer and more bloated. It is a full 135 minutes long, including intermission — as written, it’s about 105 minutes — and has completely new scenes and sketches interspersed with Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice’s original score.

It is directed and choreographed by Derryl Yeager again, and many of 1999’s interpolations have been retained, with new ones added. Some have gotten bigger, too. In 1999, when Keith Weirich as Jacob flung a few handfuls of dirt on himself while mourning the loss of Joseph, it was funny. Therefore, the logic seems to be, won’t it be 10 times as funny if he throws 10 times as much dirt on himself now?

That’s the prevailing attitude: If you liked it THIS big, wait’ll you see it THIS big!

And maybe you will like it THIS big. Hidden somewhere beneath the camels, automobiles, “Sopranos” references and pre-taped commercial parodies, there are some quality performances. David Osmond is just fine as Joseph; Jenny Jordan Frogley’s pop-diva voice as the Narrator is wonderful; the aforementioned Weirich does superb triple-duty work as Jacob, Potiphar and the Pharaoh; Paul Johnson is supremely amusing as the flamboyantly French soloist in “Those Canaan Days.” The dancing — and there is much of it — is dazzling.

Someone realized that “Close Every Door” has references to “children of Israel,” and that Joseph’s plight parallels the struggles the Jews would face in the coming centuries. So in keeping with the sledgehammer-in-the-face method of expression, during this number, actual footage of Adolf Hitler and concentration camps is shown on the JumboTron, while the children’s chorus comes onstage dressed as Holocaust victims, singing “la la la la la la.” It is the single tackiest, most misguided attempt at poignancy I’ve seen all year, something akin to performing a baptism at a circus.

There are several such leaps where you can see how the free-association must have gone in someone’s head. One song is called “Go, Go, Go Joseph,” which makes you think of go-go dancers, which makes you think of “Laugh-In,” which makes you decide to include a 10-minute “Laugh-In” re-creation right there in the middle of the song (complete with a Clinton/Lewinsky joke, which was already old the LAST time Tuacahn did this show). The song where the brothers sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites has a hip-hop feeling to it, so let’s bring three brothers to the front in full rap-artist regalia and write an entirely new, full-blown rap song for them to perform. Remember, if a handful of dirt is funny, a bucketful must be hysterical.

So is it a good production? That’s like asking whether the Hill Cumorah Pageant is a good production. It’s beside the point. It’s not a show anymore, with characters, feelings and stories; it’s a pageant. You go because you already know what it’s about, and you already know the songs. A first-timer would have a hard time following the story here, and he would almost certainly be at a loss to explain why the show is so popular. It is the simplicity that usually makes it work, and “simple” is the last thing to describe this incarnation of it. But those familiar with “Joseph” — and that might include all of Utah at this point — may find the variations enjoyable. Consider it the stage equivalent of a summer blockbuster movie — “The Scorpion King: The Musical,” if you will.

Othello

0

If all Shakespeare’s villains, surely “Othello’s” Iago is among the oiliest, craftiest and most careful. Played with the right touch, he can be the center of attention and leave Othello seeming like a supporting character in his own play.

In the Utah Shakespearean Festival production, Iago is played by Martin Kildare, a supremely talented actor whose handsome face has just a hint of roughness around it. As Iago plots his revenge against Othello — for passing him over for a promotion, no less — you can see in Kildare’s eyes that the wheels of machination are turning. So convincing is his performance that one is tempted to believe he is not reciting a speech written 400 years ago by Shakespeare, but rather coming up with his own plan extemporaneously. It is an exciting performance, and it does indeed overshadow Othello.

Othello is played by David Toney, who makes the Moor of Venice as confident and sexual as he ought to be — powerful enough to woo a woman not of his race away from her father, and stimulating enough to keep her. His bug-eyed rage over Desdemona’s alleged unfaithfulness is frightening.

In Acts IV and V, however, Othello’s emotions become more complex, and Toney is not up to the task. In particular, his performance in the final scene, upon learning of his true betrayal by Iago, lacks legitimacy. Horror at what he has done would be appropriate, as would, perhaps, blind fury. Toney’s choice is more in the realm of histrionics and melodrama, and it doesn’t register. It could be argued that such an operatic ending calls for over-the-top acting, but the 4 1/2 acts before it aren’t played that way; the last scene is no time to start.

Susan Shunk is winsome and fragile as Desdemona, and Carrie Baker’s deep-throated delivery makes Iago’s wife Emilia a force to be reckoned with. James Knight and Jason Michael Spelbring do well as Cassio and Roderigo. And my hat is off to fight director Robin McFarquhar for choreographing a thrilling swordfight between Cassio and Montano (Kieran Connolly).

Director Howard Jensen — who played Othello in the 1963 USF production — has the unenviable task of keeping things moving in one of Shakespeare’s more padded-out plays. (Once Othello decides he will kill Cassio and Desdemona, the outcome is a foregone conclusion — and yet there is another 90 minutes of script before we get to it.) Generally speaking, the pace is quick and lively, especially whenever Kildare is onstage, expertly handling the audience as well as Iago manipulates the other characters.

Man of La Mancha

0

Chronologically, the first noteworthy thing in the Utah Shakespearean Festival’s highly noteworthy production of “Man of La Mancha” is Andrew Hopson’s sound design. The characters are sitting in a dark, dank prison, and when one of them begins to dance, the clapping of his hands echoes. So do other sounds, we slowly realize. We have been effectively transported to a Spanish dungeon; we are IN this play.

And what a play to be in! The flamenco-tinged syncopations of Mitch Leigh’s music, the uplifting tones of Dale Wasserman’s and Joe Darion’s book and lyrics, the sheer nobility of seeking to “reach the unreachable star” — “Man of La Mancha” is a glorious piece of work anyway, and director/choreographer Brad Carroll and musical director Jeremy Mann have seen to it that this production fulfills every bit of its destiny.

Robert Peterson’s booming voice has boomed all over Utah — notably in some 90 productions at Pioneer Theatre Company — and it’s about time he showed up here, in a role written for someone with the sort of dignity and charisma he exudes. As Miguel Cervantes, tossed into prison during the Spanish Inquisition, he is bowed but unbroken. As the doddering fool Alonso Quijana, who fancies himself a knight named Don Quixote, his optimism is infectious.

As Sancho, Don Quixote’s right-hand man, Peter Sham is adorably devoted. Sham does not have the strongest or best singing voice in the cast, but it suits his character. His solo, “I Really Like Him,” is utterly charming.

Let us save praise also for Andrea-Frierson Toney, who plays Aldonza, the serving wench whom Don Quixote insists on calling Dulcinea. Her transformation from part-time hooker to a woman of dignity is enchanting, and her last line — “My name is Dulcinea” — has a world of meaning behind it.

The staging, particularly fight sequences, often has an air of heightened reality about it, with punches exaggerated and sound effects unused. It is fitting, since most of the show exists in Cervantes’ imagination. The unusual concept for the play — Cervantes and his fellow prisoners acting out the story of Don Quixote — has never seemed so accessible and straightforward.

Don Quixote is a man who sees things not as they are, but as they ought to be. Idealism has its downsides, to be sure, and they are gravely noted within the show. But “Man of La Mancha” asks: Without a little idealism, how will things ever become ideal? This is a fine production.

As You Like It

0

“As You Like It,” as performed at the Utah Shakespearean Festival, is the sort of comedy that is more jolly than funny. You certainly leave it feeling happy, but the actual laugh-out-loud laughs are relatively few.

It’s a shame, in a way. The script is pure farce — it has cross-dressing and mistaken identities; it would surely have slamming doors if it didn’t take place in a forest — and is meant to be uproariously funny.

But director Henry Woronicz has taken a different tack, and let’s make the best of it. His Rosalind is played by Sara Kathryn Bakker, and she is to be loved. Beautiful — she looks like Cate Blanchett — and energetically funny, she is equally fun to watch when squealing over her love for Orlando as when she is disguised as a man and talking to him face-to-face.

One thing she comes up short on, however, is Rosalind’s delight at pretending to be a man. Not for a moment do you believe she’s male; Orlando has got to be blind and deaf not to realize it. As a result, their scenes together do not evoke the battle-of-the-sexes sparks they ought to.

Playing Rosalind’s cousin and best friend Celia is Saren Nofs-Snyder. She and Bakker are a gem of a comic duo, and her reactions to Rosalind’s lovesickness are priceless. (Here, Celia is the farce character who watches her friend’s absurd behavior with increasingly arched eyebrows.)

Among the men, we have the capable James Knight as Orlando, the comedically gifted Michael David Edwards as Touchstone the clown, and Jason Michael Spelbring as the youthful and handsome shepherd Silvius, in love with a milkmaid.

The cast is strong and the source material is splendid. Yet the production has long stretches of nothing funny, intermingled with bursts of boisterous mirth. The overall impact is that of being amused without the discomfort of your sides having been split. It is not how I prefer to see “As You Like It,” but perhaps it is exactly as YOU like it.

Hay Fever

0

Elsewhere at this year’s Utah Shakespearean Festival, in “As You Like It,” you can hear someone recite the “all the world’s a stage” speech. But in “Hay Fever,” you can meet characters who live their lives as if this is literally true.

Written by that drollest of playwrights, Noel Coward, “Hay Fever” is an utterly inconsequential comedy about a wealthy, ill-mannered family with a flair for the dramatic. The legal head of the family, David Bliss (Jonathan Gillard Daly), is a novelist who spends most of his time upstairs. But the REAL head is his wife, Judith (Leslie Brott), who just last year retired from her career as a stage actress but who has never stopped performing.

They have two adult children, Sorel (Mary Dolson) and Simon (Matt Schwader), both lazy and talented, and both having inherited much of their dispositions from their mother. This is England, and it is the 1920s, so there is a good deal of tea-drinking and garden-touring going on at the Bliss home, and very little real work.

The play takes place one Saturday, when each family member has, unbeknownst to the others, invited an acquaintance down for the weekend. Judith has invited Sandy Tyrell (Brian Vaughn), a young admirer who didn’t realize she was married; visiting Simon is Myra Arundel (Anne Newhall), a semi-girlfriend whom Judith describes as a “self-conscious vampire”; Sorel has asked a stuffy diplomat named Richard Greatham (Kieran Connolly); and David’s guest is Jackie Coryton (Kelly Lamont), a flapper he barely knows and quickly forgets.

There are party games and other social interactions, but the Blisses are most interested in themselves. Each Bliss barely cares about his or her invited guest, and even less about those invited by other family members. The guests, of course, are perplexed at their behavior: The Blisses are acting in accordance with human nature, rather than with established rules of etiquette. Heaven forbid!

To the extent that “Hay Fever” is “about” anything, it’s about the incongruity between the way wealthy people appear, and the way they actually behave. But even that is stretching it, in terms of a point or a message. Witness the final scene, where the family is so embroiled in a pointless argument over the geography of Paris that they barely notice their guests escaping, and see if you still think “Seinfeld’s” trivial banter was innovative.

There is much to like in every performance here. Leslie Brott’s withering, dramatic looks as Judith are priceless; she is a USF regular who has a gift for comic acting, especially in formal or imperious roles. Ditto Brian Vaughn, who is sinfully underused as Judith’s admirer, but who gets a chance to shine in a solo scene where he stealthily eats eggs. (You’d have to see it.)

As the siblings, Mary Dolson and Matt Schwander play youthful irresponsibility perfectly, she with her enthusiastic pouting and he with a careless, loose-limbed attitude that has him flopping all around the set. Both are funny. You also must see Kieran Connolly, during a game similar to Charades, attempt to light a cigarette “saucily.”

Director Paul Barnes keeps things moving at a good clip, though there is a tedious bit of scene-setting by Carrie Baker as the maid before the final scene, necessitated by everyone else having a costume change. It’s a fabulously worthless play full of fast one-liners and memorably eccentric characters.

Cymbeline

0

Why doesn’t anyone do “Cymbeline”? Watching it is like watching a Shakespeare buffet.

It has the romance of one of his tragedies, battle scenes like the histories, and comedy like the, uh, comedies. It also has gods, ghosts, cross-dressing, sleeping potions and long-lost siblings — in other words, everything your typical Shakespeare play is famous for.

And yet, if you’ve ever seen “Cymbeline,” chances are it was in 1988, when the Utah Shakespearean Festival last produced it. Thus, you should take advantage of the current opportunity and see this grandly entertaining production. Except for the most ardent of Shakespeare fans, seeing “Cymbeline” is like seeing a brand-new play.

The plot is infamous for being too dense, but it boils down to one major thread: Posthumus receives a false report that his beloved wife Imogen has been unfaithful. Subplots abound, but they are given much less stage time than this central idea. It is not hard to follow.

The role of Posthumus is played by USF’s best comic actor, Brian Vaughn. He does well with the dramatic stuff, too, but it is his comedy you will remember — especially in this play, where he is also cast as Cloten, the whining, spoiled mama’s boy whose mother is the wicked queen and who was promised HE could marry Imogen. I don’t know if it is common to cast the same actor in both roles, but when Vaughn is the actor in question, it is a brilliant move. One believes his heartbroken Posthumus as well as his fat-headed Cloten.

Imogen is Susan Shunk, who also plays Desdemona — another woman falsely accused of adultery — in “Othello.” It is she who disguises herself as a man when she goes in search of her husband, and her interaction with Polydore (Jason Michael Spelbring) and Cadwal (Matt Schwader) — two cave-dwelling Lost Boys — is highly amusing.

Their performances, too, are memorable, as is Shelby Davenport’s as their adoptive father. They do not appear until after intermission, but their influence permeates the action thereafter.

The final unraveling at the play’s end is hysterically funny, with each character learning something new that makes him want to throttle someone else. All’s well that ends well, though, and the crises that have emerged throughout the play are resolved somewhat peacefully, and they all live happily ever after. Director Russell Treyz has worked an overlooked Shakespearean fairy tale into the 2002 festival’s best offering.

Harvey

0

The Utah Shakespearean Festival production of “Harvey” marks the fifth time I have seen this show, but it marks the first time I have thought the play was funny.

“Harvey” comes from a different generation, a time when getting a few chuckles was considered a rip-roaring evening at the theater; and a time when people laughed at things we wouldn’t laugh at now, due to cultural differences. Staging the play for a modern audience so that it gets more than just a few chuckles is the trick — a trick that, as aforesaid, I’ve never seen a theater accomplish, until now.

Turns out the belly laughs are not to be found in Mary Chase’s script, which is quaint, mildly amusing, and too-gentle. They are in the performances. Director Henson Keys — who two years ago acted in USF’s production of “Noises Off,” which was the funniest production of THAT play I’ve ever seen, too — assembled a cast of talented actors who evidently refused to give up until they found a way to make this thing work.

Are there moments where actors appear to be trying too hard to get laughs? Yes, a few. Are there characters who are “zany” but in an unfocused way, straining for comedy at the expense of realism? Yes, a couple. We will address those momentarily, but first we will lavish praise upon Libby George.

Libby George is consistently the funniest character actress at USF. (She was in that “Noises Off,” too.) She plays Veta Louise Simmons in “Harvey,” the fusty old woman who is embarrassed by her brother Elwood’s befriending of an invisible 6-foot rabbit, and she conquers the role with sublime little touches: covering the telephone receiver with a handkerchief instead of her hand when she means to put the person “on hold”; a flounce of the wrist here; a sudden fury in the voice there. Lines that have never been funny before are hilarious now.

The same must also be said of Leslie Brott, who proves there are no small roles, only small actors. She appears in just one scene, as socialite Ethel Chauvenet, but in that scene she dominates the stage. Mrs. Chauvenet’s dialogue shoots out of Brott as if from a cannon. She hollers good-naturedly at Elwood and flings her gaudy fur stole around with the carelessness of a woman who has money but knows she doesn’t deserve it. Leave it to Brott to make the character with the fewest lines in the play one of the most memorable.

Elwood himself is played by Sam Stewart (no relation, one assumes, to Jimmy), and he is all folksy charm and gentility. Of special note is the way the other characters react to him: They don’t know how to take him. His sincerity is off-putting, which I find both realistic and amusing.

Also of note is Dr. Sanderson, the younger psychiatrist at Chumley’s Rest, where Veta wants to put Elwood. Martin Kildare plays the role looking and posing like a ’50s soap opera doctor. The man speaks with a swagger. It’s a beautiful character choice.

On the down side, there are Anne Newhall as Chumley’s wife and Jeffrey Nauman as Wilson, an intern at the sanitarium. Both are examples of unfocused vividness: The characters are strong, but there’s no honesty to them. Simply put, they don’t seem like real people, the way everyone else in the cast does.

Elwood says, “I wrestled with reality for 40 years. I’m happy to say I finally won out over it.” Theater companies have wrestled with “Harvey” for 50 years. I’m happy to say someone has finally won out over it.

Like Mike

0

“Like Mike” appeals to young viewers without talking down to them, provides a few uplifting messages, and is generally a pleasant 100-minute diversion. It contains no real profanity and not a hint of crudeness. It’s a wonder it ever got made.

Take, for instance, the scene where polite orphan Calvin Cambridge (Li’l Bow Wow) has discovered the joys of room service by gorging himself in a swanky hotel. He feels sick and heads for the bathroom, where whatever vomiting there is occurs noiselessly and discreetly behind a closed door, without so much as a belch being forced upon the viewer. The film has managed to find humor elsewhere, without resorting to gross tricks that even the animated features these days all seem required to include.

If a movie has to be wholesome OR enjoyable, I’d rather it be enjoyable. But when one comes along that’s both, I’m glad to recommend it.

“Like Mike” is such a film — aimed squarely at young boys, to be sure, but not intolerable for adults. In Li’l Bow Wow, who I’m told is a rap star in real life, we have a young actor who is completely devoid of the brag and swagger that characterize most of his hip-hop colleagues. He’s earnest and unassuming — good qualities for a person, as well as for the character he plays.

That is the aforementioned Calvin, a 14-year-old Los Angeles orphan with pigtails (?) who lives in a group home run by an unscrupulous villain (Crispin Glover) and filled with cast-off children like himself. He would like to be a good basketball player, but he is short and rather unskilled. Until, that is, the day he happens upon an old pair of sneakers once owned by Michael Jordan. He rescues them from a telephone wire just as lightning strikes it, killing him instantly.

No! I kid the li’l guy. The lightning imbues the shoes with the very essence of Michael Jordan, I guess; the film is not specific on the science involved. (Perhaps his powers being transferred to an old pair of shoes is why MJ did so poorly in his most recent comeback effort.)

Anyway, Calvin discovers the sneakers’ special powers when, during a half-time exhibition, he gets a chance to go one-on-one with NBA star Tracey Reynolds (Morris Chestnut). He destroys Reynolds him, and as a stunt, the team owner (Eugene Levy) signs Calvin on as a player.

Thus begins an uneasy relationship between Calvin and his new mentor, Tracey, who is understandably perturbed at having to baby-sit a 4’8″ orphan when the team’s on the road. Thus also begins the standard trouble between Calvin and his friends back at the orphanage, who of course feel he has changed since becoming a celebrity. And if any villain can get his hands on those shoes, it will all be over…!

I like children’s movies where the adults are kind. The team owner is slick but not exploitative; the coach (Robert Forster) is downright fatherly; and Tracey grows to like the kid. Only Crispin Glover’s evil orphan master is menacing, but he’s such a joke — what else can Crispin Glover be, at this point? — that it adds an element of fun, rather than discomfort, to the mix. What could have been a Dickensian (or Roald Dahl-ian) dark tale of children in a grown-up world is instead just a sweet-hearted romp without any real danger.

There is a rather awkward sequence where Calvin risks his career to help Tracey avoid being suspended, and another scene with a goony procession of would-be adoptive parents that is too farcical to fit with the rest of the film. Those are mistakes. But otherwise, this is such a wide-eyed, good-natured movie that you can’t help smiling along with it.

Men in Black II

0

You’d think that with five years between movies, they could come up with a better script than what they got for “Men in Black II.” This plays like an episode of the “Men in Black” cartoon series (indeed, we understand it’s based on one), and not like the long-awaited reunion of our favorite undercover government agents. This is slight, forgettable stuff.

The problem with most sequels is that whatever the premise was in the first film, the novelty of it has worn off in the second. “Men in Black” had a clever concept and some memorable characters. Now, the concept and characters are old. We watch “Men in Black II” and think, “Yeah. So? What else can they do?” It’s not that it’s dull so much as that it’s familiar.

It is the present day, i.e., five years after Agent Jay (Will Smith) neuralyzed Agent Kay’s (Tommy Lee Jones) memory and sent him into the private sector. Jay has worked with a series of new partners — including the current one, a hotshot wannabe hero named Tee (Patrick Warburton) — in protecting mankind. Trouble is, mankind tends to be stupid and unappreciative. Jay is lonely.

More pressing matters, though: The world is about to end. Specifically, there’s something called the Light of Zanthar that was supposedly sent away from the Earth 24 years ago, but that the evil, serpentine Serleena (Lara Flynn Boyle) thinks is still here. Wherever it is, it will self-destruct in a day or so. Agent Zed (Rip Torn) says he put his best agent in charge of sending it off … but that agent is Kay, who now works in a post office and has no memory of his former life. Jay has to get him back, restore his neurons, and save the world.

And so on. Jay befriends a witness to an alien killing, Rita (Rosario Dawson), and wants desperately to have a relationship with her. But neither he, nor the movie, has time for sentimentality beyond the superficial level that comedies require of themselves in order to feel legitimate.

Smith and Jones are good and funny, the way we like them. There is not as much of the grumpy interplay that the first film had, but they are still appealing characters. Frank the dog talks a lot; about half of what he says is tolerable. And I’m always a fan of the deadpan Rip Torn, not to mention comedian David Cross, who plays an ultra-nerdy conspiracy theorist. Lara Flynn Boyle: Eh. I believe she is both scarier and funnier in real life.

The film works its way to a series of anti-climaxes, with nothing spectacular to buoy them up. Playful director Barry Sonnenfeld (who did the first one, too) tries his best, and Danny Elfman’s characteristically mischievous score helps. But the script, by Robert Gordon (“Galaxy Quest”) and Barry Fanaro (“Kingpin”), is so breezy and vaporous as to be beyond help. At 88 minutes, it is far shorter than most films of its genre, and it feels like it. There’s so little story and so little substance that you have wonder if maybe someone neuralyzed them before they were done making it.

The Powerpuff Girls Movie

0

I chuckled a lot during “The Powerpuff Girls Movie.” But I kept remembering that I also chuckle when I happen to see a few minutes of the “Powerpuff Girls” series on TV, and that’s only for a few minutes at a time, and it’s free.

Even at a minuscule 72 minutes, the film feels like nothing more than a stretched-out episode of the series. It’s a perfectly good series, yes, with a striking visual style and a subversive sense of humor. But even good cartoon shows are best when kept to 30 minutes, and on the small screen, and, as I said, free of charge.

The heroines are three adorable little girls with huge doe eyes. Bubbles (voice of Tara Strong), Blossom (Cathy Cavadini) and Buttercup (Elizabeth Daily) are their names, and they were created accidentally by a congenial scientist named Professor Utonium (Tom Kane) who also gave them a dose of Chemical X, which gives them extraordinary strength and other powers.

In the TV series, they are crimefighters in the city of Townsville. In the film, we see their creation and how they came to be superheroes instead of just freaks. Were the fans of the series clamoring for an origin explanation? Probably not, but if you’re going to insist on making the leap to the big screen, you’ve got to start somewhere.

The girls first raise the ire of the town by engaging in a hilariously destructive game of “tag” that leaves the city in ruins. (“Freaky Bug-Eyed Weirdos Broke Everything,” the newspaper headline says the next day.)

Sad at having gained so many enemies without meaning to, they wander into the clutches of Mojo Jojo (Roger L. Jackson), a brainiac monkey who tricks them into helping him construct a doomsday machine. (His plan involves an army of odd monkeys, by the way.)

The film is sometimes quite funny, and other times just loud and bombastic. It eventually devolves into a very standard superhero-fights-bad-guy sequence, with little to distinguish it from the countless similar scenes that have been animated over the past 70 years.

What can I say? If you like the TV show, you’ll like this, though you might feel it’s a bit too much of a usually-good thing, and you’ll certainly wonder what (besides money) was the inspiration to even do this. If you’ve never seen the series, and you can handle a slyly witty animated film, you could do worse than this.

Notorious C.H.O.

0

Fans of comedienne Margaret Cho will find it no surprise that her latest concert film, “Notorious C.H.O.,” is candid, earthy and gloriously funny.

Her very first joke relates to her post-Sept. 11 activities and cannot be printed in a PG-rated newspaper. From there she tells one hilarious story after another, most of them dealing with sex, sexuality or sexiness. Or some combination of the three.

She professes a fondness for gay men, by whom she has always been surrounded and who make up a large part of her cultishly enthusiastic fan base. She also has a witty disregard for straight men, except as sexual objects; her withering impression of how men would act if they had menstrual cycles is hysterical and insightful. (“They would NEVER stop talking about it” is her thesis.)

Her signature bit is her impression of her Korean-born mother, whom we see in clips before the show begins: Yep, it turns out, Margaret’s impression is dead-on. She also derives considerable glee from revealing family secrets and telling stories that the other parties have asked her not to tell.

It’s all part of her don’t-give-a-damn persona, and her casual delight in busting taboos and defying expectations. That her language is so vulgar stops being shocking after a while, but one never stops noticing how different she is from what the stereotypes tell us about Asian women and female comics. She is at the top of her game, and this show, with all its underlying pain and overlying comic flair, is documentary evidence of that.

What Fools These Cross-Dressers Be

0

These are the disorganized, random, poorly written thoughts I had while covering the Utah Shakespearean Festival in Cedar City last week.

1. What was up with the fools and jesters? Monarchs in the old days apparently had someone whose sole job — and I get the impression it was a 24/7 kind of thing — was to entertain the king and his court. Like you could just be sitting there, bored, and say, “Hey, Fool, come over here and say something funny,” and he’d HAVE to do it. Maybe the fool was having a bad day, or just wasn’t in the mood for jokes? TOO BAD, FOOL. You shouldn’t have gotten into a life of foolery.

But what made me think of it is that the fools portrayed in Shakespeare plays like “King Lear” and “As You Like It” are always the least-funny characters in the play (not that “King Lear” is crawling with funny characters anyway). They say things that are meant to be amusing, and the other characters always respond like, “Oh, Fool, you crazy guy, you,” but they’re NOT FUNNY. Usually it’s just dumb wordplay.

Oh, and the other thing is: They never shut up. No matter what you say, they’ve got a smart-aleck (and not-funny) answer for it.

My point is, I’m glad we don’t have fools anymore, because if I had one, I would kill him by the end of his first day.

2. What’s up with people who think cross-dressing is the solution to everything? In Shakespeare plays, any time a woman has to do something secretive, her first thought is always, “I know! I’ll dress up like a man.” And her friends are all, “Um, Cynthia? We’re just going to the market….” And Cynthia’s like, “I know! And I need to dress up like a man!” And her friends just humor her and secretly plan an intervention.

But in a way, you can’t blame them for all the cross-dressing, because it ALWAYS WORKS. Cut your hair and put on some pants, and poof, you’re a man. In “As You Like It,” Rosalind is dressed as a boy and spends hours upon hours with her boyfriend Orlando, and he NEVER REALIZES this “guy” he’s hanging out with is really his true love Rosalind. I don’t care who you are, I can spot a transvestite a mile away. And even if I couldn’t, I think spending some time with you — I don’t know, maybe HEARING YOUR VOICE — would give it away.

It reminds me of a terrible movie I just saw, called “Juwanna Mann,” which is so bad it makes juwanna kill yourself. In it, a professional basketball player gets booted out of the league, so he poses as a woman and plays for a women’s league, I guess because he has no other marketable skills and because he kind of plays like a girl anyway.

(Actually, the most implausible thing about this movie is that the arenas at the women’s basketball games are always full. I don’t buy that for a minute, unless the film takes place in an alternate universe where women’s basketball is popular. No, actually, even then I wouldn’t buy it.)

The thing is, I can’t imagine any situation in which I would feel I HAD to dress up as a woman, much less where I thought I could get away with it. Yet people in movies and Shakespeare plays seem to exhaust every other choice and arrive at that option with startling rapidness. They’re always vigorously heterosexual characters, too, insisting the LAST thing they want to do is dress like the opposite sex — but I am skeptical, because I think if you REALLY didn’t want to cross-dress, you’d find another solution.

3. What do young people who live in Cedar City do? The town has a college, yet it has virtually nothing in the way of entertainment or shopping. The nearest good-sized city is St. George, but that’s an hour away, and it’s only St. George, the world’s hottest, oldest city. (I mean “old” in the sense of everyone who lives there being at least 100, which is also the average temperature.)

I asked my waitress at Denny’s what the young people do, and she said they go to “the bar” — yes, THE bar — and then come hang out at Denny’s. It must be boring in Cedar City. Maybe we ought to send a squadron of fools down there to liven things up.

Pumpkin

0

“Pumpkin” is a dark comedy that deals with diversity and tolerance in a whacked-out way. It has elements of “Bring It on” and “Heathers,” and it also has handicapped people.

Carolyn McDuffy (Christina Ricci) is a popular, perky blonde at Southern California State University, and in an attempt to win Sorority of the Year, she and her sisters are doing charity work — specifically, helping handicapped youth prepare for the upcoming “Challenged Games.” (Think Special Olympics, except the Special Olympics people wouldn’t let the filmmakers use their name.)

Carolyn’s partnered with Pumpkin Romanoff (Hank Harris), who looks like a young Ted Koppel and is only mildly handicapped — but handicapped enough to freak out the sheltered and wealthy Carolyn. (A scene in which we meet Carolyn’s mother, played by Lisa Banes, is priceless: She is as bigoted, clueless and rich as you can imagine.)

She warms up to him, though, and is soon trying to help him make it in the real world, setting him up on dates and inviting him to social events. Her handsome athlete boyfriend Kent (Sam Ball) is jealous, but maybe he’s just being shallow, you know? Maybe Pumpkin, despite being handicapped, is the one who can teach Carolyn something. And is Carolyn starting to develop romantic feelings for the kid in the wheelchair? And so on.

First-time directors Anthony Abrams and Adam Larson Broder, working from Broder’s script, work like two highly intelligent goof-offs. There is creativity and amusement at every corner — witness the falsely portentous musical score, and a ridiculous stock-footage car crash — but a somewhat muddied approach to the material at hand. Are we supposed to get the message that the handicapped are just like the rest of us when Pumpkin’s handicap is more the result of his overprotective mother than actual physical or mental impairment? What point does that make? The directors seem unsure when to finally wrap things up, too.

But it’s a gleeful, occasionally morbid comedy with much to offer. Christina Ricci is not especially convincing as either a perky college girl or a blonde, but Hank Harris is fine as Pumpkin, and Brenda Blethyn steals a few scenes as his mother. They are surrounded by wonderfully offbeat minor characters, too, like Harry J. Lennix as a bitter poetry professor. A film as original and entertaining this one should not be docked too many points for its shortcomings.

The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys

0

The peril referred to in the title of “The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys” has literal meaning in the film. But more precisely, it’s a spiritual and emotional danger, the danger faced not just by altar boys but by all adolescent males.

The kids in Peter Care’s engaging film are students at a Catholic school in the 1970s. They face the overly strict teacher Sister Assumpta (Jodie Foster), apathetic parents, and their own hormones. Especially their own hormones. If you’ve ever been 13 and a boy, the words and actions of these boys will ring painfully true.

The film primarily follows Francis Doyle (Emile Hirsch), a likable lad with a rebellious, mischievous streak that is constantly encouraged by his best friend Tim Sullivan (Kieran Culkin). Any misdemeanor Francis has considered committing, chances are Tim is already working up plans for it.

They, along with two other friends, want to be comic book artists, and the superhero personas they’ve created for themselves appear in the film in animated segments (done by Todd McFarlane), with fantasy plots paralleling reality. Meanwhile, Francis has a thing for Margie Flynn (Jena Malone), a sweet young girl who already has a past.

The inciting action is a trip to the local zoo, where Tim and Francis become fascinated by a cougar and decide the best thing to do is to steal it and put it in Sister Assumpta’s office. The rest of the film has that plan in the background, with the turmoil of teen-agerhood occupying the foreground.

Screenwriters Jeff Stockwell and Michael Petroni, working from Chris Fuhrman’s novel, have formed a vivid, accurate portrayal of hormonal adolescence and its attendant crises. My one major complaint is that not enough attention is given to the character of Tim, who is a supporting figure, yes, but one who figures prominently in the main action. His jealousy when Francis starts hanging out too much with Margie is one of the truest things in the film, but it’s hardly dealt with. More background on his family — other than a cursory nod to his father’s alcoholism — would have helped make his destiny more poignant, too. In fact, with Kieran Culkin’s very insightful performance, one would not be out of line in wishing the self-destructive Tim were the protagonist, and the rather less interesting Francis relegated to a supporting bit.

Nonetheless, quibbles about a film as humorous and innocent as this one are just that: quibbles. For while some opportunities for real intrigue may have been wasted, many others are seized upon to great effect, and the movie is good.

Hey, Arnold! The Movie

0

“Hey, Arnold!” is one of Nickelodeon’s many, many cartoon series, and “Hey, Arnold! The Movie” is one of Nickelodeon’s many, many kids’ films that are big on kiddie appeal but short on wit or brains.

The Disney animated features and the old-school Looney Tunes shorts have spoiled us: We want cartoons to entertain adults, too. Maybe that’s not fair to expect. Maybe the best we have a right to hope for is that kids’ movies will amuse kids while not actively annoying grown-ups.

In that respect, “Hey, Arnold! The Movie” is fine. It’s a low-key affair — boring, even — with some bursts of action near the end and the odd funny line here and there. It resembles nothing so much as a three-part episode of the TV show that has been blown up to fit on the big screen. (The low-grade animation and coloring do not look good this big, by the way.)

The story is set in a big city, possibly adjacent to a nuclear plant, since everyone in town has a weird-shaped head. Weirdest is football-headed Arnold (voice of Spencer Klein), an ordinary, optimistic 9-year-old who in the film rallies his friends together to stop a redevelopment that would force the small-shop owners and residents out of the area.

Yes, it’s civic pride that fuels this movie. Much of the film is devoted to Arnold and his pal Gerald (Jamil Walker Smith) searching for a missing document that would prove the neighborhood’s status as a historical landmark. Yes! A document! Thrill as they look through files! What’s next, an adventure movie set in a Kinko’s?

A few chuckles are provided by Arnold’s nemesis Helga (Francesca Smith), a one-eyebrowed girl who is secretly in love with Arnold. Arnold’s doddering grandfather (Dan Castellaneta, better known as Homer Simpson) and feisty grandmother (Tress MacNeille) are good for some smiles, too.

It’s an unspectacular, unexciting movie, to be sure. But what’s relevant is whether it will entertain kids. Will it? I don’t know; I’m not one. The tykes at the screening I attended liked it well enough, it seemed. If you’ve already seen “Lilo & Stitch,” this is your next best option as far as family entertainment goes. Well, this, or staying home and watching a good “Aladdin” or “The Lion King” again.

Mr. Deeds

0

We movie critics are supposed to begin our reviews of Adam Sandler films by reassuring the audience that we have no particular ill will toward Mr. Sandler, and that we take each of his films on a case-by-case basis. We liked “Wedding Singer” OK, but we hated “Little Nicky,” for example.

I hope I have convinced you of my unbiased nature so you will believe me when I tell you “Mr. Deeds” is an unfunny, careless piece of trash riddled with directorial, editing and acting mistakes. It was directed by Steven Brill, who has directed three Sandler films; and written by Tim Herlihy, who was written seven. I believe it is one of the lesser efforts from both of them. It is full of elements found in each of the others, with nothing new. It’s like watching another episode of a predictable TV show.

Loosely based on the Frank Capra film “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town,” this is one of the Sandler films where he doesn’t speak in a goofy voice, but where he does beat a lot of people up. He is Longfellow Deeds, an unassuming and charming man in Mandrake Falls, N.H., who discovers he is the sole heir to the $40 billion fortune of a recently deceased media magnate who happened to be his great-uncle.

Two representatives from the old man’s corporation — one good (Erick Avari) and one evil (Peter Gallagher) — bring Deeds to New York so he can sign over his shares and receive his $40 billion. In the meantime, everyone wants to get a look at the new richest man in America. This includes a tabloid TV show called Inside Access, which sends a producer named Babe (Winona Ryder) undercover to befriend Deeds, hoping to get the scoop on his life story and maybe even find some dirt. (If many elements of this plot line remind you of “The Hudsucker Proxy,” try not to think too much about that far superior film. It will only make you dislike this one more.)

Naturally, Babe — calling herself Pam — falls in love with Deeds, who is too naive to realize he’s being duped. I’m not sure how he manages not to realize it, considering all the surveillance footage Inside Access shows is from incidents Pam was witness to. Maybe he wonders, as I did, how events captured by her one hidden camera could have shot the scenes from three different angles.

The lone funny performance is by John Turturro as Deeds’ devoted Spanish butler, Emilio. He delivers his so-so lines in a way that gives them humor. Sandler, at the other end of the spectrum, delivers every line like he’s too cool to be bothered with acting or nuance. He reminds me of what happens when a high school football player gets forced into a drama production: It would be too queer to, you know, emote, so he just goes through the motions and tries not to do anything that his friends could razz him for.

There is a scene where Deeds throws cats out of a window. It made me laugh.

It all leads to a finale that doesn’t make a damn bit of sense, where Deeds’ innocence proves to be the right way of thinking, and all the greedy corporate fatcats are shamed into agreeing with him. Frankly, I refuse to accept Adam Sandler as the profound moron who shows me the error of my ways. Nothing could ever make me humble enough to accept counsel from him.

Within the Sandler canon, “Mr. Deeds” most closely resembles “Big Daddy.” I suspect if you liked that film, you will like this one. I didn’t, and I don’t.

Crush

0

“Crush” is a women’s movie, yet was written and directed by a man, John McKay. One wonders if this is what he REALLY thinks women are like when men aren’t around — crass, vulgar and low. One wonders, in fact, if this IS what women are like when men aren’t around. If it is, I’d rather not know it, and curse John McKay for making me face it!

Actually, curse him for any number of things, starting with the script, which wants to be “Sex and the City” but forgot to include any smart humor or amusing insights. It got the sex part, though. Three single women — two native Brits and one Yankee — amuse themselves by swapping stories to see who is the sorriest loser of the bunch, and they speak as crassly and bluntly as possible. It’s not the funny kind of vulgar, though; it’s just the vulgar kind.

The American, Kate (Andie MacDowell), is headmistress at a Catholic school and wants badly to have a baby. Janine (Imelda Staunton) is a local police officer. Molly (Anna Chancellor) is a doctor. Other than that, we know little about Janine and Molly except that they’re gossip-mongers, and that they don’t approve of Kate’s young new boyfriend, the smoldering Jed (Kenny Doughty).

Where the film goes most wrong is in its poorly drawn, uninteresting characters. The actresses seem capable enough, but none seems committed to bringing these stock figures to life.

We also must take issue with the slapdash approach to comedy. Odd events are forced to happen just to get a laugh, like Kate calling Janine on her cellphone in the middle of a SWAT team raid — and Janine taking the call. And then there’s the sudden change of tone later in the film, too abrupt to be regarded with anything other than raised eyebrows and confused looks. You try too hard, movie, and you accomplish so little.

Lovely & Amazing

0

Nearly everything that happens in “Lovely & Amazing” is sad & awful — or would be, if the characters didn’t react to it humorously. It’s a perfect example of the fine line between comedy and tragedy: It’s usually the same events; what’s different is how they’re treated.

Written and directed by Nicole Holofcener, “Lovely & Amazing” is an apt description of most of the film’s female characters and almost none of the male ones. Michelle Marks (Catherine Keener) is a 36-year-old artist who can’t find work and doesn’t really want to. Her sister, Elizabeth (Emily Mortimer), is an actress with a bit part in an upcoming film. Their mother, Jane (Brenda Blethyn), is getting liposuction. Their adopted little sister, an overweight black girl named Annie (Raven Goodwin), thinks it would be better to be white but has no qualms about being fat.

The men in their lives: Ugh. Michelle’s husband Bill (Clark Gregg) and Elizabeth’s boyfriend Paul (James LeGros) are entirely unsupportive, and Bill takes it to the next level by cheating on Michelle. Elizabeth’s potential co-star, the studly Kevin McCabe (Dermot Mulroney), is a fatuous, if well-meaning, jerk. Her agent, Cindy (Christine Mourad), is a woman but might as well be a man for the way she dresses, and for as unhelpful as she is to Elizabeth. (Unhelpful men are a theme in this movie.)

So the gals have only each other for support, and they freely give it, in person. Behind each other’s backs, they snark and gossip. These are women with self-esteem issues, which causes them to back-bite; and all the back-biting no doubt fuels the self-esteem issues, as does the parade of worthless menfolk. They sublimate their emotions, and then they come out in odd ways and at inappropriate times. They want intimacy, but they don’t feel worthy of it. They don’t realize how lovely and amazing they are.

Take Michelle, for example, who feels her greatest calling in life was in giving birth to her daughter. Or Elizabeth, who rescues stray dogs and takes care of them. Or their mom, Jane, who at age 50-something adopted a young black child whose mother was a crack addict. “She’s not lucky, she’s entitled,” Jane says, brushing off her adopting of Annie as nothing special. “Every child’s entitled to a mother.”

You want to take these women and help them feel better about themselves. They’re rough around the edges, yes — Michelle thinks the best way of dealing with any unpleasant person is to tell them to “F*** off” — but you understand it’s only because they’ve been hurt. Some love and compassion would soften those sharp corners considerably. By the end, fortunately, you feel like the women’s individual worlds have been rattled enough to wake them up.

Keener, who also starred in Holofcener’s 1996 film “Walking and Talking,” is priceless as the self-conscious, defensive Michelle. She, like everyone else, uses profanity as a weapon; this is the rare film where each swear word seems to have been chosen carefully and precisely. (I love her reaction when a craft-store owner doesn’t want to buy her specially designed wrapping paper: “Listen, Mister, this s***is pretty!”) Michelle’s relationship with a teen-age one-hour photo employee (Jake Gyllenhaal) is especially well-played by both parties.

Emily Mortimer’s performance as Elizabeth is vulnerable and fearless. A scene in which Elizabeth asks Kevin McCabe to describe all her physical flaws is achingly uncomfortable and speaks volumes about Mortimer’s commitment to the character, for all the faults named must be hers as well as Elizabeth’s.

And I can never get enough Brenda Blethyn. Again, brave and strong and fearless is she as the ladies’ sad, lonely mother.

It all sounds depressing, doesn’t it? Yet it is funny; these are funny, real people who, for all their faults, never give up and never break down. They react with self-deprecating humor to all the woes in their lives. They truly are lovely and amazing, and so is this film.

Generation Eric

0

It’s alarming to consider that people of my generation — Generation Eric, as it’s called — are expected to be in charge of things. I look at myself and my friends, and I think: Wow. Most of these people are addicted to Fox’s “American Idol.” And we’re running the world now? We can barely even govern OURSELVES, let alone other people.

For example, a few weeks ago, someone at the office brought in one of those huge tubs of tiny powdered doughnuts from Sam’s Club. So despite my goal of losing weight so I can fit into my pants again and stop walking around in a sari, I felt obligated to eat 75,000 tiny powdered doughnuts. Why? Because they were there.

My friend Tanny (names have been changed) can relate. Whenever we leave a restaurant that has free mints by the door, he takes as many as he can grab in both hands. (He generally over-pays the check to compensate for this. No, he doesn’t, but he should.) Then, over the course of the evening, he eats the mints. All of them. Even if he goes into convulsions from the mintiness, he will continue reaching into his pocket to pull out more free mints. Why? Because they’re there. I am told he exhibits the same behavior in regards to candy corn, eating it “until my eyes become candy corns, and then I eat my eyes,” he told me.

I have the same problem of over-indulgence when it comes to sleep. I went through a phase where I would always hit the snooze button on my alarm, often several times in a row, resulting in my getting out of bed as much as an hour later than I had meant to. To trick myself into getting up on the first alarm, I started putting the alarm clock on the other side of the room. If I actually have to leave the warm, womb-like environment of the blanket and walk several steps, surely that will wake me up enough that I won’t fall back into bed, I reasoned.

Apparently, I didn’t realize who I was dealing with. I’m not going to be fooled by anyone, and certainly not by the likes of me! Yes, I’ll get out of bed and walk across the room … and then I’ll hit the snooze button and go back and get some more sleep! I’ll show me.

I eventually determined that I could put the alarm clock up the street and down a dog’s throat, and I would still hit the snooze button, wipe the dog slobber off my arm, and go back to bed. It has taken an extraordinary measure of self-control (extraordinary for me, anyway) to become a grown-up and get up when I’m supposed to.

And then there’s money. Finances are probably the area in which my generation has best demonstrated its worthlessness. Young people were behind the dot-com craze, after all, which yielded huge profits only for pornographers and bankruptcy lawyers.

This penchant for financial irresponsibility hit home a few months ago, when I had to take an unplanned trip to Portland, Ore. (Portland is a great city, by the way, and the only downside to visiting it is that the locals never stop jabbering about how great it is.) When you give three weeks’ notice, you can get a plane ticket for $150 or so. When you give three days’ notice, they charge you $300, I guess because somehow it’s harder for the plane to fly when it has procrastinators on it.

Anyway, none of my credit cards had $300 left on it, and I certainly didn’t have that much in my checking account. So I called a few of my close friends to see if their credit cards had that much, and none of them did. Everyone was perfectly WILLING to spot me the money until payday — helpfulness is another hallmark of my generation — but no one had the means to actually do it.

Eventually, I persuaded the people at Visa to temporarily increase my credit limit, possibly because they believed there had been a death in my family and that’s why I had to buy the plane ticket. Whining and lying are two more things we’re good at, we young people. Get used to it, because we’re in charge now.

The Educated Heart

0

I don’t know what the party line is on which Ruth and Nathan Hale script is supposed to be the best, but “The Educated Heart,” currently playing at Hale Center Theater Orem, is by far the most enjoyable of the nine I’ve seen.

Unlike most of the other plays written by the godparents of Utah community theater, the characters in “Educated Heart” are not sitcom-inspired smart-alecks. When someone says, “She always likes to put in her two cents’ worth,” another character does NOT respond, “Two cents? With her, it’s more like a dollar’s worth!”

The humor here comes, gently and unforced, from natural situations and believable characters. In other words, the people in this play talk the way real people talk. And real people, you may have noticed, often say things that make us laugh.

They are unusual characters, though, which makes their believability all the more impressive. The play is set in 1933 in Boulder, Utah, to which a driveable road would not be built for another year or so. Isolated from everything — including the Depression — the townspeople get by without any outside influence. They are only marginally interested in Jessie McBain (Amanda Bakly; normally played by Jennifer Porter in this cast), the pretty young schoolteacher who has come to educate the valley’s few youngsters.

School is held in the parlor of the Jessup home, run by the good-natured but feisty old Ma Jessup (Linda Bramwell), who would just as soon tell Jessie how to run classes as anything else. Dealing with Ma Jessup is one of Jessie’s challenges; the other is to get the backwoodsy Todd orphans to start coming to school alongside the Jessup kids. Ma Jessup’s calling the Todds “trash” and “scum” — which makes me think of two other words: “pot” and “kettle” — doesn’t exactly discourage their truancy.

Those challenges are dealt with, and then there are more simple but engaging plotlines to manage. Fifteen-year-old Florabelle Jessup (Julie Erdmann) is secretly dating one of the forbidden Todd boys, Lemmy (K.J. Stratton). An older Jessup boy, overall-clad Owen (Douglas Dial; normally played in this cast by DeShawn Smith), is hitting on Jessie, as is the eldest Todd son, Riley (Elwon Bakly; normally played in this cast by Sanford Porter). And sooner or later, a road is going to be built into the town, and if these yokels don’t know how to read and write, they’re going to be hoodwinked by every swindler in the 48 states.

The warm performances, directed by Merrill Dodge, complement the earnest tone of the script. Amanda Bakly has a nice Marion the Librarian thing going as Jessie, and her real-life husband Elwon is a good foil as the anti-education Riley Todd. Linda Bramwell earns laughs as Ma Jessup, and I was extremely fond of Diane Reaveley’s fiery performance as town doctor Aunt Hattie.

Also very good — and not annoying — are the kids: Julie Erdmann, Chase Ramsey, Sarianne Carlson, Joseph Day, Jessica Crandall, K.J. Strattong, Stephanie Jensen and J.D. Halsey. (Halsey plays a Todd boy named Leaky: “Fit him to a ‘T’ up until a couple years ago,” Ma Jessup says.) You can’t make out half of what Joseph Day is saying as little Jean Jessup, but darned if he isn’t the most adorable tyke you’ve ever seen in a play.

Should you go? It is not life-changing theater, but it is simply and sublimely amusing.

Saturday’s Voyeur

0

This year’s incarnation of “Saturday’s Voyeur,” the madcap musical skewering of Utah news and culture, does not make fun of the LDS Church quite as viciously as it sometimes does.

Aside from that, it’s business as usual for Salt Lake Acting Company’s annually updated cabaret: bawdy, funny, occasionally memorable, and too long.

Producer/writer/directors Allen Nevins and Nancy Borgenicht chose the odd goings-on in Southern Utah to focus this year’s plot on, with the fictional gun-toting town of LaVirgin, run by town sheriff and patriarch LeGrand Lee (Spencer Ashby) and his dutiful wife Thorla (Annette Wright), declaring itself off-limits to the United Nations. The Lees run a diner in the podunk town, where they ask outsiders, “Are you a member?” — referring not to the Mormon church, but to the N.R.A.

The convoluted and confusing plot deals with a space alien (Dan Larrinaga) stirring up trouble by telling LaVirgin that the U.N. is invading, while telling the U.S. government that LaVirgin is trying to secede from the union. He’s opposed by another alien (Jeanette Puhich), who tries to warn everyone but is thought crazy.

Subplots abound: Disgruntled daughter Vara Lee (Marylynn Alldredge) is in love with a Navajo animal control officer (Aaron Swenson), even though her parents want her to marry redneck cousin Guebler (Jacob Johnson). Son Lee Lee (Michael Bryon Boswell), also the deputy sheriff, is in love with Logan (Arika Schockmel), a Bureau of Land Management ranger. The other daughter, Happa Lee (Emily Brooks), is the good one, busily preparing for the town’s annual Sorghum Festival.

Then there’s a Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance biologist named Neldon (Christopher Glade) and his trashy girlfriend Eve (Brenda Sue Cowley), in town to look into some errant goats.

The satire is not especially insightful — right-wing nuts are a pretty easy target — and it’s a shame the show got so single-minded. There are only a few brief references to the Olympics, or to much of anything other than the goofiness in Southern Utah.

Unfortunately, that single-mindedness does not make the show any more concise. Neldon and Eve could have been cut from the show altogether, and the forbidden romances aren’t funny or satirical enough to justify the time they take.

The performances, though, are zealously, enjoyably reckless all around. There are moments of high hilarity interspersed throughout the show, enough to make it a worthwhile endeavor.

Should you go? It is R-rated, to be sure, but if you can get past that, it’s good for a lark.

Ghost of a Chance

0

The guy’s name is Chance, and now his ghost is haunting his old hunting cabin. Get it? “Ghost of a Chance”?!

That sort of cuteness belies the play’s true tone, which is far more serious than farcical. This is a comedy, but a weighty one, one with interesting character twists and ponderous ideas about life and death. And then it has a woman kissing a vacuum-cleaner bag.

It is a relatively new play, directed by JaceSon Parker Barrus and making its regional debut at the Hale Centre Theatre in West Valley. Its basic concepts are very old, though: I can think of four plays I’ve seen just at Hale theaters that have had people communicating from beyond the grave (“Forever Plaid,” “Lo and Behold,” “Blithe Spirit” and “Angels on the Loose”).

This time it’s Chance (Sila Agavale), who died three years ago in a hunting accident. His young wife, Bethany (Eden Benson), has arrived at the cabin, flanked by her fiance, Floyd (Danny Lasko), and his skeptical mother, Verna (Soni Barrus), to prepare it for sale. That’s when Chance pops up, visible and audible only to Bethany, to try to convince her not to marry Floyd but to stay with Chance in the cabin forever.

Thoroughly freaked out, Bethany brings in a psychic named Crystal (Melissa Porter) to exorcise the place. She doesn’t want to tell Floyd and especially Verna that she believes in mediums, though, so she lies about who Crystal is, thus opening the door for a misunderstanding about Crystal’s feelings toward Bethany. It is one of those misunderstandings that can exist only in farce, and it struggles to exist in this play, which is generally more earthbound than that.

The playwrights, Flip Kobler and Cindy Marcus, have created a world that is difficult to portray. The characters are written to be three-dimensional and fleshy, but then they’re put into such an odd situation. The actors in this production seem to have varying attitudes on how to play it. Soni Barrus has opted for an over-the-top cartoon character as Floyd’s protective mother, while Danny Lasko and Eden Benson are pretty realistic as the central couple. Sila Agavale, as Chance, hits one level ‹ keyed-up ‹ and stays there for most of the play. Melissa Porter is somewhere between reality and farce as Crystal; the same goes for Jonathan Baty as potential cabin buyer Adam Lucas. A more consistent style among all the actors would have been preferable.

Despite its awkward mixing of tones, it is a well-written play, and the production does it some amount of justice. It never works itself into a true comedic lather, but it certainly has a smattering of fine moments.

Should you go? Sure, but don’t go expecting a zany, madcap farce, because that’s not what it is.

Making Fun of Strangers

0

(Note: This is one of those columns where I make fun of how some people look in public and talk like I think I’m better than everyone. If you don’t like those columns, you shouldn’t read this one.)

There. Now that I have guaranteed everyone who doesn’t like this sort of column is still reading — it’s like a trainwreck, isn’t it? — let’s proceed.

Our friend Luscious Malone (names have been changed) moved to Oregon for a while, but then she found work in Logan and has moved back to Utah. I say “found work” like she’s an itinerant farm hand or something. Really she’s involved in live theater, which means she only works like a farm hand, while getting the salary of a hobo.

Anyway, the result is that mutual friend Tanny Tantan and I have been meeting Luscious in Salt Lake City quite a bit, as that is more or less the half-way point between Provo and Logan. And we see a lot of folks in the big city that we don’t always see out here in the sticks. We will discuss two of them.

1) Riding on a motorcycle was a large, white-bearded man, and clinging tightly to him was an over-sized middle-aged woman. She was wearing a haltertop, and her back fat spilled over the top of it. Her back fat also fluttered and flapped in the wind; imagine Jabba the Hutt out parasailing and you will have approximately the right image, which will now never leave your mind.

We noticed, since we could not look away, that the woman’s ample back fat was tan, indicating she had been exposing this part of herself to the sun for quite some time. We did not envy the people who had to see it while it was still on its way to the healthy, bronze color it was now. Pasty, fluttering back fat is even worse than beige, fluttering back fat.

2) At a restaurant in Salt Lake, we observed a man with a greasy haircut and several earrings in one ear who was wearing a pair of shorts. On one of his legs, peeking out from under the shorts, was a full-color tattoo of Spider-Man. Spidey was in the same pose he’s on in the movie posters, which means the tattoo was inspired by the film and not by, say, a life-long love of spiders.

We thought: Does this man tattoo himself according to all new summer blockbusters? Does he check the reviews first, or wait for them to make $100 million, or does he just forge ahead based on the hype? Is he ashamed of a “Howard the Duck” tattoo somewhere on his body? Does he only have one “Jurassic Park” tattoo, or did he get the sequels, too?

How much do you have to love a movie to permanently imprint it on yourself? For me, buying the DVD is pretty much where I max out in terms of devotion. (A friend once told me he could never get a tattoo because the only thing he’s loved consistently throughout his entire life is Oreos.)

As ridiculous as Lady Back Fat and The Illustrated Man looked, you have to admire their lack of regard for what other people think. No one could observe either of them and not find amusement, but they didn’t seem to care. I respect that. Also, I’m scared by it, because when you take the “I don’t care what people think” attitude too far, you get freaks like MTV’s Tom Green and Utah’s Tom Green.

Like so many things in life, this all reminds me of the mullet, an exceedingly unfortunate hairstyle that has, along with being unattractive, the added stigma of evoking images of trailer parks and country music. People wear their hair in this fashion because they are completely oblivious to the rest of society making fun of them. Whenever I am troubled by the world around me, I start to envy the people who aren’t even aware there IS a world around them.

Sunshine State

0

Superficially, “Sunshine State” is about the war between people who have lived someplace forever and the developers who want to tear it all down and build resorts and strip malls. Underneath it, though, “Sunshine State” is about making bad decisions, getting second chances, forgiving ourselves and starting over.

It’s about human beings — real, honest human beings, like the people you know and love, not like the fake movie characters you sort of know and kind of like. I’ve always been convinced the best drama and comedy come from reality, not absurdity. John Sayles, who wrote, directed and edited “Sunshine State,” has an unflinching but sympathetic eye toward human nature and conveys it through this top-notch ensemble cast.

We are on Plantation Island, Fla., a resort island consisting of mostly white Delrona Beach and mostly black Lincoln Beach. Outsiders want to buy both and turn them into a vacation spot.

In the midst of this, we are introduced to a variety of characters, slowly and satisfyingly learning their connections to each other. Desiree Perry (Angela Bassett), a gorgeous, mildly successful actress in Boston, is returning home for the first time since she was a teen-ager, bringing her husband Reggie (James McDaniel) along to meet her aged mother (Mary Alice). There is bad blood in the family; something occurred years ago that has not healed.

Sardonic Marly Temple (Edie Falco), meanwhile, runs the diner and hotel owned by her aged father (Ralph Waite). Developers want to buy the place, but she knows her dad won’t sell. Too bad, because she can hardly stand the business, having once had dreams of performing that have since been stifled and almost forgotten.

Other characters come out of the woodwork. Timothy Hutton plays a would-be developer with whom Marly begins a tentative relationship. Mary Steenburgen plays a community leader trying to organize the annual Buccaneer Days Festival. Gordon Clapp is a suicidal county commissioner whose relationship to the rest of the film we do not see right away. An old football star (Tom Wright) comes to town. A young golf pro (Marc Blucas) prepares to leave. Everyone makes decisions, regrets past decisions and worries about future decisions.

I like the acting in every instance, with the exception of a few minor roles that seem to have been filled by people to whom Sayles owed favors. Among the leads, though, we have Angela Bassett’s steely dignity, Bill Cobbs’ strength as an old town doctor, and Edie Falco’s vulnerable charm and humor as Marly, who once performed as a mermaid-suited swimmer in a water show. “The important thing is to keep that smile on your face, even if you’re drowning,” she says of the show, but also of her current situation.

The drama is light and the comedy is dark; Sayles’ tone is insightful but not maudlin, and the humor is natural and not slapsticky. Most importantly, these are people you want to understand and whose situations you can relate to, on some level.

The curious condition of Florida is also examined to great effect. Developers (one played by Alan King) refer to it as “nature on a leash.” Nature itself is dreadful; what people want is a controlled, neutered version of it. The property-buyers treat negotiations like warfare. Watch Miguel Ferrer, as one of the more ruthless ones, use terms like “point of weakest defense” and “a man on the inside” in describing it. And then see the exodus of cars and trucks at the end, driven by people who tried to conquer the wild state of Florida and couldn’t do it. The people, even in their human weaknesses, are too resilient.

Minority Report

0

There have always been two Steven Spielbergs. The Oscar-prone Spielberg directs serious, important films like “Saving Private Ryan” that bear the mark of a highly skilled director. The fun Spielberg directs things like “Jurassic Park,” well-made but populist fare.

The two Spielbergs fought with each other in “A.I.: Artificial Intelligence,” and that film had the scars to prove it. But now Oscar Spielberg and Fun Spielberg have made peace, and they have collaborated on “Minority Report,” a movie that is as thought-provoking and visionary as it is flat-out entertaining.

In 2054, there has not been a murder in Washington, D.C., for six years, thanks to the new Department of Pre-Crime. A decade earlier, a trio of super-clairvoyant youths emerged who could see murders before they happened. The police department has harnessed their powers, and under the direction of Chief John Anderton (Tom Cruise), squads of pre-crime officers can track down the murderer in time to stop the killing.

The would-be killers are still punished for their crimes, which is why Washington’s program is controversial. None of the “victims” is actually killed, because pre-crime always rescues them in time. One side says that because of this, the murderers aren’t murderers at all — only attempted murderers, which is a lesser crime. Anderton and his crew say that because the psychics’ predictions are always flawless, they can know for a certainty that had they not arrived in time, the suspect WOULD have killed his victims. Stopping him from doing it doesn’t mean it wasn’t going to happen.

The glitch comes when the “pre-cogs,” as they are known, predict a murder committed by Anderton himself. The victim is someone Anderton has never heard of. He can’t imagine himself killing anyone, but he also can’t imagine the pre-cogs being wrong. Is his destiny fixed, or can he change it?

He is on the run, then, fleeing from his own detectives, and the film, which was already steadfastly compelling, kicks into high gear. It is often apparent that Spielberg is as delighted by all the futuristic science and gadgetry as we are, and he’s used everything in his director’s bag o’ tricks to bring this story to life. Lighting, set design, camera movement, film stock, editing — every element of film, under Spielberg’s imaginative eye, has been manipulated to make the film as dazzling to look at as it is to follow. Visually speaking, it is without question Spielberg’s best movie.

There is a good deal of symbolism involving eyes, sight and vision that gives a literary weight to the proceedings. Cruise’s performance, as well as those from Colin Farrell as a government-appointed inspector and Max von Sydow as head of the Pre-Crime Department, are solid. There are also nice turns from Tim Blake Nelson as a sort of prison warden, and Lois Smith as the discoverer of the pre-cogs.

Things go a bit astray in the end. What began feeling like more than just a popcorn flick evolves into, sure enough, a fairly standard detective story. The revelations of various evil-doers and their motives is nowhere near as ingenious as the first two-thirds of the film would have led you to suspect. Maybe Fun Spielberg won the last argument and brought us back down to the banal again, just in time for the finale.

Nonetheless, there is genius to spare, particularly from veteran Spielberg cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, whose swooping cameras and grainy colors combine with the engaging story and acting to make this, overall, one of the year’s better films.

Juwanna Mann

0

There’s a man who dresses as a woman, and Juwanna Mann is the fake name he comes up with. It’s a jokey name, obviously, up there with Seymour Butts and Amanda Huggenkiss. But NO ONE in the film notices it. No one ever says, “‘Juwanna Mann’? What a funny name…!” No one even seem to think twice about it. Which is just one of many reasons why “Juwanna Mann” makes juwanna kill yourself.

What a stiflingly unfunny and unoriginal mess this is! Such half-hearted effort! Such a waste of talented people like Vivica A. Fox and Kevin Pollak! Such an affront to decent, hard-working transvestites everywhere!

It is about a maverick basketball player named Jamal Jeffries (Miguel A. Nuñez Jr.) who plays for the fictional Charlotte Beat in the fictional United Basketball Association. (The NBA — which has previously been associated with such atrocities as Dennis Rodman — apparently didn’t want to be involved with this movie.) Jamal is an egotistical jerk and a hothead, and his final stunt of stripping naked during a game gets him booted out of the league.

Soon, he is desperate for money. His girlfriend (played by Lil Kim, the world’s skankiest woman) has left him. He actually is very good at basketball, and it’s his sole talent. His only choice? To dress in drag and get a contract with a women’s team.

Movies like this perplex me, because I can’t imagine any situation in which I would feel I HAD to dress as a woman, much less where I would expect to get away with it. Yet people in movies seem to exhaust every other choice and arrive at that option with startling rapidness. They’re always vigorously heterosexual characters, too, insisting the LAST thing they want to do is pose as a woman — which I am skeptical of, because I think if you REALLY didn’t want to wear women’s clothes, you’d find another solution.

Anyway, I have no problem with “Juwanna Mann” using a plot device that is as old as time, and that was already used once this year in another movie (“Sorority Boys”). Any old idea can be made entertaining if it’s done with the right flair and some witty dialogue.

“Juwanna Mann” has none of that. It’s as if the filmmakers – first time director Jesse Vaughan and first-time writer Bradley Allenstein — knew there was no hope of making an original movie and so they didn’t even try.

There is dialogue like this, between Jamal and his agent (Kevin Pollak), as Jamal is forcing him to be a confederate in his scheme:

AGENT: This is blackmail!
JAMAL: No, it’s black female.
AGENT: That’s not funny.

And he’s right. If it were delivered rapid-fire, you might get a chuckle by being faster than the audience. Here, though, before Jamal says, “No, it’s black female,” he adjusts his wig and slaps the desk, giving a two- or three-second delay — plenty of time for the audience to predict what he’s going to say, which makes his saying it profoundly unfunny.

What’s also frustrating is that no attempt is made to make Jamal’s disguise believable. I already mentioned how his lady name flies past everyone. But how did he get into the women’s league, anyway? Don’t they want to see a birth certificate, or a Social Security number, or something? Even ONE scene of Jamal setting up a bank account with the fake name, or going through some elaborate process to prove Juwanna’s identity, would have been helpful. It wouldn’t have been believable, but at least it would have shown that the filmmakers recognized the problem. As it is, I am disturbed to realize that after spending 90 minutes with this movie, I have found more flaws in it than the filmmakers did in the several months it took to write and produce it.

Jamal’s secret is eventually uncovered, of course. It happens when his wig falls off and suddenly everyone recognizes him. This means if he had grown out his natural hair to the length of the wig, he never would have been caught. Stupid, stupid, stupid. “Juwanna Mann” makes Mewanna Barfalot.

Lilo & Stitch

0

The other studios are making progress, but I still say Disney has a lock on reliably entertaining animated features. They produce at least one a year — “churning them out,” you could say, except that implies an assembly-line mentality that is not accurate. These things are funny, joyous experiences, and not something the studio just slaps together to raise funds to keep Walt’s corpse frozen.

“Lilo & Stitch” is not the instant classic “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Little Mermaid” were, and it may be time we stop comparing the modern films to those masterpieces. Frankly, without the songwriting team of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken, I doubt anything is going to come close to that level, and I’m glad Disney has given up the musical format in favor of more straightforward storytelling.

What “Lilo & Stitch” is, if not a masterpiece, is a highly watchable, giggly little story with a sweet edge to it.

We are introduced to two members of the standard old Disney category, the Misfits. One is Stitch (voice of writer/director Chris Sanders, when he speaks, which isn’t often), a strange monster genetically engineered on another planet by an idiot scientist (he prefers the term “evil genius”). Stitch is designed to be destructive, super-strong, and highly intelligent. But mostly destructive. Imagine a combination of a gremlin, “Saturday Night Live’s” Mr. Peepers, and any 2-year-old boy you’ve ever been acquainted with.

Meanwhile, in Hawaii, there is Lilo (Daveigh Chase), a precocious little girl who likes to take pictures of fat tourists and who lies on the floor lip-synching to “Heartbreak Hotel” when she’s depressed. Her parents are not around; she lives with her older sister Nani (Tia Carrere), who’s at her wit’s end in dealing with the mischievous, troublemaking Lilo.

Stitch’s home planet, appalled at his genetic freakitude, imprisons him, but he escapes and lands on Earth. His creator (David Ogden Stiers, making his fifth voice appearance in a Disney theatrical release) and a wormy sidekick (Kevin McDonald) are dispatched to retrieve him, but are instructed to avoid being seen by the humans. Stitch knows he’s a fugitive, and gets himself mistaken for a dog in order to be adopted by Lilo, thus giving him a hiding place.

If you have seen the exemplary 1999 film “The Iron Giant,” you will be reminded of it many times here. There’s a touch of “Men in Black,” too, with a man in black (Ving Rhames) who is a social worker, and of course the numerous other Disney films that have involved partial families and social outcasts.

Formulaic? Yes, indeed. The plot is simple, and since Stitch has no family to miss him, there’s no suspense over whether he’ll choose to stay with Lilo or return to his home planet. Is there a reason for Nani to have a surfer friend named David? Not really. Do the wacky bounty hunters amount to anything? Again, no.

Where “Lilo & Stitch” gets it right is not in the destination, but in the journey, particularly as it relates to the title characters. Lilo is a charming, original little moppet, and her relationship with the world and with Stitch is genuinely touching. The voice work by little Daveigh Chase is utterly delightful.

Again, this is not a classic. It is solid, and it would stand up to a few viewings before losing its flavor, but it would lose it eventually. But it made me laugh, and it made me feel honest emotions, and that makes it successful.

Chang of Subject

0

Today we are going to talk about the renovation of University Mall. I have a lot of caffeine in my system, though, so the ideas may not flow smoothly.

If you go to University Mall, the first thing you will see is a million teen-age girls, all of them talking on cellphones. Pardon me for turning into Grumpy Old Man Snider, but what in tarnation does a teen-age girl need a cellphone for? My theory is that since they are genetically programmed to talk 24 hours a day regardless of whether anyone is there to listen to them, they prop the cellphones against their faces so they won’t look crazy.

But I have already gotten off-topic, for teen-age girls are not a renovation at all. They have been there for ages.

Aside from that, University Mall has really turned itself around, at least in terms of places to eat. The stores themselves, yeah, they’re all still aimed at 15-year-olds, which is also whom they employ as sales clerks. But the restaurants! My, they’re nice.

First there was Rodizio Grill, which opened 18 months ago and has been stuffing patrons full of meat ever since. I was in love with Rodizio for a while, and then I ran out of money. Also, Rodizio is the place where I once ate the world’s bloodiest steak, an incident now known as The Steakmata. But generally, you can’t go wrong with a place that lets you sit down and have meats brought to you like you’re the Mayor of Meattown.

Then, earlier this year, Carrabba’s Italian Grill opened in the mall parking lot. It’s not cheap, but the food is fantastic. Is it better than Fazoli’s, a fast-food place just around the corner? Yes. But does Carrabba’s bring you all the buttery breadsticks you can eat like Fazoli’s does? No. I figure if Fazoli’s brought breadsticks at the rate of 1,000 per hour, I would eat 1,000 of them during the hour I was there. I can’t say no to them. I believe they have crack in them.

Finally, June 10 was the grand opening of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro Fun-Time Restaurant and Chopstickery. There’s been a Chang’s in Salt Lake City for a long time, and it’s one of my favorite places to wait endlessly for a table and wish I could eat at. Now there’s one at the mall.

Before the official opening, there was a trial run where mall employees and their guests were invited to eat, and I was lucky enough to be a guest. (A guest of a 15-year-old, apparently, if my earlier generalization of mall employees is adhered to. I hate when my stereotyping catches up with me.)

So I was at Chang’s with the one non-15-year-old mall employee, and we enjoyed the attentive service of a very enthusiastic wait staff. Which is a polite way of saying they smothered us so much that we all went home smelling like each other. It was probably because it was opening night, but there was one waiter — Lurky McStandsaround, we named him — who did not have tables of his own, but who prowled around and eyed patrons. When our waitress asked if we knew how to operate the lettuce wraps and we indicated we could probably figure it out, it was Lurky who piped in with, “It’s just like a lettuce taco.” (I don’t like food with instructions, by the way. As long as it’s going in your mouth and only your mouth, I don’t think there’s really a “wrong” way to eat anything.)

Is P.F. Chang’s appreciably better than Panda Express, the fast-food Chinese place across the street? Yes. But does P.F. Chang’s have the word “panda” in its name? Not that I know of, no.

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers

0

“Seven Brides for Seven Brothers” is one of those musicals you don’t want to think very hard about. Six backward mountain men kidnap six girls, and the girls fall in love with their captors. But before that, their seventh brother goes into town to fetch up a bride of his own, and finds a woman who is very headstrong ‹ but who nonetheless agrees to marry him mere hours after meeting him.

No, it’s not a thinkin’ musical, and different productions take different approaches to it. Some try to downplay the rampant sexism by making the head chauvinist, Adam Pontipee, appear particularly unenlightened and unsympathetic. But the production at the SCERA Shell Outdoor Theatre, directed by Jerry Elison, doesn’t apologize for the show’s origins. It lets it be itself, no matter how un-P.C. it may seem in 2002. You gotta respect that.

Because if you don’t think about it, “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers” is a rootin’-tootin’ good show, and this production roots and toots with the best of them. Sunny Claitor is the choreographer, and her work is admirable, particularly in the big town social scene, where she has a couple dozen dancers to arrange and a relentless tempo to keep up with. The simple, dainty choreography in songs like “June Bride” is also pleasant.

Adam is played by Richard Losee, who, according to his bio in the program, has also played chauvinists in “The Sound of Music,” “Kiss Me, Kate” and “Annie Get Your Gun.” That type suits him, and I hope he takes that as a compliment. He has a good swagger, a deep, commanding singing voice and the sort of rugged good looks that generally accompany such a caddish character as Adam Pontipee.

Opposite him as Milly is Allyson Edvalson, a newcomer to the local theater scene, and a welcome one at that. She plays Milly with likable honesty, like she’s a girl you might actually meet someday. Her solos are all lovely, but “Glad That You Were Born” is especially nice.

The brothers are portrayed with affection by Jerson Hatch, David Peterson, Kevin Johnson, Chris Nelson, Todd Beagley and Fred Lee (who has the meatiest supporting role as youngest brother Gideon). Their singing voices range from good to not-so-good ‹ I’ll let them sort out who’s who in that spectrum ‹ but only a couple of them are called upon to do much solo work anyway. The main thing with the brothers is rustic charm and enthusiasm, and they have buckets of that.

The brides are April Anderson, Melissa Aaron, Arly Crawford, Janell Lewis, Andrea Chapman and Corinne Mayberry. These roles get the short shrift in terms of stage time and characterization, but the young ladies in the cast play them with grace.

The show has slow moments (“Lonesome Polecat” chief among them), and staging Gideon’s confrontation with Adam so far out on the side hill under such dim light may not have been the best choice. But it’s all good, rowdy fun ‹ as long as you don’t think too much about lines like these, in regard to the Romans kidnapping the Sabine women: “They acted angry and annoyed/But secretly they was overjoyed.” That Adam sure tells it like it is.

Should you go? If it’s one of your old favorites, you can rest assured the SCERA does it justice.

I’m in the Nude for Laughs

0

Have I ever told you the Naked Story? Oh, it’s a good one.

This is a factual story, supported by several eyewitnesses who have taken no small delight in recounting it to anyone who will listen. It occurred at a cabin in Wallsburg belonging to the family of my friend Monty, who is married to the lovely Claire. The cabin is set far back from the road, which is a road that stretches into the woods and leads nowhere, really. There are no other homes nearby. As a result, if you turn out all the lights in Monty’s cabin, and it is nighttime, the cabin is pitch-black.

Several years ago, Monty and Claire hosted a party during which we took advantage of the darkness to play stupid and juvenile games, by which I mean only the men were interested in playing them. The women stayed downstairs while the men retired to the loft to turn out the lights and sneak around and hit each other with foam-rubber swords.

During one round of this game, I began ruminating on the phenomenon of sense memory. When one finds oneself in darkness, one’s mind retains the image of what the environment looked like before the lights went out. Then, when the light returns, we are not surprised — in fact, we are subtly comforted — to find that nothing has changed in the interim.

It occurred to me that the very essence of comedy is surprise, and that it would be an easy thing to demonstrate this fact here. When the lights come back on after the game has finished, I will have changed one small thing about the environment, resulting in comedy.

So very quietly, I removed all of my clothing. The game we played required stealth and silence, so no one noticed that I had stopped playing and was undressing instead. A few minutes later, the game reached its natural conclusion, everyone began chattering, and someone turned the lights back on. There I was, wearing only my wristwatch and socks. And for a brief moment, no one noticed.

Now, when you tell a joke and no one laughs, you can play it off like you meant it seriously anyway, or that you didn’t even say it. You can even make a joke about the fact that no one found your joke amusing. There is little shame in making a witty aside or one-liner that turns out not to be funny. You did not risk much, so there is not much to lose.

However, stripping oneself naked for the purposes of comedy leaves no leeway. If no one finds what you have done funny, there is no way of explaining it. Why else would you undress in such circumstances, if not to get a laugh? And if the laughs don’t come, then you are naked and unjustified.

These are the thoughts that went through my mind during that horrible, horrible half-second. Then the others in the room noticed me and laughed. My experiment had worked. They had remembered the room a particular way, and I had altered it. I maintain that my nakedness is funny anyway, in any situation, even ones where nakedness is not contradictory. But it was particularly humorous here, since it contrasted with everyone’s previous vision of the room.

It didn’t take long for the Naked Story to spread throughout the land. My friend Jjudy — who wasn’t even there that night — was a T.A. for a class at BYU, and she would tell all her students the story: “You know Eric Snider, who writes ‘Snide Remarks’ in the paper? Well, here’s what he did.” If I had any shame, I’d be embarrassed by the story. Heck, if Jjudy had any shame, she’d be embarrassed to tell it. The point is, don’t turn the lights off when I’m in a funny mood.

Gangster No. 1

0

At the center of Paul McGuigan’s remorselessly violent and gruesomely funny “Gangster No. 1” is a character who only understands his existence as it pertains to his idol, a ruthless London gangster named Freddie Mayes.

Freddie is suave, handsome, dangerous and respected by his legions of organized-crime hoodlums. He has earned the right to be called Gangster No. 1, to the extent that extortion and murder can be considered methods of “earning” anything. And our narrator, whose name we never learn, is insanely jealous, hating Freddie’s success almost as much as he loves Freddie.

It is told mostly in flashback, starting in 1968 with the narrator played by Paul Bettany (he is Malcolm McDowell in later scenes; Freddie is David Thewlis throughout). He’s the new man in Freddie’s crew and quickly earns the big guy’s trust by demonstrating he can be as cold and ruthless as the situation calls for. He does this by dropping a taxi on a debtor whose account is in arrears. (And you thought your credit card’s late fee was tough.)

There is trouble in the form of a woman (there’s always a woman, isn’t there?), a smoky nightclub waitress named Karen (Saffron Burrows). The narrator, good-looking but charmless when it comes to the fairer sex, has more fuel for his anti-Freddie fire.

I won’t reveal more except to say that the narrator rises to the top, leaving a thick trail of blood behind him. Also, as indicated by the opening scenes set in 1999, he is alarmed to learn Freddie is about to be released from prison. The bulk of the film leads up to why, exactly, Freddie got put there in the first place.

Paul Bettany shot this film before “A Knight’s Tale” and “A Beautiful Mind,” but it’s being released at a good time. American audiences are familiar with him, like him, and are ready to see him tackle something difficult. (His lightweight work in “Knight” and “Beautiful” would have seemed like quite a step backward if we’d already seen “Gangster.”) His performance here is powerful and highly charged, marked by stretches of insanity, greed and torment, often all at once. He’s a flurry of emotions and motivations, yet keenly relatable to anyone who has ever felt a tinge of jealousy or hero worship.

David Thewlis is also extremely capable as Freddie, though the bad old-age makeup applied to him in the final act does him no great service. (Apparently, prison life is not as hard as you’ve heard, because Freddie has hardly aged at all in 30 years, while the narrator has turned into the 59-year-old Malcolm McDowell.) McDowell, alas, is rather over-the-top as the older version of the narrator. I wish Bettany had played the film’s final scenes, too, because his manic energy would have done the part justice.

There are more than a few similarities to “Fight Club,” both in theme and content. Whether that’s a selling point or not depends on your tolerance for violence and your interest in an introspective look at an insecure gangster.

Joshua

0

The makers of the religious film “Joshua” seem sincere in what they’re trying to do. The problem is, it’s hard to tell what that is, exactly.

It is a parable about a man named Joshua (Tony Goldwyn), a mysterious stranger who ambles into a small town and saves it, while simultaneously working various acts of carpentry. It is obvious he is a Jesus figure, and maybe even Jesus himself: He teaches a man to fish, heals a blind woman and raises a man from the dead. When he’s asked to carve a statue of St. Peter and the asker begins to explain who that is, he says, “I know Peter.”

Like Jesus, Joshua upsets the local religious leaders, here represented by the Catholic church and Father Tardone (F. Murray Abraham). His version of God is angry and fearsome, while Joshua’s version is loving and kind. Tardone is suspicious of Joshua and thinks he’s establishing some kind of cult.

Tardone’s underling, Father Pat (Kurt Fuller), is not nearly so judgmental. He becomes friends with Joshua and helps him rebuild the local Baptist church that was knocked down by a storm a year ago.

The townspeople react to Joshua with curiosity, and he touches their lives in various, predictable ways, dispensing wise, obtuse advice like a Zen version of Ann Landers.

The parallel to Jesus’ ministry is clear, and becomes more so as time goes on. But then the parallels stop working. Instead of walking ON water, for example, Joshua walks IN water, which isn’t nearly as impressive.

It’s inconsistent, too. The film derides the Catholic church, but then allows the Pope to have the same Christ-given priesthood authority as Peter — which, if true, means you had better quit deriding the Catholic church!

And then there is this question: What is the point? The film is not likely to win new converts to Christianity; it seems aimed at people who are already believers. Yet it offers little nourishment or enlightenment for them. A man whose life parallels Christ’s is an interesting idea, but you need more than ideas to make a film work. You need a point.

Is the point that if Jesus walked among us in this day and age, we might not recognize him? That doesn’t work in the film, because most of the characters follow Joshua devotedly. None of them says, “Hey, I think this guy is Jesus,” but they certainly don’t reject him, either. If the question is, “Would we recognize Jesus today?,” then the answer is apparently, “Yeah, sort of.”

Some of the smaller roles are rough around the edges, but the principal acting is strong enough. It is not an objectionable or dull film; it merely lacks everything except good intentions.

Chasing a Good Day to Die (documentary)

0

A recent controversy in Utah surrounded James Mooney and his American Indian ceremonies that used peyote. Peyote is a hallucinogen that is illegal except when used in authentic Indian rituals. The problem here was that Mooney was allowing non-Indians to take part.

Was this against the law? That’s for the courts to decide. Would it make a fascinating documentary? It certainly could. Is “Chasing a Good Day to Die” a fascinating documentary? Heavens, no. It is slow and sleepy and uncompelling.

It was made by Paul Larsen, who tells his own story of finding a new lease on life through Mooney’s spiritual group. You don’t know he’s telling his own story, though, because he doesn’t put his name on the screen under his picture. He doesn’t do this with anyone else, either, so you never know who anyone is. You hear him referred to as “Paul,” and the closing credits indicate that someone named “Paul Larsen” wrote and directed the documentary, and so you put two and two together. Telling us participants’ names must be taught on the first day of Documentary Making 101; Larsen must have missed that day.

Larsen is his own worst enemy here, as his narration is dull and unenthusiastic. Getting people to care about a stranger’s problems is already an uphill battle, and surely his flat way of speaking does not help.

His next-best chance at gaining viewer interest would be to show us something genuinely fascinating or unfamiliar. The Indian ceremonies could qualify, since most viewers are unacquainted with them despite living in such geographical proximity to the practitioners. Again, here Larsen fails. A few sequences work — the “sweat lodge” experience, for example — but for the most part, little is done to bring us into the ceremonies or the reasons behind them. The rituals no doubt have helped people emotionally and spiritually, and some of those people (without names, of course) testify to that fact in the film. But Larsen’s lifeless style of filming and editing do not make it interesting.

The Bourne Identity

0

I was just jotting in my notes that “The Bourne Identity” has an intriguing start but then falls into a rut, when suddenly a man in the film leaped through a window and started shooting at people.

This led to a visceral, bone-crunching fight, after which things settled down for a while — and then there was a pretty decent car chase through the streets of Paris, which buoyed my spirits considerably.

The film, like many action thrillers, follows that formula a lot: action scene, some other stuff, action scene, some other stuff. The action scenes here are generally pulse-pounding and gritty; the problem is that they don’t build to anything. No sequence is any more or less exciting than any other, and the stakes never really get higher — the protagonist is being hunted the entire time, and then there’s a finale, and then you go home.

Matt Damon plays Jason Bourne, a CIA assassin who finds himself gunshot and dying on a fishing boat in the Mediterranean. He has amnesia; it is only by following clues that he even learns his name (as well as several of his aliases).

His skills, however, have not been forgotten. Instinctually, he can fight, spy and maneuver — and it alarms him that he can do this, and that it comes so naturally to him.

Because there are generally unwilling partners in these sorts of films, Bourne teams up with Marie (Franka Potente), a down-on-her-luck German gal who helps him elude the men who are, for reasons unknown to him, trying to kill him. Marie also engages in a lukewarm, obligatory romance with Bourne.

Directed by Doug Liman (“Go,” “Swingers”) and adapted by Tony Gilroy from Robert Ludlum’s novel, “The Bourne Identity” is a film with no place to go. In reconstructing his life, Bourne is able to learn scant few details about himself or his career, and so there’s little to look at in terms of his reactions, his plans, and so on.

On the other hand, WE learn plenty about Bourne, thanks to scenes back at CIA headquarters, with Chris Cooper as the agent ordering Bourne’s death.

With all this information being revealed (to us, but not to Bourne), mysteries never stand still long enough for us to puzzle over them. Someone mentions that a CIA mission has failed, and we think, “I wonder what the mission was?” Two seconds later, there’s a deposed dictator on TV, angrily denouncing the CIA for trying to assassinate him. And we think, “Oh. So that was it.” This pattern is repeated frequently, and it’s about as fun as watching someone else put together a jigsaw puzzle, rather than doing it yourself.

Matt Damon can be an action hero if he wants to be; his “angry and determined” face works in this film. It would have been good to see more fear, particularly when he’s first coming to grips with his amnesia, but maybe it would have made his cypheric character seem too real. Heaven forbid we get something believable or honest in a blow-things-up action flick.

Windtalkers

0

If “Windtalkers” were just about the Windtalkers — the Navajo Indians whose encoded language helped America win World War II — it would be a great film. That story is noble, and not often told. It has drama inherent in it.

But director John Woo has chosen to make a movie that tells not just of the Windtalkers, but of the general horrors of war, complete with gore and dismemberment and trauma and cliches. How war freaks people out, and how terrible the thing is — that story is told all the time, and it’s being told again here. If you’ve seen “We Were Soldiers” or “Saving Private Ryan,” you’ve seen most of “Windtalkers.”

The heart of the film concerns Private Ben Yahzee (Adam Beach), a Navajo from Arizona who enlists with his friend Charlie Whitehorse (Roger Willie) to help the United States with a new plan for winning the war in the Pacific. The Japanese won’t be able to break America’s codes if they’re spoken in a language the Japanese have never heard before: Navajo.

Yahzee, Whitehorse and their tribesmen are vital, then, and Sgt. Joe Enders (Nicolas Cage) is assigned to guard Yahzee with his life, and to prevent the code from falling into Japanese hands at all costs.

A sergeant named Ox (Christian Slater) is Whitehorse’s babysitter, and much keener on the idea at first than Enders is. Enders’ reluctance is due to being bitter after watching his men die in a botched mission on the Solomon Islands. Enders himself suffered some hearing loss, but he cheated his way back into battle in a completely unnecessary sequence that involved a pretty nurse (Frances O’Connor) hitting on him. (Later, she writes him letters, and he never answers them, and I honestly don’t know why she’s even in the movie. Honestly.)

The Navajos are integrated into the ranks, where of course there is a racist soldier (Noah Emmerich) with a Southern accent who hates them, and of course one of them will eventually save his life and he’ll have to reconsider his anti-non-Caucasian stance. They head out to the island of Saipan, where before we can see the usefulness of the codetalkers — which really should be next on the film’s agenda — we first must endure a lengthy battle sequence where men yell, “We gotta get outta here!” and “Noooooooo!” a lot, and where they shoot faceless Japanese soldiers. They are all led by a Scandinavian commander played by Peter Stormare, whose accent — toned down from real life but not toned down enough — is giggle-inducing.

Eventually, we see how valuable the Navajo soldiers are, and Yahzee and Enders’ uncomfortable relationship grows into a working friendship. There is also some good, respectful treatment of Indian spiritualism — again, the film is strongest when it concentrates on aspects of the war not previously over-done in other films.

Nicolas Cage is over-the-top in his more energetic battle moments, but in the quiet moments between skirmishes, he occasionally connects. Adam Beach, meanwhile, delivers a finely tuned performance as Yahzee. He grins a lot for most of the movie, and then surprises you with some wrenching emotion in the last act. He is an actor to watch.

Strip “Windtalkers” of all its excess debris and you’ve got a 90-minute, four-star film. As it is, it’s too long and too unfocused. The trend continues: Movies have original ideas, but they get scared and retreat to familiar, heavily trod territory.

Scooby-Doo

0

Scrappy-Doo is in this movie, too. He urinates on Daphne. In another scene, Scooby and Shaggy have a belching contest that regresses into a flatulence contest.

Now, why were you thinking of watching this? Nostalgia, was it? Or were you hoping the film would mock the TV series, the way the “Charlie’s Angels” movie did? In either case, you lose. The film imitates many ideas from the cartoon without capturing any of the spirit, and it is only occasionally self-aware enough to kid itself.

I frankly don’t know what the concept was here, except to appeal to little children. It does that, I’m sure, with lowbrow humor, simple jokes and a plot so convoluted that only kids could forgive its not making sense.

It begins with the Scooby gang breaking up for nebulous reasons. Nerdy Velma (Linda Cardellini) is upset because Fred (Freddie Prinze Jr.) always takes credit for her ideas that help catch the bad guys; beyond that, there is not much apparent reason for the split. Fred goes on the lecture circuit, Daphne (Sarah Michelle Gellar) takes up martial arts, Velma does nerdy science stuff, and Shaggy (Matthew Lillard) and Scooby (voice of Scott Innes) head to the beach to be slackers.

They are all reunited within five movie minutes, each amateur sleuth having been separately invited to pursue a mystery at an amusement park called Spooky Island. The owner, Mondavarious (Rowan Atkinson), is worried because teens are leaving the island as mindless zombies, something apparently having influenced them during their stay.

Producing a live-action version of a cartoon puts it into reality, which forces you to ask questions that can go ignored when you’re watching animation. Why do Scooby and Shaggy get so excited about Scooby Snacks, for example, when they can apparently be purchased at any grocery store? And why are they called Scooby Snacks? Was the dog named after the snack, or did Scooby’s ghost-catching exploits become so famous that they named a snack after him? (In that case, he should have a free lifetime supply anyway.)

And you’d think they would stop being scared of ghosts after a while, considering they turn out to be imposters 100 percent of the time.

And let’s not forget something else: Scooby-Doo is a TALKING DOG.

Not to be a spoil-sport, but if you’re going to make a movie in which everyone talks and acts like cartoon characters, why not just make a cartoon? Movies like this have a strong smell of “stunt” about them, like someone thought it would be funny to find real-life actors who look like beloved cartoon figures, and then didn’t think much beyond that point.

As much as I have never enjoyed a Matthew Lillard performance in anything, I have to admit he’s a good Shaggy. He captures the voice and the body movements perfectly, and you’d never know most of his acting was opposite empty air (Scooby having been inserted later, of course). Linda Cardellini is also somewhat interesting as Velma, and Rowan Atkinson is amusing in virtually anything.

Meanwhile, as much as I love Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy (you know, the vampire slayer), she’s pretty bland as Daphne. Ditto her boyfriend, Mr. Prinze Jr., who is, surprise surprise, a waste of space as Fred.

This movie is not for people who grew up watching “Scooby-Doo” cartoons in the ’70s and ’80s. It will not entertain them, unless they are still the same age they were then. If this movie is for anybody — and that is open for debate — it is for young children. Their parents would do well to cram earplugs in their ears and put pillowcases over their heads for 87 minutes.

The Emperor’s New Clothes

0

Napoleon Bonaparte, after his defeat at Waterloo, was exiled to the island of St. Helena, where he died in 1821. “Or so the history books tell us,” we are told smirkily in the opening moments of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

This is a charming “what if?” movie that merrily revises history just for the fun of it. What if Napoleon escaped his exile by switching places with a commoner who looked just like him? How would he manage, an emperor living in Paris in the disguise of a commoner?

Based on a Simon Leys novel and directed by HBO veteran Alan Taylor — he’s directed episodes of “Oz,” “The Sopranos,” “Sex and the City” and “Six Feet Under” — “The Emperor’s New Clothes” could be called “Napoleon in Love,” focusing as it does on the course of true love and how it never did run smoothly.

Napoleon and his Doppelganger are played by Ian Holm, who is always a joy to watch. He pulls off the double-duty well. Napoleon has an aristocratic, impatient sharpness about him, while Eugene Lenormand, his lookalike substitute, is a goofy little man who thoroughly enjoys being a monarch, even if it is only on a tiny island in exile.

Back in Paris, the disguised Napoleon meets a recently widowed woman called Pumpkin (Iben Hjejle), who enjoys his company and has no idea of his true identity. His plan is to gather his loyal old friends together and retake the throne, but he is sidetracked and winds up rallying the local fruitsellers instead, using his skills as a master strategist to help them dominate produce sales in the district.

Pumpkin’s friend Dr. Lambert (Tim McInnerny) grows suspicious of who “Eugene” really is, but let us not forget: People who claim to be Napoleon are usually crazy. Once Napoleon throws off his disguise, will anyone believe him?

He goes on about his son, from whom he is estranged, but nothing comes of that. Instead, the focus remains on Napoleon’s relationship with Pumpkin, who is given warmth and personality by the very likable Iben Hjejle (from “High Fidelity”).

It is all light and funny stuff, with a lovely orchestral score by Rachel Portman (“Chocolat,” “The Cider House Rules”). There’s nothing spectacular here, but it is cutely, smartly entertaining.

The Salton Sea

0

It’s about a man haunted by the death of his wife, and bent on revenging himself upon her killer. It begins at the end of the story, with the main character narrating and looking at a photograph. But it is not “Memento.”

It’s about a man with at least two identities who has caused a good deal of death and destruction. It begins at the end of the story, with the main character explaining how he came to be surrounded by such mayhem. At one point in the film, a camera goes through the barrel of a gun. But it is not “Fight Club.”

It’s “The Salton Sea,” which bears dark similarities to “Memento” and “Fight Club,” along with “Requiem for a Dream” and the works of David Lynch. There is even an honest-to-goodness homage to “Dirty Harry,” with a gun whose remaining bullet count the hero is not quite certain of.

Despite its resemblance to these great films, “The Salton Sea” is merely a very good one, marked by an ambitious style and solid performances, but hampered by a story (written by Tony Gayton) that buries its primary focus until late in the game.

This is the world of speed freaks — “tweakers,” they’re called — who live from one fix to the next and for whom night and day blend murkily into each other. It is the world our hero, Danny Parker (Val Kilmer), who is also known as Tom Van Allen, has sought out after the death of his wife. Unlike his counterpart in “Memento,” Danny WANTS to forget. The drugs help with that.

He has previously run afoul of the law, and now, in exchange for having his offenses reduced to misdemeanor status, he is helping the cops catch drug dealers. He works with a pair of detectives: seemingly mild-mannered Morgan (Doug Hutchison) and growly Garcetti (Anthony LaPaglia). Early in the film, they say they’re cutting him loose — oh, and by the way, the “Mexicali boys” have learned he’s a rat, and they’re after him.

Danny needs to score some money so he can get out of town. But Morgan and Garcetti are watching everything he does. And then the REAL plot emerges, and things begin to make sense, and if it had happened about 30 minutes earlier in the film, it would be a barn-burner of a movie.

The director is D.J. Caruso, who has previously done mostly TV dramas. He takes great strides forward here, blending dark humor with visceral imagery, often within the same scene. His efforts, combined with those from cinematographer Amir M. Mokri and editor Jim Page, make this the artiest anti-drug cautionary tale since, well, “Requiem for a Dream,” two years ago.

The performances are reliable, if not especially brilliant. Val Kilmer is more compelling than he’s been in years, and Peter Sarsgaard is downright sweet as his dim pal Jimmy the Finn. We also have Vincent D’Onofrio as nose-less redneck drug lord Pooh Bear, and Deborah Unger as Danny’s battered-girlfriend neighbor.

There are elements that seem weird just for weirdness’ sake, but then at the same time seem somehow natural in the bleak, frenetic world of the movie. Like the old man in the wheelchair who sings “Take a Walk on the Wild Side” at a karaoke bar, or Pooh Bear’s ravenous badger named Captain Stubing, or Pooh’s re-enactment of the JFK assassination using pigeons in the motorcade (including one in a pillbox hat).

The film has outrageous style yet seems not to want to draw attention to itself, if such a combination is possible. It’s well worth watching, both as a curiosity and as darkly diverting entertainment.

The Stupid Agenda

0

It happened again today. I was standing next to someone at the grocery store, and I could tell — by his voice, his mannerisms, the way he walked — that he was one of THOSE people. You know … stupid.

Now, I have nothing against stupid people. If they want to be stupid, that’s their business. (And don’t give me that crap about how they were “born that way.” You’re saying God INTENDS people to be stupid?!) Just don’t flaunt your stupidity in front of me, that’s all!

I’m not stupid. I’m actually quite smart, which is the exact opposite. And as a smart person, I have no interest in being approached by a dummy, or a moron, or whatever they want to be called this week.

“Wanna go watch wrestling?” “Hey, I really loved ‘The Scorpion King!'” “Morning radio DJs sure are funny!” I cringe when I hear things like that. To think these stupids are spouting their perverse way of thinking in front of our impressionable young people!

Which brings me to another point. The bleeding-heart liberals have gone too far, insisting that public schools cannot fire a teacher “just” for being stupid. A teacher’s personal life has nothing to do with the classroom? My foot! You can’t tell me children won’t be influenced by a teacher’s obvious, flaming stupidity, flouncing around the classroom, promoting his stupid agenda.

The stupid agenda is insidious, you know. They want equal treatment with normal, smart people. Just 50 years ago, no one even talked about “alternative” thinking styles. If you knew someone who was stupid, you didn’t mention it. Sure, you’d notice one in the locker room now and then — you can be sure they’d stand out there, fumbling with the combination lock, bumping into things, putting their shorts on their heads, and so on. But they were “light in the lobes,” that’s all — and they darned sure kept quiet about it!

Used to be that celebrities who were idiots kept their private lives private. Mark Twain was ragingly stupid, and Ernest Hemingway was often seen in stupid-oriented dinner clubs. Did they write books promoting the stupid lifestyle, encouraging readers to follow their example and turn to a life of idiocy? No!

Nowadays, if someone in Hollywood is an imbecile, EVERYONE knows about it. Ashley Judd, Seann William Scott, Freddie Prinze Jr. — stupid as a French horn, all of them, and not too subtle about it. Tom Cruise claims not to be stupid, but he sure has a large stupid following. And would a smart man have dumped Nicole Kidman? He’s not fooling me!

They’ve even taken a perfectly innocent word — “dumb,” which used to mean “unable to speak” — and perverted it to mean someone like them. Oh, and THEY can call EACH OTHER “dumb,” but heaven forbid I say it, or shout it at them as I drive past a group of them standing in the middle of a busy intersection outside a Wal-Mart! Then, all of a sudden it’s a “hate crime.”

Now I see the dummies want to be able to marry each other, and even to have children. Disgusting! If a child is raised by cretins, is there any hope of his NOT being a cretin? It’s tragic, but you see numbskulls with kids all the time, perpetuating their numbskullery. They’ve given them dumb, misspelled names like Arikka, Mykal and Tommus, and pierce their ears when they’re a year old, and let them grow mullets.

I can see how stupids have their place in society. They produce a lot of movies and a majority of TV shows, some of which are enjoyable for their campy humor. But does that mean we have to accept their way of non-thinking? No, it doesn’t. They do more harm than good anyway, spreading stupid-people diseases like dyslexia and rickets.

I say we round up all the stupid people, put them on an island, and let nature take its course. They won’t know how to make anything, of course, or contact the mainland, and some of them will probably just wander into the sea and drown. And most importantly, they’ll be out of our hair forever, and America can go back to the way it was a hundred years ago: 100 percent smart.

Ask Eric Stuff 11

0

When people need advice on matters of a most personal nature, they turn to Ask Eric Stuff, the occasional feature wherein Eric gets asked stuff and sometimes sort of answers the questions, indirectly.

All of these questions were actually asked by actual people. You can submit your own queries here. [link outdated] Please note that Eric cannot respond personally to each question, because a lot of them are really stupid.

Dear Eric: What should I do with my hair? — Indecisive
Dear Indie: Clean it out of the bathroom sink, for starters.

Dear Eric: Do you believe in love at first sight? — Hopelessly In Love
Dear Hopeless: It depends on how powerful the binoculars are, and whether the curtains are drawn.

Dear Eric: Is it a waste of time to play video games? My wife says I should turn them off and play with my newborn son. What do you think? — LacksvitaminD
Dear Lax: This cannot be a real question. A grown man who plays video games — and yet who claims to be married and even to have procreated? Please.

Dear Eric: Who would win in a fistfight between Super-Dell and the geeky Dell computer kid? — Don King Wannabe
Dear Wannabe: The Dell computer kid has more muscle mass than Super-Dell, as does your average kitten. However, Super-Dell has all the powers of the Dark Lord Satan. I’d call it a draw.

Dear Eric: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? — Curious Carl
Dear Curi: It only takes one lawyer to screw anything.

Dear Eric: Every time I try to give my girlfriend a kiss she pulls away at the last second. Is there something wrong with me? — Dumbfounded in Denver
Dear Dumb: Yes. You keep calling this woman your “girlfriend” when she clearly wants nothing to do with you.

Dear Eric: What’s the difference between Coke and Pepsi? — Cola Lover
Dear Bubbles: “Coke” is short for “cocaine,” which is a highly addictive chemical substance. “Pepsi” is short for “Coca-Cola,” which is a highly addictive chemical substance.

Dear Eric: What do you think of Orson Scott Card’s comment in one of his columns that you are the “funniest humor writer in America?” — Online Reader of Meaningless Columns
Dear Misquoter: Actually, he said I’m the “funniest Mormon writer,” and while “humor” and “Mormon” are similar, they are not exactly synonyms. At any rate, to answer your question, I’m flattered. I thought Card’s “Ender’s Game” was really funny, too.

Dear Eric: Do people think you’re funny in real life? Or do they just feel sorry for you and give you that curtesy smile? — Holding my breath till you answer
Dear Breathless: It’s more courtesy than curtesy, but yes, there’s a condescending smile involved. As for feeling sorry for me, if I can’t have people’s respect, I have no problem taking their pity. (Or their money.)

Dear Eric: If dogs sweat through their tongues, what are their armpits for? — Hot Dog
Dear Hotty: Same as humans’ armpits: for making comical flatulence noises.

Dear Eric: Why do people at work who have less experience and appear to be far less qualified than the rest of us seem to get promoted faster than everyone else? — Busy Beaver
Dear Beavie: I can’t really relate, because no one I work with has less experience or is less qualified than I am. But if what you say is true, then I must be due for a promotion. Do they usually get raises, too? Because I could really use one.

Dear Eric: Why do guys make girls cry so much? — Teary in Texas
Dear Tex: Because it’s easy.

Cherish

0

A mischievous visual style and oodles of charm from the principal cast make “Cherish” a very good (but not great) movie that will especially inspire enthusiasm among people in their late ’20s.

Zoe Adler (Robin Tunney) is a lonely single girl in San Francisco who is terrified of being by herself. She parties nearly every night to avoid being home alone, and she dates many, many guys. (“I wouldn’t date so many guys if ONE guy would ever call me back,” she says.)

She also whiles away the hours by listening to a DJ called Cupid on a local radio station. She adores the cheesy love ballads of the ’70s and ’80s, and she complains about how fickle we are: We love a song, which leads to it being played a lot on the radio … and then we decide we hate it.

Just as she has found her music-loving soulmate — a co-worker played by Jason Priestley, of all people — she is the victim of a carjacking gone awry, leading to the mowing down of a police officer and a manslaughter charge against her. (The bad guy got away, and no one believes her that anyone else was even in the car with her.) She is given the worst possible punishment for someone as social as she is: house arrest. An electronic bracelet on her ankle monitors her whereabouts, and she’s not allowed to leave her apartment.

Left to her own resources, she strikes up a friendship with the crippled gay midget downstairs (Brad Hunt), and a love-hate relationship with Daly (Tim Blake Nelson), the anal-retentive county employee who stops by occasionally to make sure the bracelet is working properly.

This pop-cultural romantic comedy becomes part-thriller when the carjacker — aware he killed a cop and caused a lot of trouble for Zoe — starts stalking her. But since no one believes the guy even exists, it’s up to Zoe to save the day herself.

Director Finn Taylor (who also scripted) has more fun with the confines of Zoe’s apartment than your average director would; he is aided in this by Barry Stone’s whimsical cinematography. Songs like “Tainted Love,” “Don’t You Want Me, Baby” and others also add to the general merriment.

The dialogue is occasionally awkward and unrealistic, and there are some events that simply don’t make sense. Zoe’s final actions of the film are foremost on that list; in fact, the entire “thriller” part of the film isn’t nearly as successful as the comedy part. And while Robin Tunney is a charming, modern version of Audrey Hepburn, her character is ill-defined. She’s made out to be a nerdy loser among her co-workers, yet she’s also quite pretty and has a lot of dates. Wouldn’t someone who goes out as much as she does be far less socially awkward?

Anyway, these are quibbles that are worth mentioning, because they detract from the film’s overall quality. But they’re not deal-breakers. “Cherish,” while flawed, is still an entertaining bit of fluff.

Bad Company

0

“Bad Company” unites director Joel Schumacher (“Batman & Robin”) and producer Jerry Bruckheimer (“Armageddon”) for the first time, and it perfectly showcases their individual gifts. It’s uneven like a Schumacher film, and loudly stupid like a Bruckheimer film.

Here’s the story. CIA agent Gaylord Oakes (Anthony Hopkins) has been working undercover with agent Kevin Pope (Chris Rock) to buy a thermonuclear device from terrorists. But Pope gets killed, and the terrorists don’t trust Oakes well enough to do the deal with him only. And if the deal doesn’t go down, the bomb will go to another bidder, whose intentions with it surely won’t be as pure as the U.S. government’s would have been.

Fortunately, Pope had a long-lost twin brother from whom he was separated at birth. His name is Jake Hayes, and he is a wise-cracking ticket scalper in New York who won’t commit to his girlfriend (Kerry Washington), much less get a real job. Oakes and the CIA convince him to pose as his brother for the terrorists, finish the deal, and save the day. “The future of the free world may rest in this young man’s hands,” Oakes says, reminding us he is an action-flick character and not a real person.

At first Jake is like, “No way, man! I ain’t gonna get killed!” But then he changes his mind, I guess because he had to change his mind or else the movie would be over.

This is the sort of movie that runs along, making noise and knocking things over, all the while assuming you won’t think very hard about what’s happening.

The “separated-at-birth” thing is unnecessary. Why did Jake and Kevin have to be unaware of each other’s existence? It doesn’t help the story, and the explanation for why they were split up is nonsensical.

Also stretching the bounds of believability is Jake’s constant wisecracking. At one point, he and Oakes are driving over rough terrain with a nuclear bomb in the backseat that could explode at the slightest provocation. And Jake cannot stop cracking jokes. One smart-aleck remark in such a dire situation, I can buy. A steady stream of them, no.

Do Hopkins and Rock have any chemistry together? Of course not. It’s an example of the bizarre opposites-casting that Hollywood employs, where the actors are chosen first, and THEN they try to make it work. Mel Gibson and Danny Glover, yes. Owen Wilson and Jackie Chan, yes. Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock? Sorry, no. Who’s next? Judi Dench and Martin Lawrence? Ian McKellan and Carrot Top?

Rock isn’t a good enough actor to play two characters. I kept wondering why they were making a big deal about Jake learning all of his dead brother’s mannerisms when the two already talked and acted exactly alike. (They both even have the same wispy goatee, probably because Rock refused to do the movie if he had to shave it off.)

Hopkins is a fine actor, of course, but not convincing as a secret agent. He shoots people in the film, but it never seems like something he would do. And what’s a Brit doing spying for the U.S. government, anyway?

One of the terrorists explains his motives with the same old spiel: Americans are lazy and complacent, while people all over the world are suffering and dying. That speech used to work. But pardon me, I believe America has been through some turmoil of its own recently. I believe we are acquainted with mass murder and terrorism.

There’s even a charming sequence in which a thermonuclear device is in danger of being detonated … in New York City. How’d they get it into the country? Shipped it like regular luggage on an airplane.

It takes guts to make a movie this bravely stupid, a film so blissfully unaware of current world events. I’m not a proponent of changing every movie because of Sept. 11, but I do like getting the impression that the filmmakers at least considered some alternatives. Even if they decide to stick with their original plan, it’s comforting to think there was a meeting at some point where someone said, “Should we still do this?,” and then some intelligent discussion followed. With “Bad Company,” you get the feeling they didn’t discuss anything other than the casting and the budget. Movies can take place in a fantasy world, but movie-makers ought to live in reality.

Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood

0

Rebecca Wells’ novel “Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood” is about two things. One is the sublime nature of life-long friendships. The other is how the gaps between us and our parents may be bridged by understanding where they came from.

Neither of these themes is examined with much enthusiasm in the film version. One is tempted to hypothesize that Callie Khouri didn’t realize they WERE the themes when she wrote the screenplay and directed the film.

Having read the book, it’s difficult for me to tell how the movie stands on its own without comparing it to its source. It is entertaining, for the most part, and the acting is generally good (we will discuss that later). It is not very touching nor insightful, though; audiences unfamiliar with the novel may view it as just a “chick flick” with a bit of Southern sass added.

It begins with Siddalee Walker (Sandra Bullock), a successful Broadway playwright, giving an interview to Time magazine in which she paints her mother, Vivi (Ellen Burstyn), as an abusive tyrant. Vivi, given to melodrama and histrionics, cuts Siddalee out of her life.

Sent to repair the damage, though, are Vivi’s friends, Teensy (Fionnula Flanagan), Necie (Shirley Knight) and Caro (Maggie Smith). The four Louisiana belles have been close-knit since childhood, calling themselves the Ya-Yas. They are closer to each other than they ever were to their respective husbands, and now they have grown old together, drinking and laughing their way through life. (Nearly every scene has a Bloody Mary in it somewhere; one of the Ya-Yas says, on the way to Vivi’s house, “I hope this isn’t a real emergency, because I only brought one bottle of vodka.”)

The three Ya-Yas abduct Siddalee — who might as well be their own daughter, for as close as they are to her mother — and take her back to Louisiana, where they set out to explain why Vivi is the way she is — the heartbreaks and trials that shaped her into the vivacious, larger-than-life figure she is now.

This entails a lot of flashbacks to the time of the Ya-Yas’ youth and young adulthood. The first hour of the film resembles a flashback episode of a sitcom, where the dialogue exists only to lead us to the next clip, often at the expense of smoothness or believability.

In the book, these flashbacks help paint the overall picture of Vivi. We see her stormy relationship with her religious-zealot mother, Buggy (Cherry Jones) We see her romance with Teensy’s brother. We see it all.

In the film, the decision of which incidents to omit and which to include is puzzling. The ones that made the cut are without context, and one is at a loss to determine what, if anything, they’re supposed to tell us. For example, we see the Ya-Yas going to Atlanta to the “Gone with the Wind” premiere in 1939, and a subsequent run-in with a racist relative. But so what? Omitted is the amazing sequence where Buggy sends Vivi to a strict Catholic school and Teensy’s mom rescues her — a far more instructive event in terms of depicting how Vivi’s bad mother caused her to become one, too.

Frequently, we are tossed into an emotionally climactic moment without being given the necessary framework, and the feeling is like that of attending the funeral for someone you didn’t know: Obviously, this is a big deal, but darned if I can feel any of it.

Take Siddalee’s memory of her childhood birthdays, when her mother (the younger Vivi is played by Ashley Judd) and siblings would creep into her room early in the morning, sing “Happy Birthday,” and present a cake. Then Vivi would say, “I’m so glad I had you.” In the book, this scenario is painted beautifully, and the line means something. In the film, we are given five seconds of set-up, and the line sounds trite and awkward. Context, people, context.

Ellen Burstyn is fantastic as the modern-day Vivi, anxious about her appearance and reputation. In one of the best supporting roles of the year is James Garner as her much-ignored (but still loving) husband Shep. I would like to see an entire movie about Vivi and Shep.

The rest of the Ya-Yas are great, too, led by the incomparable Maggie Smith, whose Southern accent is not perfect but good enough.

Ashley Judd is the weak link, as she is wont to be. As the young parent version of Vivi, she is too being the Glamorous Ashley Judd to be what she’s really supposed to be: a troubled woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown. In the pivotal flashback where Sidda recalls one of the kindest things her mother ever did for her, Judd doesn’t connect at all. It’s a wasted sequence.

The friendship among the Ya-Yas is hinted at, but not fully realized. The same goes for the enigmatic figure of Vivi, since half of her life is played without distinction by Judd. There are fine moments and fine performances here and there — enough to make it a decent movie, but a terrible adaptation.

Enigma

0

A reader at Internet Movie Database observes that “Enigma” is “history without histrionics.” This is meant as a compliment, and I agree the film’s low-key attitude is admirable — in theory. In practice, perhaps some histrionics might have been preferable to what the film gives us, which is passionless, murky drama from behind the scenes of World War II.

This is a story based on real events, dealing with the British math nerds who intercepted German messages and decoded them with the help of a machine called “Enigma” that they stole from the Nazis. I believe there are people who understand how the encryption took place, and how the machine decrypted the messages, but I am not among those people. Screenwriter Tom Stoppard might know — he is very smart, after all — but all that the scenes of coding and decoding did for me was make me frustrated that I couldn’t grasp what was being taught to me.

It is not essential to understand that part of the story, though, because there are people involved, too. First there is genius mathematician Tom Jericho (Dougray Scott), who has been on medical leave after a nervous breakdown he suffered when colleague Claire (Saffron Burrows) broke off their relationship. He has been called back into duty because the Germans have just gotten more clever with their codes, and he’s the only one nerdy enough to crack them.

Claire has now disappeared altogether, though, and Tom is concerned. He is even more concerned when he discovers un-decoded German messages stashed in her bedroom. With the help of Claire’s bookish roommate Hester (Kate Winslet), Tom sets out to find out why Claire had these, and where she is now, and would she please consider going out with him again?

So maybe Claire was a mole, and maybe Tom and Hester had better find her before dashing inspector Wigram (Jeremy Northam does). Meanwhile, though, the Germans are about to attack a fleet of merchant ships in the North Pacific, which might be a more pressing concern.

The movie is directed by Michael Apted (“The World Is not Enough,” “Enough”), and it should be noted that Stoppard’s screenplay was based on Robert Harris’ popular novel. I have not read the book, but I can’t imagine it is as difficult to sift through as the movie is. The film seems so intent on NOT being a typical, Hollywood-ized espionage thriller that it forgets why those films are often successful: because they are exciting.

Here, though, there are hushed whispers about this and that, and some frantic racing around, but it’s never very clear what’s at stake. And when everything is finally unraveled, and the true bad guys are revealed, I can’t confess being a) surprised or b) interested. “Enigma” is a good name for a movie this delibrately obtuse and unapproachable. It is a waste of good performances and an interesting historical event.

Codypendent

0

In today’s edition of Crazy People Running for Office, we will discuss Cody Judy.

On Feb. 7, 1993, Cody Judy interrupted a BYU fireside where LDS apostle Howard W. Hunter was speaking. Judy held a briefcase containing what he said was a bomb, and in his other hand he held what he said was a detonator. Those of us in attendance wet what we said was our pants.

We also sang some inspirational hymns of God’s love and mercy, which distracted Judy long enough for a bunch of guys to tackle him and beat him senseless. It was soon discovered that he had neither a bomb nor a detonator nor a weapon of any sort. He served eight years in prison and is now running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, making him different from most politicians, who tend to do their illegal things AFTER being elected.

If you visit www.codyjudy.com [no longer functional] you can read all about Judy and his platform. (He’s anti-gun-control, but he has no problem with polygamy or same-sex marriage.) He speaks openly about what happened in 1993. He does not, however, address the issue of whether we ought to have an elected official named “Cody” or “Mr. Judy.” It would be hard for me to support a government leader with either of those names.

Judy didn’t want to meet for a face-to-face interview, but he did answer a few questions I sent him via e-mail. I have not altered his statements in any way, nor did I make them up.

It all started when he suffered some financial trouble and the LDS Church refused to help him (he says it’s because he was disfellowshipped at the time). He became disenchanted with how the church was not helping its members live “celestial laws.”

He writes: “How many members would say we are NOW LIVING those laws..or even close. We are not. As a member…I protested this first by approaching the leaders through letters…second through my attempt to visit with a general authority where I was rebuffed and rudely treated….thirdly, the marriott center was ‘rude’ of me.”

He had tried to meet with church leaders in Salt Lake City and was rebuffed; his shenanigans at the Marriott Center were his last resort to get someone to listen to him. It makes sense, really. Who among us hasn’t lost patience with The System and threatened a revered religious figure with an imaginary bomb?

Oh, but don’t use the word “threatened” in regards to what Judy did. “Threaten an Apostle…how so?” he writes. “I never threatened Howard W. Hunter in any word…in fact the tape of the innsodent you can hear me telling him there was no threat, no one would be harmed or hurt, and assuring peace.”

Yes, Mr. Judy, but you said you had a bomb. Surely you can understand how that could be taken as a threat.

But Judy says he never claimed to have a bomb. He said he had a B.O.M. (pronounced “bomb”) — a copy of the Book of Mormon, which in fact is what was in the briefcase. “We constantly use metephoric and symbolic meaning to many things in a church meeting,” he writes.

He goes on to ask, “What do we do with all the seminary students who call out they have a b.o.m.; Or are asked by their instuctors if they brought their b.o.m’s? Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law?”

So you can see how it was all just a big, wacky misunderstanding. He said he had a B.O.M. in his briefcase, but everyone thought he said he had a BOMB in his briefcase! Wasn’t there an “I Love Lucy” episode like this?

Judy is obviously still at least slightly crazy — he’s running as a Democrat in Utah, for heaven’s sake — but he does make a good point about something else: Eight years in prison is a bit excessive for nothing more than interrupting a fireside. In fact, I went to all the firesides that year, and his is the only one I remember anything about. Some prison time for the threat and the bomb scare makes sense, but eight years? I don’t know. I figure the only way we can make it up to him is to elect him to public office. Once he’s a representative, we’ll never hear from him again.

Yellow China Bell

0

In “Yellow China Bell,” a 15-year-old Armenian girl is kidnapped by a Russian man who takes her back to his dirt-poor village and makes her his wife, against her will. The social and cultural factors that might cause a woman to stay in such an arrangement are examined.

It is not, one hardly needs to point out, a very fun play. It is emotionally wrenching and sometimes difficult to watch, especially in the tiny Margetts Theatre, where the brief physical distance between audience and actor makes the emotional distance seem smaller, too. There is no intermission, either, which maybe is only fair: If the characters don’t get a respite from the turmoil, neither should we.

That said, I hope no one shies away from watching it for fear of being traumatized. It is not so much disturbing as thought-provoking, the sort of jarring experience that knocks a few things loose but doesn’t knock you out cold. In that sense, it’s “enjoyable,” in the way that a stimulating college lecture or an educational program on PBS is enjoyable. You may exit the theater crying rather than skipping, but you will feel something.

Central to the show is Diane Lynn Rane’s fantastic performance as Mina, the Armenian girl whisked away to Russia. Initially — and understandably — Mina’s outlook is dim. She tells Zara (Laura Reyna), her only friend, “I don’t pray for happiness anymore. I don’t think I believe in it.” Life, she says, consists of “living, dying, and patience in between.” By the end of the play, circumstances with her husband have forced her to reassess some of these attitudes.

Rane’s performance is often physical, using facial expressions and body language to express Mina’s thoughts. She is much shorter than Jesse Ryan Harward, who plays her husband, and much smaller in frame than Daryl A. Ball, who plays the husband’s lusty, gold-chained friend. Her fear of them is strikingly believable, as are all the other emotions she conveys over the course of the show.

By my count, this is the sixth BYU mainstage play in the past 2 1/2 years in which Harward has appeared, and I believe it is his best work. Victor is not meant to be a monster and nothing but; he seems to genuinely love Mina. Harward expertly walks the line between sympathy and derision, and I love this character as much as I hate him.

An early scene in which Victor has just abducted the young Mina (played by Naira Galoustian) and intends to rape her has Harward and Galoustian doing terribly difficult work. They accomplish it with astonishing professionalism and emotion.

Mina’s mother, seen in flashbacks, is played with tenderness by Laurel Sandberg. A sort of interpretive dance chorus that provides movement and occasional narration is acted by Shelley Burton, Amanda R. Schutz and Veronica Naimova.

The director is Megan Sanborn Jones, and the playwright is BYU graduate student LeeAnne Hill Adams.

Should you go? It is intense and cathartic. So, yes.

Fee Installation

0

This was my Saturday:

12:00 p.m.: I decide I cannot live another minute without a CD player in my car. Honestly, how can you even expect me to?

12:15 p.m.: I arrive at RC Willey, which I chose because it is the last place in the country where my credit is still good.

12:25 p.m.: I locate the specific stereo I wish to purchase and am informed by the salesman that I might just as well throw my money in the bushes as buy THAT model, for heaven’s sake. He tells me some of the better models come with remote controls, which will come in handy all those times that I drive my car while sitting in the backseat.

12:30 p.m.: I settle on my new first choice in stereos, which costs $50 more than the one I used to think was my first choice.

12:32 p.m.: I am told that since RC Willey offers free installation, the installation will only cost $45. (There are charges for various parts.) Apparently, the installation is called “free” because there are no slaves involved. All of the laborers are freemen, being paid wages for their work. It makes me happy to know I am not supporting a sweatshop.

12:33 p.m.: I realize I should have known the free installation would cost money, because the sign in the showroom says, “Free installation: Ask salesperson for details.” If the free installation were actually free, there would be no details to ask for. You’d say, “Tell me more about this free installation,” and he would say, “Well, we install it, and it’s free.”

12:40 p.m.: Having purchased the stereo, I drive around to the installation part of the RC Willey compound. The installer is friendly, and he friendlily explains that they don’t have in stock the rectangular bracket or “fit kit” for my particular car. He suggests I drive over to Circuit City to buy one, then bring it back and they’ll install it. I am perplexed at the notion of having to run errands for the stereo installers, but I figure it’s a small price to pay when you’re getting free installation.

12:50 p.m.: I’m back from Circuit City, fit kit in hand. The installer tells me it will take about two hours, which is slightly more than the 45 minutes the salesman told me it would probably take. Slightly perturbed by the delay and realizing I am at RC Willey on a Saturday, I vow to eat my weight in free hot dogs as an act of revenge.

1:05 p.m.: I eat two hot dogs. This does not equal my weight, but it does equal all the hot dogs I can eat. Much later, in discussing the matter with friends, we realize it would be impossible to eat your weight in hot dogs because the more hot dogs you ate, the more you would weigh, and you would never be able to catch up.

1:15 p.m.: I leave RC Willey and wander around. I pass Toys R Us, which has a large banner outside saying, “Huge Baby Sale.” Either they’re selling huge babies, or they’re selling regular-sized babies at a huge discount. Either way, long story short, they’re selling babies.

1:17 p.m.: I stop in at Pier 1 Imports to say hi to a friend who works there and to comment once again that if you are looking for something really, really uncomfortable to sit on, I recommend wicker.

1:45 p.m.: I get a phone call from the installer. There is a problem. I hurry back.

1:48 p.m.: Huge babies! Where do they get them? From huge mothers?

1:50 p.m.: I’m back at RC Willey. Turns out the fit kit I bought at Circuit City does not fit properly. I point out the irony of a “fit kit” not fitting, and another installer says haughtily, “OUR fit kits always fit.” And I say, “Yeah, well, you didn’t HAVE any of your fit kits.” I mean, it was a stupid thing for him to say, right? It’s not like they had a bunch of them in stock and I forced them to use an outside one anyway. They were OUT of them; we had no choice. “OUR fit kits fit.” Yeah, they’ll fit right up your — anyway.

1:51 p.m.: We figure out how to make it work. It will take another 20 minutes, so I decide to eat some more hot dogs.

1:56 p.m.: My weight has now increased by two additional hot dogs, thus making my goal of eating my weight ever-more unattainable. I wander around the showroom.

2:00 p.m.: I realize I should not be allowed in RC Willey unsupervised, because all I want to do is buy stuff. Like a treadmill. If I had a treadmill in my house, I could cancel my gym membership, and I would run EVERY NIGHT while I’m watching TV! Which of course I wouldn’t actually do. I would use the treadmill to hang jackets on.

2:15 p.m.: The job is done. The non-fitting Circuit City fit kit cost me $19, and now RC Willey wants an additional $5 “miscellaneous parts” fee and a $20 “modification” charge. Total cost for the free installation: $44. That’s one dollar less than I was quoted, so I came out ahead.

The Importance of Being Earnest

0

If you have the opportunity to see a production of Oscar Wilde’s “The Importance of Being Earnest,” you should take advantage of it. Even reading the play is enjoyable, so full of witticisms and quotable dialogue is it.

If you have the opportunity to see the movie — well, don’t avoid it, but don’t knock anyone down to get to the theater, either. It has neither the wit nor the timing of the play, though much of the charm has remained intact.

This comedy of manners mocks the frivolity of British high society at the turn of the last century. In it, a country gentleman named Jack (Colin Firth) has invented a fictitious brother named Ernest whom he often must go to London to bail out of trouble; in London, he IS Ernest, and he can do anything he pleases, since all his misdeeds will be blamed on someone who doesn’t exist.

Among his friends in town is Algernon (Rupert Everett), a directionless, unserious fellow with a similar scheme going: To get out of any unpleasant social engagement, he claims he must visit his fictitious friend Bunbury, who is a “permanent invalid” who takes ill at the most inopportune moments.

At present, Jack — or Ernest, as he is known here — is courting Algernon’s cousin Gwendolen (Frances O’Connor), daughter of the extremely haughty and commanding Lady Bracknell (Judi Dench). As luck would have it, Gwendolen has always dreamed of marrying a man named Ernest; unfortunately, of course, that’s not Ernest’s real name. When he casually wonders whether she would love him if he were called, oh, say, Jack, the answer is no.

Because this is a farce, albeit a tame and well-mannered one, eventually Algernon will wind up at Jack’s country estate, pretending to be Jack’s brother Ernest and courting Jack’s young ward Cecily (Reese Witherspoon). The matter of Jack’s parentage — he was a foundling, left in a handbag in a train station — will also become important. And it will end happily, of course.

The better performances are among the supporting roles, most emphatically by Judi Dench as the intimidating Lady Bracknell. A scene in which she interviews Jack to see whether he is worthy of her daughter is a humorous skewering of high-class ethics of the day. (Contrary to what you might suppose, she is not in favor of education: “I do not agree with anything that tampers with natural ignorance,” she says. Later, she warns, “Never speak disrespectfully of society. Only people who can’t get into it do that.”)

There is also much to admire in Tom Wilkinson as Doctor Chasuble, the delightfully flustered country clergyman; and Anna Massey as Miss Prism, Cecily’s spinsterly tutor who gets a little red in the face every time Doctor Chasuble comes around.

With the leads, you get good but not great. Rupert Everett doesn’t seem to be having nearly as much fun as he did with 1999’s “An Ideal Husband,” another Wilde play adapted and directed by Oliver Parker. Colin Firth has more zeal as Jack, and a few moments hint at the great heights to which the film could have attained — a fight over muffins in the garden, for example, is often a centerpiece in live productions and is given proper attention here.

Where Parker fails is in the final 30 minutes, which should have taken 15. Any comedy will live or die by its finale — if the film is a joke, then the last reel is the punchline — and this one is woefully drawn-out and mishandled. Parker has preserved most of Wilde’s punchy dialogue, but not enough of his spirit — the ingredients, but only a touch of the flavor.

The Sum of All Fears

0

“The Sum of All Fears” is a quaint film. It makes the Russians bad guys, and uses Nazis (well, neo-Nazis) as foils, too. It’s about a nuclear bomb. The technology and the presence of Ben Affleck will assure you of its modernity, but otherwise, you’d swear you were watching a dour, forgotten James Bond flick.

In fact, it is the latest Tom Clancy story centering on CIA agent Jack Ryan (previously played once by Alec Baldwin and twice by Harrison Ford). Jack is now much younger and does not have a family; instead, he has a girlfriend (Bridget Moynahan) who is a nurse and who does not know what Jack’s real job is. She thinks he’s a historian, and she wonders what historical emergency could possibly beckon him so early in the morning.

Jack is an expert on the new Russian president (Ciaran Hinds), who seems to be making threatening overtures in the direction of the United States. Simultaneously, a nuclear bomb lost during a 1972 Israeli-Egyptian conflict has found its way onto the black market. Russian scientists seem to be missing, too, apparently constructing a secret bomb. It all connects — or occasionally doesn’t, which is not to the movie’s credit — and Jack Ryan’s in the middle of it.

The heart and soul of the film is Morgan Freeman as CIA director John Cabot. When he is no longer a strong presence in the film, his absence is felt. I am not a knee-jerk Ben Affleck detractor — I think he’s a good actor when he wants to be — but he’s lost here. His role is underwritten; he seems like a guest star in his own film. He gets beaten up once, and that’s about the extent of his action-hero maneuvers.

Freeman, meanwhile, is cool and respectable. I don’t know why this Oscar-nominated actor keeps doing meaningless stuff like this (he was just in the Ashley Judd non-thriller “High Crimes”), but in a way I’m glad. If the choice is between Freeman in garbage and Freeman in nothing, I’ll take the Freeman in garbage.

Not that “The Sum of All Fears” is garbage. It does a few major things right, like the finely overwrought war-room sequence these movies always have, with serious actors like James Cromwell and Philip Baker Hall and Bruce McGill saying things like, “We can’t bomb the Russians, dammit!” There’s also a spectacular and harrowing sequence in which a football stadium is bombed, though it may be that such an event with real-life counterparts ought to be treated with soberness and terror, not reduced to a throwaway plot point like it is here.

Surely this is the least of the Jack Ryan films (“The Hunt for Red October,” “Patriot Games” and “Clear and Present Danger” being the other three). Its climax is dull — beware of films that think people typing at computers is exciting — and there is little of wit or style anywhere to be found. Thirty years ago, it would have been groundbreaking. Now it’s just tired.

Undercover Brother

0

Perhaps the most admirable thing about the overall very admirable comedy “Undercover Brother” is that in it, race relations are distilled down to nothing more than tiny cultural things like blacks’ disdain for mayonnaise, which white people seem to love.

Some people have actual hate for other races; those people are not represented in this film. Who we see instead are people — white and black — who feel uneasy around people of other races simply because they don’t understand each other.

It’s that puzzlement that inspired “Undercover Brother,” which is an ultra-funky, mildly subversive parody of ’70s blaxploitation films and spy capers. The title character, whose given name is Anton Jackson, is played by Eddie Griffin. He’s a super-cool fellow with a huge afro and groovy threads who is recruited by the top-secret organization B.R.O.T.H.E.R.H.O.O.D. (we’re never told what it stands for) to help fight The Man.

The Man is an actual man, seen only in shadows, whose evil organization seeks to stop black culture from influencing white culture. White kids using slang like “whassup” and “dawg,” not to mention rapping — it’s more than The Man, aided by the spastic Mr. Feather (Chris Kattan), can bear.

B.R.O.T.H.E.R.H.O.O.D., meanwhile, has the goal of reinstating black culture to its former glory. It’s no wonder the organization seems stuck in the ’70s: That was the last decade in which African-American culture was distinct and unique. Since then, it has been watered down by the likes of Urkel and Bryant Gumbel.

Top agents include computer expert Smart Brother (Gary Anthony Williams), paranoid Conspiracy Brother (David Chappelle) and Sistah Girl (Aunjanue Ellis). They are all led by the gruff-talking Chief (Chi McBride), with a token white guy (Neil Patrick Harris) assisting as an intern. (“Affirmative action,” the Chief explains.)

The Man’s current plot is to prevent a black Colin Powell-ish presidential candidate (Billy Dee Williams) from running, using mind control to get him to open a chain of fried chicken restaurants instead. Recruited and trained by the B.R.O.T.H.E.R.H.O.O.D., Undercover Brother inflitrates The Man’s operation, and in the process comes dangerously close to becoming one of those whitened black men himself. (He starts to love mayonnaise, for example.)

One is glad to see that, unlike too many comedies in recent years, this is not a showcase for the lead actor. One is never expected to laugh at Eddie Griffin simply because he’s doing some trademark Eddie Griffin shtick; one is expected to laugh because he’s playing a funny character who does funny things. He’s surrounded by a great ensemble cast of amusing characters, too, all working earnestly and gleefully.

Directed by Malcolm D. Lee (who also directed the respectable “Best Man”), “Undercover Brother” is not scatterbrained and unfocused like so many spoof comedies are. It’s packed with trenchant cross-cultural observations — black people’s misunderstanding of white people is just as well represented as the vice versa — but remains good-natured and fun. The satire is at both cultures’ expense, which is a beautiful thing.

Some Book Reviews

0

In response to numerous requests from authors, publishers and other book nerds, The Daily Herald has begun printing book reviews. Here is a small sampling.

“Hop on Pop,” by Dr. Seuss (Random House, 1963, 64 pgs.) This surrealist tale winds and weaves through a dizzying canyon of consciousness, flitting from one topic to another with the precise, ordered randomness of James Joyce, while maintaining the vocabulary of the slow kid who creeps you out at Wal-Mart. Bizarre images like pups in cups and houses on mouses float past the eye, leading to a disturbing sequence in which two juveniles “hop on pop” — literally jumping violently upon their father’s belly without regard for the physical consequences. Later, Mr. Brown is bounced out of town, only to come back with Mr. Black — an extraordinary turn of events, given the political climate in which Seuss wrote. It is difficult to find meaning in this jumbled, flawed bricolage of excesses, but those who make the extra effort will come away immensely satisfied. A-

“Old Hat New Hat,” by Stan and Jan Berenstain (Random House, 1970, 27 pgs.) A disappointing attempt to endow haberdashery with nuance, this worthless book belabors what points it does have to the point of tedium, and ignores other possible avenues that would have provoked thought. A young bear-like creature desires a new hat to replace his old, tattered one, but a trip to a hat store proves fruitless as he rejects every single item placed before him. What could have been a marvelous lesson on the consequences of pickiness, or on the dangers of allowing bears to shop in department stores, instead becomes a jejune, lifeless squandering of 27 precious pages. A “surprise” ending in which the bear-boy decides his old hat was best after all is predictable and pointless. D

“Come over to My House,” by Theo. LeSieg and Richard Erdoes (Random House, 1966, 63 pgs.) Despite the alluring title, “Come over to My House” proves to be a harmless bore, the sort of book one forgets instantly upon finishing the reading of it. Its message? That different sorts of people live in different sorts of houses. Brilliant, Mssrs. LeSieg and Erdoes! You have astounded the logicians with your bold assertions. Next time, find something less obvious to write about, like the sky being blue or grass being green. C-

“The Cat in the Hat,” by Dr. Seuss (Random House, 1957, 61 pgs.) Rarely, if ever, has a more chilling story of youthful disobedience and wanton feline malevolence forced its way onto the pages of a book. Here is a tale that will curdle the blood, a tale of children harassed endlessly by a pervicacious tabby hell-bent on ruining their relationship with their mother. The children — young and unsupervised — live in terror of their unseen mother, who is evidently a cruel taskmaster who will not be at all pleased to find the children have had fun in her absence. The titular cat causes disturbances, makes messes, and introduces two androgynous forms called Thing One and Thing Two into the home. When the children’s pet fish admonishes the cat to leave, the cat humiliates the fish with reckless fury, all the while urging the children not to tell their mother than any of it ever happened. “It will just be our little secret” is the cat’s creepy, subtextual message. For good old-fashioned nightmare fuel, you cannot beat “The Cat in the Hat.” A+

One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest

0

Poor Nurse Ratched. She’s one of the great villains in theater and film history, but she never gets mentioned alongside Darth Vader or Richard III.

And poor Nurse Ratched! She had a firm grip on her little flock of crazies until that damned Randle P. McMurphy showed up in the psychiatric ward and started undermining her authority.

But don’t cry for Nurse Ratched. In the Pioneer Theatre Company production of “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” she is played with a monstrous chill by Alison Edwards. Her hair is pulled back, her lips are tight, she speaks with stern precision — and she is pure villain. Dale Wasserman’s script, John Going’s direction and Edwards’ performance never allow us to feel anything other than hatred for her. It may not be realistic — real people tend to have SOME shades of gray — but it sure is cathartic to despise a character without having to worry about understanding where she’s coming from or sympathizing with her.

Nurse Ratched is not the central figure, of course; that’s McMurphy, a leering, coarse man played by R. Ward Duffy with just enough hint of Jack Nicholson to remind us who owns the role. McMurphy is transferred from the work farm to the psychiatric hospital, where he decides that if he’s going to be dubbed a psychopath, he’s going to be the “stomp-down, doggone biggest one of all!”

Soon he has won the support of nearly every other man in the ward, most of whom had never thought to challenge Nurse Ratched or think for themselves before. Next thing you know, they are betting on whether McMurphy can “break” her. Tragically, she may hold all the cards after all.

Jason Bowcutt plays Billy Bibbit, the sweet, stuttering virgin, with warmth; he is accompanied by PTC favorite Max Robinson as Dale Harding, the previous leader of the group who is as funny as he is touching. There is a fine line between being funny-crazy and believable-crazy, and these actors and their compatriots manage to be both.

The play is told through the eyes of Chief Bromden, an American Indian played by Michael Nichols, who recently played the role on Broadway. Nichols is extremely tall and imposing, but gentle in the role.

Michael Heintzman is a little too ridiculous as the spineless Dr. Spivey, and his less-than-stellar performance stands out all the more next to all the great ones.

The play is not terribly different from the Oscar-winning movie, but having seen the film is no excuse to skip the play. The final harrowing moments, when seen live, are incomparable.

Should you go? Yes, if you want a mature, finely-acted dose of theater.

Sleepy Time Gal

0

Few movies are enhanced by having a character die of cancer, but “The Sleepy Time Gal” pulls it off OK, largely because the development is not just a third-act attempt to wring tears from the audience, but is introduced in the beginning and is the driving force behind most of the action.

This melancholy, emotional film is about Frances (Jacqueline Bisset, doing outstanding work), who reevaluates her life after receiving news she has the disease. Her 20-year-old son Morgan (Nick Stahl), a sexually confused would-be photographer, is often weary of her and her humanitarian crusades. Her other son is estranged and lives in England. Her third child, a daughter, she gave up for adoption at birth. Now she wants to find her.

Meanwhile, we meet the daughter. She is Rebecca (Martha Plimpton), a lawyer whose life keeps almost crossing her mother’s. She visits a radio station in Florida where, by coincidence, Frances once worked as an on-air host. She tries to preserve the Manhattan neighborhood where her mother grew up.

She would like to find the identity of her birth mother as much as her birth mother would like to find her. The question is, will they find each other in time?

That’s really not the film’s biggest issue, though. Their meeting is no as important as their separate personal journeys, taking stock of their lives and finding peace within themselves. There is an interesting scene in which Frances visits her own mother, who is in poor health at a nursing home. Both women refuse help from each other, just as Rebecca — a third-generation stubborn woman — is as independent as she can be.

Jacqueline Bisset displays extraordinary humanity as Frances. Her rapidly declining health results not in melodrama or gushy sentiment but in genuine compassion. If anything, she underplays the illness, and it’s all for the better.

Nick Stahl is worthy of mention, too, as her son. His character is not fully developed, but what is there hints at an interesting set of possibilities.

Elling (Norwegian)

0

“Elling” was nominated for a Best Foreign Film Oscar, and it’s easy to see why it didn’t win. It takes its characters on a pleasant, funny journey through life. Its scope is small and its people are lovable. It’s light and airy. It’s just like “Amelie,” in other words, which also failed to win a Academy Award. (It went to the cynical war drama “No Man’s Land” instead.)

If this were an American film — and a remake is in the works — it would never even be uttered in the same breath as “Oscar,” except maybe to say “Oscar Madison and Felix Unger,” whom the protagonists strongly resemble. This is, basically, a Norwegian “Odd Couple,” where Oscar is brutish and sex-starved and Felix is mildly insane, and both are 40-year-old virgins.

Elling (Per Christian Ellefsen) is a self-professed mama’s boy who has to be dragged out of his closet — I mean that literally, though the metaphorical implications are worth considering — and taken to a mental institution after his mother’s death. After two years there, in which he shares a room with the fantastically lusftul Kjell Bjarne (Sven Nordin), the pair of them are released into the wild, to share an apartment and hopefully function in society. They are encouraged by a very relaxed social worker, Frank (Jorgen Langhelle).

Functioning will be difficult. Kjell’s problems are not spelled out, but he seems just as afraid of answering the door or telephone as Elling is. (When either object rings, the camera goes wobbly, as if the movie itself gets weak at the knees when it comes to interacting with strangers.) Elling tends to panic in public, so Kjell has to do all the grocery shopping. “Why have an apartment if we have to leave it all the time?” is Elling’s response when asked why he never wants to go out.

On Christmas Eve, Kjell assists a drunken pregnant woman who passes out on the stairs outside the men’s apartment. The woman is Reidun (Marit Pia Jacobsen); the baby’s father is nowhere in sight. She and Kjell develop a relationship, leaving Elling more alone and broken than he was.

But he takes it into his head that he is a poet, and while attending — yes, attending! — an evening of hilariously pretentious poetry readings, he meets Alfons (Per Christensen), an old widower in need of company. Eventually all four major parties have embarked on a minor adventure together, and Elling begins to figure out how he’s going to live a normal life in the normal world.

The performances are funny and real, gracefully walking the line between portraying mental disorders and making fun of them. And though most of the film focuses on comedy, much of it of a lowbrow nature, there is also something mildly sad about the main characters and their plights. This feeling is reinforced by the sweet, plaintive musical score, gentle melodies that suggest we should not be surprised if we bump into a little poignancy along the way.

Zombie for Mayor

0

Thank you, my friends. It is great to stand before you in this setting: a political debate between two worthy candidates for the office of mayor.

I say two worthy candidates because I sincerely believe my opponent, the incumbent mayor, is a good man. I do not, however, believe he should continue to lead our fair city. I will explain my reasons momentarily.

First, by way of introduction, my name is Roger Hunsaker, and no, the stench of death you have caught wind of does not deceive you: I am a zombie. I lived in this city for 40 years before my natural death, and have “lived” here for an additional three years since the nuclear fallout caused myself and hundreds of others to rise from our graves in search of human flesh. I do not have a job in the traditional sense of going to an office and punching a timecard; however, my thirst for the juicy brain matter of living humans knows no bounds, and obtaining this delicacy is an activity I pursue with great zeal. I believe you will find me just as indefatigable when it comes to serving in public office.

I am aware that if I am elected, I will be the first undead mayor this city has ever had. But my friends, is it not time for a change? During my opponent’s administration, this city has seen an alarming increase in crime. The number of unsolved murders — messy, heinous murders, in which the victims’ brains are removed — is inexcusable. If this is what living mayors do for us, then excuse me for suggesting that perhaps it is time for a non-living one!

Do I have leadership experience? In fact, I command the army of zombies that resides just outside the city limits. This is the same undead army that has repeatedly and decisively beaten every group of pitchfork- and torch-bearing citizens that has come against it. Look at the scarring and disfigurement among your fellow citizens, not to mention the empty chairs at this gathering, and see that my leadership record speaks for itself.

Some have worried that as mayor, I will serve only my zombie constituents. The idea is preposterous. There is no such thing as a “zombie agenda.” Zombies want the same things everyone else wants: safe streets, a strong economy and a never-ending supply of sweet, mouth-watering brains.

Though I have operated my campaign on a rational, level-headed basis, my opponent insists on turning it into a festival of mudslinging. For instance, he has repeatedly said, in a public and hurtful manner, that I killed his son and ate his brain. The fact is, the mayor’s son made the mistake of being in my way and delicious. Would you want a mayor who backed down when challenged? I think not. I urge my opponent to stop harping on who killed whom, and who ate whose brain, and focus on the issues.

Issues like our city’s night life. What has happened to it? Most of us can remember — it was just a few years ago — when downtown was a bustling, exciting place, brimming with shops and restaurants. Now, one is hard-pressed to find anything open after 6 p.m. The few brave souls still on the street after dark walk quickly and glance nervously around them, as if expecting to be attacked or devoured. All this while our fearless “leader” the mayor quakes in the corner of his office, all his furniture pushed up against the door as a barricade, his craven fingers dialing the disconnected phone in a futile attempt to reach the National Guard.

How many of you still have jobs? With most citizens cowering in their homes for a good chunk of the day, businesses have closed and employees have been laid off. Only the stores that sell religious trinkets or shotguns have thrived.

My friends, we cannot let our city continue on its downward spiral. As mayor, I will bring our unemployment rate down to a manageable level, as I will ensure jobs for everyone in the chain of brain-processing factories I plan to establish. The sidewalks will once again be full of people in the evenings; that is when houses and apartments will be vacated so my staff can retro-fit them with surveillance cameras and automatic basting equipment.

It is a brave new world, my friends. On election day, use your savory, protein-rich brains to make the right choice.

Enough

0

I think everything that happens in “Enough” happens only within a nightmare had by the protagonist, a California waitress named Slim (Jennifer Lopez). There is no internal evidence for this theory — she never wakes up and says, “Thank goodness I was only dreaming!” — but there’s no other way to explain how black-and-white and unrealistic the film is.

It starts with Slim marrying a perfect man named Mitch (Billy Campbell). Soon he is exhibiting non-perfect behavior by the boatload: He’s having an affair, he doesn’t care if Slim knows, he hits her, he insists it’s his right because he’s the bread-winner, he almost shoots Slim’s friends, and he calls her Indian boss a “rughead.” In other words, screenwriter Nicholas Kazan had a list of qualities that would make a man loathsome, and he made sure Mitch has all of them. If Slim should seek revenge on him later in the film, as the ads and posters promise, we need to be sure there is no moral ambiguity. Mitch must completely deserve whatever his punishment is.

Slim is in a bind. (She has to be, or else her revenge will be unjustified.) She goes to Mitch’s mother, but she’s on his side. If she has him arrested, he’ll get out on bail and beat her up some more. When she flees to a friend’s house in Seattle, he sends hired goons after her. He freezes her bank accounts and credit cards. Mitch even has a friend on the police force — a cheat in the screenplay, as it gives him access to information he could never get otherwise. (We don’t even know he has this friend until he becomes useful.)

So she takes her little girl, Gracie (Tessa Allen), to Michigan, where they get new names — Slim becomes “Erin Ann Shleeter”; Gracie chooses “Queen Elizabeth” — and a new life. But thanks to that plot convenience known as the cop friend, Mitch tracks them down. Slim will have to fight back.

And so after visiting the world’s least helpful lawyer and hitting more brick walls, Slim sets up a convoluted final showdown. She almost seems to be doing it with the audience in mind — fitting, since the entire film is nothing more than an exercise in making women cheer. The audience, being full of women and the men they dragged with them, will want to see Mitch get beaten up, yes, but they’ll want him embarrassed and humiliated, too. “Enough” is happy to oblige. “Enough” will do anything to please its audience, whether it makes sense or not. (Audiences apparently want single-mindedly evil bad guys, rather than the kind we have in real life, who have layers and nuances and motives. Not a single explanation is ever given for why Mitch won’t just LET HER GO.)

Slim never stops being the lovely and glamorous Jennifer Lopez. After Mitch has beaten her up, the physical evidence amounts to a scratch below one eye. When Slim is penniless, it means staying one night in a shelter. Later, when she and Gracie have a home, their hardships are summarized by Slim being a bad cook. If anything, this glossed-over farce is disrespectful to real-life battered women, many of whom at least have the sense to go to the police — which would have blessedly stopped this dim-witted movie in its tracks about 30 minutes into it.

Insomnia

0

“A good cop can’t sleep because a piece of the puzzle is missing. A bad cop can’t sleep because his conscience is bothering him.”

So says Ellie Burr (Hilary Swank), a rookie cop in the remote fishing village of Nightmute, Alaska. But she’s quoting the very man she’s talking to, her idol, Will Dormer (Al Pacino), a legendary Los Angeles police detective who in “Insomnia” has come to Alaska to help solve a murder. Now Dormer — whose name is French for “sleep” — cannot sleep, and the question is why.

Oh, the superficial reason makes enough sense: It never gets dark here this time of year. Many people suffer insomnia when they first arrive. But the good cop/bad cop reasons are factors, too. A day after arriving, Dormer accidentally shot and killed his partner (Martin Donovan), who was on the verge of cutting a deal with Internal Affairs to help them prosecute Dormer for previous misdeeds. It was an accident … but a very convenient one, as far as Dormer’s career is concerned.

And pieces of the puzzle are missing. Part of the beauty of this dark, desolate film by Christopher Nolan (who also directed “Memento”) is that the murder mystery is no mystery at all. We learn the identity of the killer fairly early: Walter Finch (Robin Williams). Finch, however, also witnessed Dormer shooting his partner. Subsequently, when Dormer reports that it was the killer who did it, not him, no one has any problem believing that. Since Finch knows the truth, he can blackmail Dormer. And since Dormer wants to avoid being identified as the real shooter — no matter how innocent it was, it’s not going to look good — he may have to go along with Finch’s demands.

An ethically ambiguous protagonist was at the center of Nolan’s “Memento,” too, though fans of that film should not expect a repeat in “Insomnia.” The new film explores different issues and has a more straightforward structure. Nolan has been wise not to pigeonhole himself — except as a reliable, gritty director, which is a fine thing to be known as. “Insomnia” has shades of “Twin Peaks” and “Seven,” and it builds tension with great skill.

Pacino and Williams give steely, strong performances — not the highlight of either career, but worthy additions to their resumes. Pacino has played weary cops before, and morally questionable people before, and Williams’ list of seedy characters is growing fast, much to the delight of those of us who were tired of his cloying save-the-world roles.

“Insomnia” does not end in a very satisfying manner. It answers all the questions, but it doesn’t lead to anything particularly powerful. That may be a small price to pay, though, for a film that is otherwise so gripping and forceful.

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron

0

“Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron” is as simple and innocent a movie as you can imagine. It’s hard to believe it was made in the 21st century, without a trace of irony or self-awareness. This is a movie you can trust.

It is the story of a wild horse whom various people try to tame but who ultimately can live only as a free spirit. It is a cartoon, but the animals do not talk (though we do hear the thoughts of one of them, provided in narration by Matt Damon); neither is there rampant goofiness or improbability. Except for the horses’ unnaturally expressive faces, nearly everything that occurs in the film could have been done with live actors and real animals.

So it’s sort of surprising, then, that it comes off as richly entertaining as it does, and that it holds the interest of the children it’s aimed at. (Due to some scary moments, it may be too intense for very young children.) There are occasional bursts of humor, and more than a few thoroughly exciting action sequences. There are also lessons of love and loyalty, taught simply enough that anyone can understand them: If someone saves your life, you need to save theirs, too.

The horse, who has no name until the end of the film, leads his herd in what eventually would be called the Old West, but which now is mostly unsettled, pre-Civil War territory. He is first captured by a group of American soldiers, and later is befriended by an Indian lad (voice of Daniel Studi). For a good deal of the time, he sets domesticated horses free as much as he can, like an equestrian Harriet Tubman. Then there is danger and peril and romance, and it all turns out OK in the end.

This is a gorgeous-looking film, created in Cinemascope widescreen — unusual for an animated film, as it means having to draw about 40 percent more than for a normal-sized film. The panoramic landscapes are beautiful, the animation is fluid. I could look at this movie all day.

Bryan Adams provides way too many songs on the soundtrack, usually paralleling the action. When the soldiers have captured Spirit and are trying to ride him, there’s a song called “Get off My Back.” One Bryan Adams song in a movie is probably enough; this one has seven.

It is not a classic. The story is blessedly simple, and that may also be what keeps it from taking up permanent residence in our memories. But on a single viewing, it gallops and soars and delights.

Thirteen Conversations About One Thing

0

What is the one thing that all these conversations are about? Happiness, probably, or maybe fate. Or maybe how fate determines our happiness, and there’s not a darn thing we can do about it.

This interesting, multi-storied film, written by sisters Karen and Jill Sprecher and directed by Karen, has introspective things like that on its mind, but it is no sit-around-and-talk angst-fest. No, the disparate New Yorkers here are out DOING things — often to each other, though they don’t know it, because they don’t know each other.

First we meet Walker (John Turturro), a nebbish physics professor who tells his passive wife (Amy Irving) what he wants is “to be enthused, to be happy.” A while back, he was mugged and got a black eye. Since then, he can’t seem to cope. Also, he is having an affair, though it’s not making him any happier.

Then there’s a hotshot lawyer, Troy (Matthew McConaughey, doing a cockier version of his “A Time to Kill” character), celebrating another victory in which he has sent a guilty man to jail. He doesn’t believe in fate or luck; “luck is a lazy man’s excuse,” he says. People need to accept responsibility for their actions, that’s his motto. Then, in a bit of “Twilight Zone”-style karma, he hits a pedestrian, assumes she is dead, and flees the scene. He is subsequently racked with guilt.

Troy had talked with a man in a bar, Gene English (Alan Arkin), whose son is a delinquent (Troy will have dealings with him) and whose ex-wife is a pain. Gene is bitter and cynical. Seems not long ago, a cheerful co-worker hit the lottery, only to find being rich just made his life worse. Which doesn’t seem to stop Gene from being jealous.

Beatrice (Clea DuVall) is a housekeeper who suffers needlessly as the result of someone else’s actions. It’s not fair, any of it. Bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. And everything affects everything else. “It can never go back to the way it was,” Walker tells his physics class in a lesson on entropy.

Movies in which strangers’ lives intersect are difficult to pull off because, almost by definition, they seek to tell too many stories, which means some will not be as fully developed as we would wish. I say that is true particularly of Troy the lawyer’s story here. Though McConaughey expertly manifests the man’s grief and guilt in his physical person, there ought to be more to it. Instead, the supporting themes of the film are depicted in the secondary stories, weaving a picture that looks best when viewed from a distance, rather than by picking out the individual elements.

The tone is fairly melancholy, though not joyless. The film makes you reflect and makes you watch, but it rarely makes you laugh.

Alan Arkin’s performance as Gene is magnificent, his seething jealousy boiling hotter and faster but always being forced below the surface. It is always nice to see Amy Irving, too, though her role is limited. John Turturro continues to prove he is one of our best character actors as the hopeless academic.

Basically, our happiness is often left to random acts of strangers who have no idea their behavior will affect us, because they’re too busy worrying about how someone ELSE’S actions have impacted THEM. Physics, as we are told, is an exact science. Life is not.

CQ

0

Roman Coppola, son of Francis Ford Coppola, shows potential in “CQ,” his writing/directing debut about a man who wants to be a filmmaker.

Coppola ably and smartly corrals his crew of cinematographers, production designers and music supervisors to create a believably kitschy version of Paris in 1969, as well as a futuristic version of 2001, as seen through the eyes of ’60s filmmakers.

What he doesn’t do, however, is create a compelling film. “CQ” is interesting to look at, and certainly has some entertaining moments and agreeable performances. But it adds up to very little, coming across like someone’s important film that one fails to see the importance of, a term paper where the student forgot to include the thesis.

Ironically, the main character is someone who is in the midst of creating just that sort of film. His name is Paul (Jeremy Davies), and he’s an American lad working in Paris as the editor on a sci-fi spy flick called “Codename: Dragonfly.” That’s his day job, anyway. At night, he works on his own movie, a personal narrative that includes, so far, shots of his coffee mug and lots of monologues addressed to the camera. His French girlfriend, Marlene (Elodie Bouchez), does not understand why his passion for film outmeasures his passion for her.

Meanwhile, the director of “Codename: Dragonfly” (Gerard Depardieu) is fired by the Italian producer (Giancarlo Giannini) because his ending for the movie is more contemplative than whiz-bang. An allegedly brilliant young auteur named Felix de Marco (Jason Schwartzman), whose first name the producer pronounces “phallics,” is called in to finish up but is injured in a car accident. Somehow, Paul himself winds up with the task of completing this film in a way that will be artistically satisfying as well as commercially viable. And at night, he longs for a connection with other human beings. (“CQ” is the Morse code signal for “seek you.”)

Coppola clearly loves the sort of movie that “Codename: Dragonfly” is, one of those goofy, sexy spy romps produced by Italians and filmed in France or England in the ’60s. Angela Lindvall and Billy Zane have attitudes that are appropriately self-serious as the lead actors in the film, and the scenes on the moon — where it snows, inexplicably — are innocently silly.

But love alone does not make a film watchable, no matter how much of it there is. Davies and company are up to the task, but the material is weak. Coppola has a lot of ideas; he just needs to find a more coherent, entertaining way of expressing them. “CQ” is only a start.

PETA’s Dragon

0

You are aware that Springville High School students will continue to be called the Red Devils, thanks to a rare display of common sense by the general public, who were given the chance to vote on the matter. If everyone in Springville starts worshipping Satan, then the rest of us will feel very stupid for having been in favor of not changing the school’s mascot. Otherwise, we’re glad.

The victory prompted this message, posted at www.HarkTheHerald.com, where the smart people hang out all day long and look at the stupid people, who are the ones posting messages. It is reprinted here exactly as it was posted:

“I am so Happy for them to keep it how it is im not from Springville but I know that is they changed our mascot in Payson I would be p***** I feel them people that comes in to our towns has we had a Cali. come to Utah into Nebo School Dis. and change one of are colors to Blue I feel it is the same diffrents I feel that if they don’t like it move they moved in and the can move the Hell out Enough Said!!!!!!!!!!”

I couldn’t agree more without injuring myself. The reason I bring it up is that Springville is not the only high school that has been asked to change its mascot. At the Web site for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of–Mmm, Bacon…), you can find this headline:

“PETA WANTS AUSTIN HIGH TO SEND THE ‘PACKERS’ NAME PACKING”

(They are clever with the wordplay over at PETA. Don’t they know that every time you make a pun, a kitten gets shot in the head?)

The PETA columns:

9/7/2001: I PETA the Fool
5/24/2002: PETA’s Dragon
9/8/2002: Milking It
5/25/2003: Pet Peeves
8/25/2008: That’s So PETArded
2/16/2009: PETA, PETA, Kitten Eater
3/7/2011: Rooster’s Millions
8/1/2011: For PETA’s Sake
10/16/2012: PETA vs. Pokemon

Anyway, the Austin High School in question is in Austin, Minn., where meatpacking plants owned by Hormel and other companies have long been part of the local economy and culture. I am not making up the fact that Austin is colloquially known as “Spamtown, U.S.A.” But the gloomy-gusses at PETA look at it differently. “Why would a high school want to be identified with the screams, beatings, blood and death associated with a slaughterhouse?” they ask on their Web site. More to the point, why would a town want to be associated with Spam?

In its letter to Principal Joe Brown, PETA says, “A far better name would be the ‘Pickers,’ which would promote a healthier, plant-based diet.” Because for sure if anyone makes fun of them for being called the Packers, changing it to the Pickers wouldn’t make matters worse. PETA should get out of the mascot-suggesting business and concentrate on its real skills, which lie in organizing underground cockfights and killing elephants for sport.

Fortunately, the people of Austin, Minn., responded to PETA the way PETA deserves to be responded to: They executed a badger in the town square.

No, they responded with a resounding, “Shut up, PETA.” As reported in the Austin Daily Herald, the superintendent of public schools said, “I would not support this change. The name Packers reflects the character of the community and its economic base.”

Or, as one AHS alumnus put it, “I’m proud to be a Packer.”

It takes a certain kind of man to say that, and I applaud the upstanding, carnivorous people of Austin for not taking PETA seriously, and for being proud of their Packerhood. Ditto to Springville, for being proud of its Devilhood. Them people that comes in to our towns shouldn’t ought to mess with are mascots.

 


[ One thing I couldn’t figure out a way of mentioning is how Austin High School represents its mascot. I wondered, do they have a guy wearing a bloody apron and carrying a hatchet run around at the football games? No. The school’s visual representation is … a duck. Seriously. I found a Web site for the school’s swim team, and there’s a picture of one of the players kissing the official school duck. I have no idea why this is. I assume ducks are plentiful in that part of the world, but if that’s so, then why not Austin Ducks instead of Packers? ]

Great Expectations

0

There are enough minor problems with BYU’s production of “Great Expectations” to prevent one from loving it. There are not enough of them, however, to keep you from liking it. Liking it a lot, even. It is appealing in an Every-Man sort of way, theatrical but not stuffy, and it tells Charles Dickens’ story with style and energy.

Adapted for the stage by Barbara Field and directed by Eric Samuelsen, the play moves quickly, with a few portable chairs and tables representing the many locales of 19th-century England. A garden is represented, amusingly, by a single flowerpot, and a rat puppet crawls around Miss Havisham’s wedding cake, manipulated by an actor who barely hides himself. Most actors play more than one role and also serve as narrators. They also provide sound effects, sometimes.

These conventions, however theatrical they may be, do not keep the play from capturing its audience and transporting it to another time and place. Alas, the narration, which is abundant, often has the opposite effect. It is given in American accents, which sound jarring and coarse next to the British heard in the rest of the play. Nearly every time a narrator speaks, it jolts us out of London and back to the Pardoe Theatre.

Furthermore, there is not always enough distinction made between characters played by the same actor. It is usually context, not voice or costume, that sets them apart. There is one awkward moment when a fast costume change makes it seem like Jaggers and Compeyson are the same person, which is not the case.

But never mind. If you have not read “Great Expectations” since high school, you may have forgotten how dark it is, and how funny it can be, and how touchingly odd the characters are. Those attributes are in full force in this production, which highlights the evolution of the central characters as much as the intricate plot.

Doug Kaufman plays Pip, the orphan boy raised by his abusive older sister (Michelle Gibbs) and kindly brother-in-law, Joe (Conrad Pack). Pip is a pawn for the longest time, manipulated by a convict (Robert J. Gibbs), by Miss Havisham (Nola Smith), by Estella (Amanda Scheffer), and by anyone else who can get their hands on him. By the time he begins acting for himself, it is only to be ungrateful and selfish toward nearly everyone who loves him. Then there is growth, refining and, ultimately, redemption — all played respectably by Kaufman, who manages to hold his own in a sea of characters more colorful than Pip.

Amanda Scheffer’s Estella is utterly unlovable, which may be the point: Pip, our protagonist, isn’t that great a guy, either. Dickens wrote two different endings — one where they wind up together and one where they don’t — and this script choses the outcome that is, in my opinion, less justified by the events leading up to it.

Among the other performances, Conrad Pack stands out as Joe the blacksmith — his relationship with Pip seems particularly heartfelt — as does Tony Gunn as Pip’s eager friend Herbert Pocket. Benjamin N. Hess is droll as the all-business Jaggers, and Nola Smith is downright creepy as Miss Havisham.

Should you go? It is flawed, but at times it is great indeed.

The Ark

0

After two runs as a work-in-progress and numerous revisions in between, Michael McLean and Kevin Kelly’s “The Ark” has finally arrived. Artists are rarely 100 percent satisfied with their work, but I recommend McLean and Kelly step back and let this one go. It’s finished, and it’s good.

It is a pop musical retelling of Noah’s Ark, taking place entirely on the boat itself. This staging is in Thanksgiving Point’s facility known as The Barn, and it’s hard to think of a better venue. (A cruise ship, maybe. Or an actual ark.) The actors use all of the space, including amidst the audience, to tell the story. The gimmick is that we are the animals on the ark, and as unflattering as that may be, the effect is that we feel intimately involved with Noah’s family and its various crises. We’re not merely observers; we’re quiet, well-mannered participants.

Noah (Art Allen) is the humble, altogether human prophet, supported by his patient wife Eliza (Elizabeth Hansen). Noah forgets how many days the Lord told him it would rain, because that’s a detail. “I’m more of a ‘big-picture’ person,” he says.

Their son Shem (Kevin Odekirk) is newly married to Martha (Marilee Spencer), who feels she cannot compare in Shem’s mind to his own mother. Another son, Japheth (Scott McLean), is inventive and hard-working; his wife, Sariah (Stephanie Breinholt), is comically materialistic. (Her big number, marred by a quiet Betty Boop voice that doesn’t register in the huge Barn, is an amusing reminder to the animals that their sole purpose is to sacrifice their skins and feathers to make her look beautiful.)

And then there’s Ham (David Tinney, also the director), the bad son who doesn’t believe in his father’s prophetic calling. He has married outside the faith, to a black woman named Egyptus (Lisa Estridge-Gray), leading Eliza to utter what is still the show’s funniest line: “Noah, guess who’s coming to dinner?”

Cooped up on a boat, the family’s issues with each other come to a head, mostly in song (far more palatable than the screaming that erupts at my house).

Many things about the show have changed. Songs are gone, new ones are added, and the whole thing’s shorter. In previous incarnations, the human characters had animal counterparts whose stories were also told; that element is now gone completely.

But the greatest change is that it has been simplified. Before, it tried to tell too many stories — someone can’t forgive himself, someone has low self-esteem, and so on. Now it is pared down primarily to Ham’s inner turmoil, but with enough attention paid to other characters’ issues to give it all some weight.

Bronx-born Lisa Estridge-Gray is the picture of sass as Egyptus; her “Why Can’t We” number at the first act curtain blows the roof off the place. It is unfair to single her out, though, because all the performers sing and act well.

This is a show of great humanity and beauty. It is sometimes uproariously funny, and other times uncommonly moving. See it now, before they change it again.

Should you go? By all means necessary.

A Limited-Time Offer

0

“Hello?” (Long pause.) “Hello?!”

“Hello, is Mr. Schneider home?”

“Snider. And this is he.”

“Mr. Schneider, my name is ShaThayd Jones, and I am calling in behalf of Worthless Products International. How are you today, sir?”

“Well, it’s 5 in the morning –”

“Good, sir, glad to hear it. We are calling only a select number of customers in your area who, like yourself, are concerned about the high cost of squirrel maintenance. Do you have a squirrel, sir?”

“A what? A squirrel?”

“Excellent, sir. I know you want to keep that squirrel maintained at a high level of efficiency and beauty, but you don’t want to spend a lot of money. Am I right?”

“Well, I wouldn’t want to spend ANY money on a –”

“Of course. That is why we are offering a new product called Squirrel Friend, which can keep your squirrel looking great and functioning efficiently, all at a cost of only $1,999.95. And the best part is, you and your family can try the Squirrel Friend in your home for 30 days absolutely free. We are confident you will find the Squirrel Friend everything you hoped it would be. Imagine, grooming your squirrel in just a few pleasurable seconds instead of several torturous days. And cleaning your squirrel’s teeth is a breeze, not a dangerous chore requiring shots. But if for any reason you are dissatisfied, you may return the Squirrel Friend to us within 30 days for a complete refund, minus the shipping and handling, which is $80,000.95. Simply follow the easy-to-read return instructions, which we will fail to include with your order. Now, if you choose to keep the Squirrel Friend, you will automatically be billed $19.95 each month until your death, even though — and this is important — you will not receive any additional products or services. Now, how will you be paying for the Squirrel Friend?”

“I won’t be paying for it at all. I don’t want it. In fact, I tried to hang up on you five times during that speech, but for some reason I couldn’t. What’s going on?”

“I can understand your hesitance, sir. You have probably tried similar products before and been unhappy with the results. Perhaps your squirrel was damaged by an inferior product. That is why I have been authorized to throw in, absolutely free, a case of squirrel polish, as a gift to you. This squirrel polish is yours to keep even if you return the Squirrel Friend. Now, to begin processing your order, I just need to –”

“But I don’t want ANY of it. Why can’t I hang up the phone?”

“Before you make your final decision, sir, let me remind you of the offer: You will receive the Squirrel Friend and a case of squirrel polish, all for only $1,999.95 and an additional $19.95 each month until the time of your natural death, at which point your next of kin will be required to take over the payments, in perpetuity, until such time as the Earth ceases to exist. Also, because you are a valued customer, I have been authorized by my employer, Satan, to call upon his powers and destroy you.”

“Wh–what?”

“Yes, sir, only $19.95 a month!”

“No, the Satan thing.”

“Oh, yes, sir, I have the powers of the Evil One in full force behind me. Though I never graduated from high school, cannot read, and, ironically, have a job that requires me to do nothing BUT read, as a telemarketer, I have strength far beyond that of ordinary human beings. Even as we speak, I am gathering dark forces to use against you.”

“I feel cold and clammy.”

“That’s normal, sir.”

“I feel alone and frightened, as if all goodness and virtue has abandoned me.”

“That, too, is typical, sir.”

“Why are you doing this to me!”

“It is easy to stop the torment, sir. Simply verify your mailing address for me, and we’ll have the Squirrel Friend shipped to you in 7-10 business days.”

“So c-c-cold. So v-very c-cold.”

“Excellent, sir. Will that be Visa or Mastercard?”

You Can’t Take It with You

0

Due to scheduling conflicts at home, SCERA has had to take its latest production on the road. Fittingly, “You Can’t Take It with You” resembles nothing else so much as a Road Show ‹ some bright performances, some amateurish ones, a few laughs and a lot of smiles. (If only there were refreshments…!)

The 1936 George S. Kaufman/Moss Hart play, directed by Jan Shelton, has survived the passage of time better than many of its contemporaries. Only a few passing references (and its vaudevillian set-up/punchline dialogue) confine it to a particular time period, and it is, I suspect as funny now as it ever was.

It focuses on the Sycamore family, composed of a dozen or so free spirits, artists and harmless wackos, some of whom are not related but live in the house anyway. The patriarch, Grandpa (Joel Osborne), quit business 35 years ago so that he could enjoy a life of doing nothing. His daughter, Penny (Tracy Whitlock), is mostly a playwright but occasionally a painter. Her husband Paul (Jason Evans) makes fireworks in the basement with an Italian guy (Josh Tenney); their daughter Essie (Melissa Aaron) wants to dance ballet; Essie’s husband Ed (Chad Taylor) likes to print things and play the xylophone.

It is important to note that none of these people is very good at his or her chosen vocation, but they persist in it because it’s fun.

Penny and Paul’s other daughter is Alice (Heidi Boyd), the only normal one in the house. (One gets a sense of how Marilyn Munster must have felt.) At the time of the play, she is about to be engaged to wealthy Tony Kirby (Jeff Taylor), who she is certain will not understand or approve of her bizarre family. Tony’s uptight parents (Robert Gibbons, Laurel Barham) meet the carefree Sycamores; and so on.

Tracy Whitlock is very fun as Penny, flitting around with constant scatterbrained energy. As Grandpa, Joel Osborne is a fantastic, sparkle-eyed coot; you want him to be YOUR grandfather. (I mean no offense toward my biological grandfathers.)

And let us speak for a moment about the lovely and talented Heidi Boyd. She plays Alice with such grace and aplomb that the audience immediately sympathizes with her plight. The actress seems to believe every word her character utters, which grounds the daft play in reality.

Speaking of which, Andy Hunsaker has a smaller role as the bearish Russian dance instructor Kolenkhov, but his performance is instructive: He is playing a larger-than-life character in a way that is still believable (and with believable comes funny). There is more to playing an eccentric character than saying each line broadly and with wide eyes.

No one will mistake this for a professional production. It is rough around the edges, and professional productions don’t cast 45-year-old characters with actors in their early 20s. But as light, community-theater entertainment, it passes the test and offers a gently amusing night out.

Should you go? Sure, why not? It’s sunny and harmless.

The Believer

0

“The Believer” is based on the true story of a Jewish kid who grew up to be a neo-Nazi skinhead. Such an incredibly ironic turn of events practically begs to be made into a film, and first-time director Henry Bean guides this one very well.

Ryan Gosling plays Danny Balint, the former Jewish-school troublemaker who has grown up to be a hatemonger. We see in flashback how he asked questions he shouldn’t have asked, about how the Old Testament shows God to be power-hungry and malicious, about how his teachers were mortified at the things he would say. Now, in the present, he hides his roots from his peers, for obvious reasons, and emerges to be an articulate spokesman for the new movement.

The fascist and racist groups he connects with are a little embarrassed by him at first; anti-Semitism, frankly, is not fashionable anymore. Leading racists Lina (Theresa Russell) and Curtis (Billy Zane) recognize his potential, though, and try to use them for their good. Danny, meanwhile, is an item of increasing curiosity to Lina’s daughter, Carla (Summer Phoenix).

But Danny doesn’t want to wear a suit and be a lecturer; his stated goal is to kill a Jew. He is panicked, however, by Guy Danielsen (A.D. Miles), a newspaper reporter who uncovers his secret past. If he publishes that story, Danny says, he will kill himself. It all comes to a head, finally, on Yom Kippur — the Day of Atonement.

If there was ever a more deeply conflicted character than Danny Balint, I’d like to see him. He wears his swastika T-shirt around like a badge, proof enough of what he stands for, even while telling Carla it’s sacrilegious to swear in front of the scrolls he swiped from a synagogue. He leads his rednecked friends on a rampage through a synagogue, but keeps them from desecrating anything particularly holy. Gosling’s eyes are often as sad as they are hateful, and often convey both emotions at the same time. It’s harrowing to realize, half-way through the film, that there’s only one place this can lead.

Danny is, ultimately, the only character in the movie. The others are there to fulfill their functions, and the acting is respectable all around. But Danny — thanks to Ryan Gosling — is where the emotion is. Every person of faith has either doubted his convictions or been unable to live up to them at some point, and Danny personifies that human-nature quandary.

Lucky Break

0

“Lucky Break” is about convicts scheming to sneak out of prison by putting on an inmate-produced musical as a distraction. It is from the director of “The Full Monty,” so it ought to be full of wacky characters and delightful plot twists. Instead, it is trite and simple, with situations culled from 50 years of sitcoms and hardly a decent laugh in the whole thing.

Jimmy (James Nesbitt) and his cohort Rudy (Lennie James) are the convicts in question, with Jimmy coming up with the plans and Rudy saying, “You’re crazy, that will never work.” You see, the prison has an old chapel that is known among inmates for being 1) the place where prison shows used to be performed, and 2) the part of the compound that is easiest to escape from. Jimmy discovers that the warden (Christopher Plummer) loves old musicals, and has in fact written one himself, based on the life of Lord Admiral Nelson. Jimmy, scheming and conniving like Bugs Bunny, recruits nearly the whole cell block as cast members.

In the meantime, Jimmy starts to fall for Annabel (Olivia Williams), the prison’s social worker and the only woman in sight for miles. Do you suppose Jimmy and Annabel will wind up playing romantic leads opposite each other in the show? Do you suppose rehearsing those scenes will spur the development of their real-life relationship?

Oh, and could there be a prison guard who is evil and mean for no reason, to serve as a thorn in everyone’s sides? Yes, and he says, in these exact words, “I don’t believe in rehabilitation” — thus ensuring his being viewed in black-and-white, with no shades of gray.

The whole movie is simplistic like that. Aside from the utterly unoriginal plot and by-the-numbers villain, there’s a weirdly tragic event that is supposed to inspire sympathy but that merely gets in the way. It’s as though the screenwriter, Ronan Bennett, had a list of things light-hearted comedies are supposed to have, and he checked off each one as he gave it some cursory representation.

James Nesbitt is a likable protagonist, and Olivia Williams is winsome enough. Indeed, all the performances are fine; that is not the problem here. Bennett and the director, Peter Cattaneo, simply haven’t put enough work into the story or script. Everything has been assembled lazily, with little apparent effort.

About a Boy

0

“About a Boy” takes the shopworn premise about a shallow adult whose life is changed by a child, and infuses it with irresistible humor and life. It’s “Big Daddy” or Disney’s “The Kid,” but with the added bonus of being watchable.

Based on a novel by Nick Hornby (who also wrote “High Fidelity”), “About a Boy” has two narrators. One is Will (Hugh Grant), an amazingly shallow London layabout still living off the royalties from a Christmas novelty song his father wrote; the other is Marcus (Nicholas Hoult), an unpopular 12-year-old boy who, through a series of strange events, becomes Will’s friend.

Will discovers that single moms are the best women to date, because all he has to do is show mild interest in the kids and suddenly he’s some kind of superman. And then, before long, the self-esteem-deprived women dump him, thus saving him the trouble of breaking it off with them. (“I’d never watched a woman cry without feeling responsible,” he says of his epiphany during the first such breakup.)

So he sets out to meet single moms, going so far as to invent a fictitious toddler of his own in order to fit in. He meets Suzie (Victoria Smurfit), and through her meets Fiona (Toni Collette), who is suicidal and whose son is Marcus. An unlikely friendship begins.

There are tinges of great drama throughout this very fine comedy, which was directed by Paul and Chris Weitz, whose “American Pie” buried its sweetness quite a bit deeper. “About a Boy” is not afraid to take its serious points seriously; in fact, it uses the ups and downs of life to ground its humor in reality. Witness Will’s reaction to following Fiona to the hospital after a suicide attempt: “It was horrible, horrible — but driving fast behind the ambulance was fantastic!” It is refreshing to hear characters say the things we would think — though we would never dare say them.

The device of dueling narrators provides the film with some unexpected humor, particularly when a scene calls for both men’s point of view — a sort of “he said/he said” situation. It is one of the movie’s several touches that skew it just slightly away from the mainstream.

Hugh Grant is wry and witty and non-stuttering as Will. The character’s selfishness stems not from believing those around him are inferior to him, but from believing he is inferior to them. It’s a fine role for Grant, whose characters are often as smarmy as they are charming. Here, he is vulernable — ultimately, as vulnerable as Marcus, whom Nicholas Hoult plays with brilliant, self-effacing mopiness.

Toni Collette, too, is magnificent — is she ever not magnificent? — as Marcus’ mum, bringing comedy to the sad scenes and gravity to the funny ones.

We must also mention the ultra-cool acoustic rock soundtrack by Badly Drawn Boy.

Movies like this make you feel happy without you realizing anyone has “made” you do anything. These are characters we care about and relate to; the fact that they speak with flair and wit makes them funnier, but no less human. The movie is a gem.

Sinceriously

0

I fancy myself a sincere person. If I say something, it’s because I mean it, not because I feel obligated to say it.

For example, there is no pressure upon me when I say I think Cirque du Soleil is in league with the devil, else how could they do those amazing, gravity-defying things with their bodies? Someday they will use their dark powers to take over the world, I suspect, and you will not find their peculiar brand of French mysticism quite so whimsical when they have used it to enslave you!

That is my true opinion. Neither political correctness nor social pressure has inspired me to create that opinion just to be fashionable.

Also, I don’t think rap artists should be allowed to star in motion pictures. It’s not because they can’t act; I have come to accept that certain people will always be in movies, regardless of their having minimal talent. (This is known as the Freddie Prinze Jr. Prinziple.) The reason I object to rap stars as movie stars is that they don’t even have names. Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, Li’l Bow Wow, Dr. Dre — those aren’t names! They’re not even proper nicknames. They’re barely even words. Seems like having a name should be the MINIMUM requirement for being a film star.

Those two seemingly random tangents are, in fact, very sturdy supports in the framework of today’s airtight column, the point of which is that we should say what we mean and mean what we say. But it is difficult, in our society, to be candid all the time. We’ve grown accustomed to saying things to be polite, or because of tradition, and the words become meaningless.

For example, when you’re introduced to someone, you almost instinctively say, “Nice to meet you.” But is it REALLY nice to meet them? You’ve just barely laid eyes on them. Unless you were told good things about them before, or unless you can already tell meeting them is a harbinger of joy — perhaps they are holding bags of candy — then it’s hard to sincerely feel like it’s “nice” to meet them.

What if the person you’ve been introduced to turns out to be an idiot? Can you retract your opening statement of “Nice to meet you”? “Listen, remember a few minutes ago, when I said it was nice to meet you? Yeah, I was just being polite. Turns out, you’re a moron.” That seems even more crass than the insincerity that started the whole thing.

Of course, maybe you’re one of those people who truly enjoy meeting new folks, regardless of what unbelievable jerks they may turn out to be. In that case, go on saying, “Nice to meet you,” and mean it. The rest of us, I think, should offer a smiling “How are you?,” a firm handshake, and an eye cast about in search of candy.

The other problem I have is when I’m being reintroduced to someone whom I had previously met but not spent a great deal of time with. Our common friend will say, “And Eric, you remember Agnes.” And the fact is, I only barely remember Agnes, and the main thing I remember about her is that she smells funny. (Not funny ha-ha; funny uh-oh.) (Is there such thing as smelling funny ha-ha? Are there smells that actually make you laugh out loud? That would be GREAT.)

So how do I react? I don’t want to be blunt and say, “Yes, of course I remember her; she smells funny.” And I don’t want to go overboard the other direction and say, “Oh, of course I remember Agnes! I think of her each night before I drift off to sleep! My children are named after her!” That would be transparently insincere, and Agnes would not appreciate it.

These are tricky social situations, and I don’t claim to have all the answers. Usually I just stammer something that sounds both honest AND polite. (For example: “The cheetah is the world’s fastest land animal, please.”) That seems like a good general policy — unless Agnes is a member of Cirque du Soleil, in which case you ought to flee before she can muster the powers necessary to annihilate you. Tact is your ally only to a point.

Dear Delinquent

0

There is a man who is engaged, but he begins to fall for another woman. Fortunately, his fiancee is loathsome, making his decision easier, though the audience is left wondering why it takes the entire play to decide it, and why he was ever engaged to the rotten woman in the first place.

This plot should sound familiar not just to regular theatergoers, but even to casual, occasional theatergoers. Hale Center Theater Orem makes use of it often — at least six times in the past five years, by my count — and “Dear Delinquent,” directed by Maureen Eastwood, is the latest and least of them.

In this slight, forgettable comedy by Jack Popplewell — the program omits his name, but it’s Jack Popplewell — David Warren (Matt Clayton) is the engaged man, an English fellow, living off his uncle’s (Mark Shipley) money and his mother’s (Arlene McGregor) reputation. He himself does nothing.

He is engaged to Helen Chandler (Marydee Potter), who is rich and haughty and has jet-black hair. The woman he might fall in love with instead is Penelope Shawn (Amy Laurel Cook), whom he catches in his house late one night due to her being the world’s clumsiest burglar.

Only he does not immediately fall in love with Penelope. As far as I can tell from watching the play, he NEVER falls in love with her, though this doesn’t stop him from winding up with her. It is a case of the characters being played (and written, I think) opposite from how they should be for it to make sense: Helen, who is supposed to be awful, seems nice enough, if occasionally given to hysterics; Penelope, whom we’re supposed to root for, is calculating and devious and unlikable. I hoped David would marry neither woman.

Penelope comes from a long, proud line of burglars, led by her Irish father (Kent Flowers; double-cast with Mark Pulham). This is the thing the play finds most amusing about itself, that people could find honor in being thieves, but it doesn’t register. It reminded me of the last straight play performed on this stage, “Arsenic and Old Lace,” where the juxtaposition of sweet old ladies who poison men and bury them in the basement is jarring enough to be funny. Here, the juxtaposition is simply that people who have enough money already are working as burglars. Cute, I guess, but not laugh-out-loud funny, and certainly not a clever enough concept to hang the entire play on.

Matt Clayton has the daunting task of making this stuff funny, and he performs devotedly. His David is boyishly glum and put-upon, forced into several unwelcome situations and reacting with increasing hopelessness.

Also notable are Jake Suazo (double-cast with Matthieu C. Kohl), who is droll as the police detective investigating the larcenous Shawn family; and Roger Dunn as David’s long-suffering butler.

The British accents range from acceptable to perfectly awful. MaryAnn Hill’s costumes are good for the period.

Should you go? It is so much like so many other old comedies performed here that there’s little point in seeing this one.

Star Wars: Episode II — Attack of the Clones

0

The two big questions, we’ll answer first.

Yes, Jar-Jar Binks is in the movie, but his role is small.

And yes, it’s better than “The Phantom Menace.” Though I liked that film, I recognize its faults. “Star Wars: Episode II — Attack of the Clones” recovers from most of those mistakes — see previous item on the limited role of Jar-Jar Binks — and delivers a thrilling product full of story, conflict and gee-whiz, I’m-a-kid-again excitement.

It is 10 years after the last installment. Queen Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) has given up the throne in order to serve her people as a senator in the Galactic Republic. (Her second-in-command: Rep. Jar-Jar Binks, I kid you not.) In the first moments of the film, an attempt is made on her life, prompting the Jedi Council to give her two bodyguards: Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and his trainee Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen).

She has not seen them since the events in “The Phantom Menace,” when Anakin was still a little boy. He has grown up, though, and with every line of dialogue and every sulky look he gives, he reminds us that he is now cocky, arrogant, and rebellious. (Screenwriters George Lucas and Jonathan Hales seem to think we’d miss this important character arc if they didn’t re-establish it every time Anakin opens his mouth.) He is also in love with Padme, despite the counsel that a Jedi should not let personal affections keep him from his greater duty.

The mystery of who is trying to kill Padme leads the film through a highly enjoyable first act that is reminiscent of an old private-detective flick. Obi-Wan visits a greasy-spoon diner on Coruscant to get information — Obi-Wan is at this point the only character who engenders anything close to the feelings we once had for, say, Han Solo or Princess Leia — and there is even the “Star Wars” equivalent of a car chase.

The action thereafter is divided into two stories. In one, Obi-Wan uncovers a secret planet where an army of clones is being manufactured — apparently at the behest of the Jedi Council, though no one on the current council seems to know anything about it — and meets a bad guy named Jango Fett (Temuera Morrison) and his young son Boba (Daniel Logan).

Anakin, meanwhile, protects and courts Padme on her home planet of Naboo, then heads to his own birthplace, Tattooine, in response to dreams he’s had about the fate of his mother. Events on Tattooine set him on the path to the Dark Side — but the scene is handled all wrong.

Remember how Hayden Christensen is a very good actor who impressed us in “Life As a House”? Remember how he was supposed to bring balance to the Force, as it were, giving nuance and depth to a lead character in a George Lucas film? Well, forget it. His rage seems more like whiny teen angst. His fury is reduced to a brief flash of reaction and then his retelling it later to Padme. It could be argued that this — Anakin Skywalker’s turning point — is the most significant moment in the entire six-part series, and here’s Christensen, acting like a lightweight.

The acting elsewhere in the film is better than in the last outing. Portman has stopped speaking Padme’s lines in a monotone, and she has some ripping action-heroine moments. McGregor has adopted the voice and manner of Alec Guinness (who played the older Obi-Wan in the first trilogy) and made them seem like himself.

Like the last film, this one lacks a strong villain. Darth Sidious (Ian McDiarmid) is barely present, and his new pupil is evil but not exactly fearsome.

But unlike the last film, this one drops the silliness and gets down to business. It is still rip-roaringly fun — more so than “Phantom Menace” — but also grownup and serious.

There is a scene in which Yoda engages in a light-saber battle, and it may be the most exciting moment in the franchise’s history. It involves a character we love and admire doing something that gives us more cause to love and admire him. (Plus, frankly, he kicks butt. Note to the universe: Don’t mess with Yoda.) This second trilogy is telling us a story to which we already know the ending, introducing characters whose fates we already know. The magic of the original “Star Wars” films cannot be recaptured, but “Attack of the Clones” is a marvelous ride nonetheless.

An Attack on the Clones

0

“Star Wars: Episode II — Attack of the Clones” opens tonight at midnight on every single movie screen in the world that is not already showing “Spider-Man.” In fact, due to overbooking, some theaters will show the films simultaneously, on the same screen. When Mary Jane Watson kisses an upside-down Yoda, you will believe that dreams can come true.

I’m just being silly, of course. Silly like the guy who organized the local “Star Wars” party taking place tonight at the SCERA in Orem. His name is Bryan Young, and he was the first nerd to set up a tent outside the SCERA a few weeks ago. (I am using “nerd” in the most professional, clinical sense.) His wife will give birth to their child soon, and if it is a boy, he plans to name him Anakin, thus dooming the child to a lifetime of being beaten up, turning to the Dark Side, constructing a moon-sized battle station and blowing up the planet Alderaan. The die is cast, young Anakin Young!

But you can understand the enthusiasm for the movie, and not just among the nerds, but among normal people such as myself. I was a young child when the original “Star Wars” was released. I remember chattering excitedly as my brothers and I, wearing short pants and suspenders, walked downtown to the old Majestic theater, paid our nickel, ran to the balcony and sat impatiently through the war-related newsreel before the feature began. Oh, what a time we had! The thrilling battles, the funny robots, the light sabers that didn’t look at all fake or silly. It was a welcome respite from the drudgeries of farm life. All too soon, it was over, and we had to hurry home or there would be whippings all around and no bread pudding for dessert!

I was even more excited to see “Attack of the Clones” last week at a press screening. Instead of being full of screaming nerds, I knew it would be full of screaming movie critics, who are just as bad but less numerous. (On that note, let me digress a bit and mention that I was at a “Spider-Man” pre-screening attended by Uber-nerds, many of whom cheered the movie every time something cool happened. I have never understood cheering a film, considering none of the actors or filmmakers is present to hear the ovation. The subtext of the cheering must be, “We applaud the technology of capturing images on film and then using light to project the images onto a white screen! Huzzah for it! Wait, what did he say while I was cheering?”)

Anyway, I was delighted by the many surprises revealed in “Attack of the Clones.” I will spoil them all for you now.

• It’s a musical.
• Turns out Yoda was a puppet THE WHOLE TIME!
• Jar-Jar Binks is now Darth Binks and breathing heavily.
• Most of it takes place in Ohio.
• C-3P0 and R2-D2 rejoice when the Galactic Republic finally votes to allow same-sex android marriages.
• George Lucas’ cute new character: Stromi Thurmondi.
• This month’s Jedi Council speaker bores everyone with his sermon on the evils of pod racing.
• As Anakin, Hayden Christensen delivers a line so well, you almost think Anakin actually believes what he’s saying.
• In a Very Special Episode of “Episode II,” packed with celebrity cameos, Obi-Wan gets married: Say hello to Martha Stewart Kenobi!
• The whole thing is crawling with Ewoks.

I hope you enjoy the movie. Look out for that light saber, Aunt May!

The New Guy

0

All that can be said for “The New Guy” is that it has a sequence in which Eliza Dushku tries on a variety of swimsuits. Aside from that, you’re drowning in a sea of woeful incompetence, my friends.

The title character is Dizzy Gillespie Harrison, played by DJ Qualls, who is freakishly thin and unsettling to look at. (He knows this; he earns movie roles because of it. Good for him.) Dizzy is a teen-age nerd who meets a prisoner (Eddie Griffin) who tells him how to stop being picked on: Get expelled and start over at a different school.

He succeeds at this, and when he shows up at raucous Highland High (their mascot: the Highlanders), he has an all-new, all-bad persona. He’s Gil Harris now, and don’t mess with him. He impresses the school vixen (Eliza Dushku) by punching out her boyfriend and also catches the eye of the school tramp (Sunny Mabrey).

Also, he turns his back on his old nerd friends, but that conflict gets resolved pretty easily, so I’m going to pretend it never happened.

Then Gil’s inner nice guy shines through, and he uses his new-found influence to turn Highland into a beacon of school spirit and pleasantness.

Even for one of those stupid teen movies that aren’t very funny, this one isn’t very funny. It is too far removed from reality: Nothing that occurs in the movie would ever happen in real life, and even if it did, people wouldn’t react the way they do here. When Gil’s motorcycle won’t start, his friends tie it to the back of a car, take off, and play a tape of motorcycle noises ‹ thus successfully fooling bystanders into thinking the bike was working on its own power.

It is occasionally loud and offensive, but more often, it simply lulls you into a gentle waking coma. It is an obvious and strange film, full of cameos by people who cannot act (Lyle Lovett, Gene Simmons, Tommy Lee, Tony Hawk, etc.), thus giving the impression of being an especially bad community theater production.

Unfaithful

0

At the exact mid-point of the two-hour “Unfaithful,” the husband finds out his wife has been cheating on him. It is easy, then, to divide the movie into halves: the good hour and the not-so-good hour. “Unfaithful” starts smart and then chickens out.

Initially, it is about a well-off suburban housewife named Connie Sumner (Diane Lane) who stumbles into an affair with a 28-year-old French casanova named Paul (Olivier Martinez). She did not seek it out, but when the opportunity presents itself, she finds herself taking advantage of it.

The first sexual encounter is shown to us via her flashbacks, giving the sense that she, too, was merely an observer, and not a participant. ‘This isn’t something I would do,’ she seems to think during the train ride home. ‘I’m perfectly happy in my marriage.’

That is one of the film’s smarter elements: Her husband, Edward (Richard Gere), is good. Their marriage is comfortable — but not complacent — and they have a young son (Erik Per Sullivan) whom they adore. There is no reason for Connie to have an affair. Even she can’t figure it out. If she had unsatisfied yearnings, they were unknown even to her.

At first, this may seem like a flaw in the screenplay. Characters should not, generally speaking, have unmotivated actions. But I contend this is more realistic than the standard movie plot of “my husband’s a jerk, so I cheated on him.” (Not to say that doesn’t happen in real life, too.) Connie’s senseless addiction to Paul makes more sense, in its way, than many cinema adultery plots do.

Lane’s performance is brave and excellent. She endures a lot, and her character is compelling. It takes skill to keep an audience’s interest when the action is more emotional than physical, and Lane (directed by Adrian Lyne) pulls it off admirably.

Her co-star’s half of the movie does not fare as well. That is when Edward learns of the affair and acts upon his knowledge, and the film reverts to standard Hollywood claptrap. Interesting how adultery is made to appear immoral and devastating, but other crimes — I won’t spoil anything for you — are apparently OK in the world of movie people.

There, finally, is the film’s major mistake. Screenwriters Alvin Sargent and William Broyles Jr. have spent considerable time establishing the destructive nature of Connie’s relationship with Paul, only to undermine all that work with a turn of events that is neither believable nor, even by the movie’s own standards, morally correct. Don’t bother being impressed by the film espousing old-fashioned, marriage-is-sacred values, because it doesn’t last beyond the first hour.

You can hear the filmmakers’ sigh of relief: “We just came dangerously close to making an original, thought-provoking film! Thank goodness we swerved to avoid it! Whew!” “Unfaithful” cheats on itself and retreats to comfortable — and complacent — territory. Too bad.

Ask Eric Stuff 10

0

The alignment of the planets into a neat, orderly row means it is time once again for an installment in the endless series known as “Ask Eric Stuff.” How does it work? It is simple. People ask Eric stuff, and he answers them, providing guidance and tutelage to the guideless and tuteless.

All of these are actual questions asked by actual readers, and you can actually submit your own questions here [URL is outdated]. Please be aware that questions riddled with profanity or spelling errors will be forwarded to the FBI.

Dear Eric: I’m fed up with working for a corporation. Do you know of any other ways that I can secure a steady income? — Employee No. 266970
Dear 24601: Yes. Become a corporation that hires nameless employees.

Dear Eric:Why is there no such thing as a free lunch? — Hungry in Honeyville
Dear Piggy: You obviously haven’t heard of a little place I like to call The Dumpster Behind Wendy’s.

Dear Eric: If you could have any other job, what would it be? — Job Hunting
Dear Hunter: The guy who hoses down Oprah.

Dear Eric: If so many people get so shocked and appalled at your columns, why do they continue to read them every Wednesday and Friday? — Loves to Laugh
Dear Needs Medication: The column is like a trainwreck. The people know it’s going to be awful and grotesque, but they still can’t help but look at it, because they’re stupid jerks who like to complain.

Dear Eric: What do you think about guys getting perms? — Perm-a-licious Pete
Dear Permy: The same thing I think about guys cutting off their legs with hatchets: Fine, if that’s what you want, but don’t you realize how silly you’re going to look?

Dear Eric: A guy has asked me out every day for two weeks. I’ve told him several times that I don’t like him and I don’t want to go out, but he persists. How do I make him go away? — Not Interested
Dear Not Interesting: Go out with him and then say you want a commitment. You’ll never hear from him again.

Dear Eric: Why do these crazy Mormons keep claiming they’re Christians? — Baptist from the South
Dear I Think I Have a Copyright on the Word “Christian”: I dunno. Probably the same reason people from the United States keep claiming they’re Americans.

Dear Eric: Do you like Carl’s Jr? — Hamburger Mom
Dear Beefy: No, Carl’s Sr. was a lot better. His son’s a punk.

Dear Eric: How do I get a cute girl at my school to notice me? — Curious in Orem
Dear Curiosity: Whatever you do, don’t ask her out every day for two weeks! Apparently, they hate that.

Dear Eric: What is the difference between buffalo and bison? — Wondering out West
Dear W.O.W.: Buffalo is a city in New York. A bison is an animal resembling a buffalo. I hope this helps.

Dear Eric: Is salon-brand shampoo really better for your hair? — Trish the Dish
Dear TriDi: For my hair?! I’ve been using it as a salad dressing! (I’m only kidding. I don’t eat salad.)

Dear Eric: What’s your favorite color? — Lavender Lady
Dear Lav: Bloodshot.

Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (Hindi/Bhojpuri)

0

Movies like “Lagaan” make me glad I’m a film critic. If I were a civilian, I probably wouldn’t see a four-hour Indian film set in 1893 and centered around the game of cricket. I would believe all the critics who told me it was a great film, but I would assume it was of those films you admire more than you enjoy, and if I’m going to spend four hours on something, I’d better be ENTERTAINED, darn it.

But as a film critic, I had to watch it whether I wanted to or not, and I’m glad I did. It’s the sort of high-spirited foreign film that Americans dig because it doesn’t seem all that foreign. The storylines are familiar, and so are the characters. All the most pleasant cliches of a Hollywood sports film — when you need a homerun to win the game, you pretty much always get a homerun — are here, translated into cricket terms and enacted by Indians.

Oh, and there are musical numbers.

Yes! Musical numbers. Indian films are famous (notorious?) for allowing their characters to burst into song at random junctures. It would be hard to call “Lagaan” a “musical” — it has only six songs in 224 minutes; most musicals have twice as many in half the time — but sure enough, there are the song-and-dance bits, with catchy music and literally translated lyrics in the subtitles. (“The snake of tiredness should not bite you” is one of my favorites.) I don’t know whether these exuberant numbers are supposed to be funny, but to a Westerner who is amused when people burst into song in non-musical films, they are highly entertaining in a “Like-a-Virgin”-in-“Moulin-Rouge” kind of way.

When someone makes a four-hour film, you almost have to take notice of it, because someone has clearly gone to a lot of effort. There is no truly defensible reason for director Ashutosh Gowariker to have made “Lagaan” as long as it is, but the effect of all that time spent watching it is a marvelous one, like a lengthy, scenic car trip to a place you love visiting.

The story is of a village in India where all residents must pay a tax, or “lagaan,” to the controlling British government. A local lad named Bhuvan (Aamir Khan) runs afoul of the snively, cruel, racist Capt. Russell (Paul Blackthorne), who proposes a mean-spirited wager: a cricket match, British officers vs. villagers. If the villagers win, they don’t have to pay lagaan for three years. If the Brits win, the Indians must pay triple lagaan this year.

Bear in mind, the Indians have never played cricket before and barely know the rules. But Bhuvan has no choice but to accept the wager. The villagers have already been told to pay double lagaan this year, and doing so would wipe them out. Either they play cricket — and win — or they will starve.

This gives the film more weight than your average sports movie. What’s at stake here is not a trophy, or self-respect, or the love of a woman. It’s survival.

It’s enjoyable, and oddly comforting, to see elements of American films appear in this one. A rag-tag group of non-athletes join forces to beat the odds. The bad guy’s sister, Elizabeth (Rachel Shelley), thinks her brother is cruel and helps the villagers. A guy jealous of the hero for stealing his girlfriend seeks his defeat and turns traitor. Elizabeth learns the native language extraordinarily fast. Bhuvan has a romance, and a romantic triangle (involving a local girl played by Gracy Singh, who is as compelling as many cute Hollywood actresses). There’s even a musical montage during the Indian team’s training in which they chase chickens, “Rocky”-style, to learn agility.

If this were a Hollywood production, we would criticize it for being unoriginal. But somehow, transporting all these familiar conventions to a different time and place makes them fresh again.

There is a certain amount of religious faith involved, too. The villagers are suffering from a drought — that’s why they can’t afford to pay double lagaan — and they wonder why God is punishing them. But maybe what God’s doing is testing, not punishing.

Bhuvan is a good, heroic leading man — too heroic, maybe, as he seems to be utterly without fault (though Khan plays him with a healthy dose of Ordinary Guy normalcy). The supporting characters are quirky, too, from the Rasputin-looking town prophet to the temple worker who screams when he does pretty much anything.

Technically, all of the musical number could be cut. There’s 35 minutes right there. And while the cricket team needs 11 players, I don’t think each member needs to have a scene explaining why he agreed to sign up. And does the three-day cricket match need to occupy a solid hour of the film? No. Even if I knew how to play cricket, I doubt I’d be riveted by as much of it as appears here.

But cutting any of this would hinder the film’s impact. As it stands, we feel a sense of epicness, a sense of truly having lived in these interesting people’s lives for a few hours. The details are often entertaining, but more importantly, they are threads in a very satisfying tapestry, if I may be the 1,000,000th person to use that analogy. “Lagaan” can be enjoyed on several levels, not the least of which is the one where you just sit back and enjoy a skillfully made, good-natured movie.

Bo and Hopeless

0

I’m not one to back down from a challenge. When a movie trailer describes the film as “unforgettable,” I think, “Don’t tell ME what I can’t forget!” And I put all my effort into forgetting it, and sure enough, soon I’ve forgotten everything, including where I parked. I’ll show them.

I was similarly riled last week, when NBC was daring viewers not to cry during Wednesday’s Very Special Episode of “Days of Our Lives.” The network went so far as to get Kleenex to be the primary sponsor of the episode. (I’m not making that up.) I decided to take the challenge and watch the show as an experiment, to see whether it made me cry.

The reason this episode was Very Special was that Bo and Hope were handing their baby, J.T., back over to its real parents. What I didn’t know was why they had this baby in the first place if it wasn’t theirs. Had they found it in the bushes or something? I used our friend the Internet to post a query, asking if anyone knew the backstory. Then I got this e-mail from a friend:

“Bo and Hope had to give up their baby b/c it belonged to the biological father, the court ruled. Margo had a baby, that got switched with Hope’s, so Hope had Margo’s, which really belonged to Lexie, b/c Lexie had adopted it but then Margo died, which adds a whole new set of problems.”

Indeed. Now that I fully understood the situation, my friend Raymond Mohawk (names have been changed) and I sat down to watch a tape of the Very Special Episode and, if necessary, to sob like little girls.

Immediately, I had a flood of old “Days of Our Lives” memories. I watched the show in 1987-88, when Salem was bedeviled by the Riverfront Knifer, a serial killer who turned out to be a senator (go figure). This was also the era of Kayla Brady’s romance with Steven “Patch” Johnson, a one-eyed, scar-faced dirtbag who may well be the most unattractive leading man in soap opera history, except for the time when the star of “Guiding Light” was a melted Snickers bar.

As it turns out, the giving-up-J.T. episode was as stupid as most episodes of soap operas, Very Special or otherwise. Everyone stood around looking squintily at each other, making vague accusations and then pretending to like each other. We had to deal with Hope’s real son, Shawn-Douglas, who was born in 1987 but who is now 18. (Hope was born in 1974 but managed to be 23 in 1987, and is possibly even younger now, as she looks to be maybe five years older than Shawn-Douglas.) S.-D. was being very protective and bratty in regards to baby J.T., and he needed a smacking that no one ever gave him.

Also, we had to hear Bo offer awkward backstory dialogue, such as this declaration to his friend John Black: “You helped save Hope’s life, rescued her out of that burning building when we were in Europe.” I wish real people talked this way. I wish I could be having lunch with a friend and just casually say, “You did me a favor last month when I forgot to set the VCR to record ‘NYPD Blue’ and you taped it for me.” And my friend would say, “Yeah. What about it?” And I would say, “Nothing. Just that.”

(John Black, by the way, used to be named Roman Brady. But then the actor who USED to play Roman Brady wanted to come back to the show, so they had the new Roman Brady actor turn out not to have been Roman Brady all along, but John Black in disguise. I assume multiple Emmys were handed out as a result of this ingenuity.)

Raymond wondered if J.T.’s real parents would show up like Shelley Winters and her two filthy sons in “Pete’s Dragon,” singing, “We got a bill of sale right here … RIGHT HERE!” But there was no such luck. They just walked in and looked all apologetic and made Hope’s kinfolk load up the car with J.T.’s stuff. The characters all cried a lot — and reached for Kleenex® brand tissue — but Raymond and I managed to hold it together. Victory is mine, NBC. We’ll see how I do when Rachel has her baby on “Friends.”

Deuces Wild

0

I accuse films of being generic and unoriginal on a regular basis, but rarely have I seen a movie so determined to check off every cliché on the list as “Deuces Wild.” It has every element of the kind of movie it is, and none of the heart, personality or spirit.

The kind of movie it is, is a drama about teen-age Brooklyn gangs in the summer of 1958 — “the summer the streets of Sunset Park ran red with blood,” we are told by our narrator, Bobby (Brad Renfro). Bobby is a hot-headed, passionate member of the Deuces, and it is his lot to fall in love with Annie (Fairuza Balk), the sister of one of the leaders of the rival Vipers. (If you prefer to call them the Sharks and the Jets, I don’t think anyone would blame you.)

There is tension in the air because Viper Marco Vendetti (Norman Reedus) is about to get out of prison. Three years ago, he sold some bad drugs to Bobby’s brother Alley Boy (Blake Bashoff), killing poor Alley and making Bobby and his other brother Leon (Stephen Dorff) determined to keep drugs out of their neighborhood.

Marco has already sent emissaries, though, clearly intending to set up a new operation. Whether Bobby and Leon and their fellow Deuces can keep the streets clean — while simultaneously battling the Vipers — is the question at hand.

The first moments of the film establish how reliant it will be on movies like “West Side Story” and “The Outsiders.” It’s a flashback, and Leon is carrying his dead brother Alley through the streets in the pouring rain. He’s hollering out, “Ma! Ma!” Ma comes to the street and wails over the demise of her baby boy. It plays like a parody — to open your movie with such histrionics is surely a bad idea — but lo, they are serious.

If the film had stuck with its initial plot of the Deuces’ war on drugs, it might have gotten interesting. Instead, it retreats to the heavily trod territory of escalating warfare between gangs, offering nothing fresh to the standard, wearying mix of violence, tragedy and domestic strife. This guy’s dad’s an abusive alcoholic; these girlfriends are sick of their guys fighting all the time; this Italian-descent priest warns the boys that nothing good can come of this; everyone’s got names like Scooch, Punchy and Little Jack.

The performances are average and workable, nothing more. By my count, there are four “Sopranos” cast members involved. How eager they must be to return to the excitement of that show, after laboring in the creative wasteland of “Deuces Wild.”

Hollywood Ending

0

Woody Allen continues his descent into comedic toothlessness with “Hollywood Ending,” a weak-willed but likable film that should have been brilliant.

It is a parody of movie-making, and Woody Allen is capable of writing and directing a magnificent one. Judged on its own merits, “Hollywood Ending” is good enough, but you can’t help feeling disappointed, knowing what might have been (and especially having seen Allen’s last few films, all as impotent as this one).

Allen plays himself, really: a neurotic, Oscar-winning filmmaker whom no one takes seriously anymore. His name is Val Waxman, and having fallen on hard times, he is reduced to pursuing TV movies like “the interracial abortion gene-splicing thing.” His ex-wife, Ellie (Tea Leoni), now dating a studio head (Treat Williams), talks the studio into hiring Val to direct a new film — making his ex-wife’s boyfriend his boss. But oh well. Work is work.

This might be enough complication for one movie, but Allen takes it a step further: The night before shooting is to begin, Val comes down with a psychosomatic case of blindness. His agent (Mark Rydell) convinces him to direct the film anyway, using his cinematographer’s Chinese translator (Barney Cheng) as a guide to prevent people from knowing he can’t see. If someone comes up to Val and says, “Should we use this one or the bigger one?,” the guide can casually say, “Oh, what nice pocketwatches,” cuing Val on what’s being held up in front of him so he can offer an opinion.

It’s a stretch, but credit Allen for knowing how to direct a movie in a way that is believable, avoiding most of the traps that would have turned this into a farce. (One quibble: Val apparently can’t even tell which direction people’s voices are coming from, which doesn’t make sense at all.)

There are many Hollywood-insider gags — like an art director who feels the real Times Square isn’t good enough and wants to build a set instead — and there are plenty of jokes at the expense of agents. Some hit, some miss.

The reason for Val’s blindness is surprisingly lame and unnecessary, as is the romantic subplot. (Do you think Val and Ellie will rekindle their love? It is called “Hollywood Ending,” after all.)

But then there’s the charm. Allen shot the film as a series of scenes: No cutting away, no fancy editing, just a camera that follows the characters around the room. It’s a very non-movie-ish movie about making movies. Pretty sly, Mr. Allen.

And there are some deep, wonderful laughs. Not enough to make this a great comedy, but enough to make it a pleasant one. Allen can do better, and has done better, but perhaps this is as good as he does anymore.

Spider-Man

0

“Spider-Man” is probably the best superhero movie ever made. It has the right blend of action, humor and humanity, an appropriately insane villain, and a hero whose motivations are simple but whose character is complex.

Sam Raimi (“Army of Darkness,” “A Simple Plan”) lobbied for a chance to direct the film, and thank goodness he got it. He can create moments of humor and moments of darkness with equal agility, and he can mix them better than almost anyone. He is respectful of the source material but doesn’t take it so seriously that it impairs his own vision. His “Spider-Man” movie is what the comic book has deserved for 40 years.

The first half of the film is essentially the first issue of the comic book. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is a somewhat geeky high school senior who gets bitten by a radioactive, genetically altered “super spider,” granting him the relative powers of that spider. Now he can jump, sense danger, stick to walls, and even spin webs. (The film’s one major departure from the comic is that rather than Peter using his nerd knowledge to make artificial webs, his body produces them naturally.)

This is where the humanity of the film kicks in. Superman was an alien whose powers developed when he was an infant. Batman was a millionaire who brooded in darkness. Spider-Man is a hormonal teen-ager who wants to impress pretty Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), please his kindly old Aunt May (an occasionally too-overwrought Rosemary Harris) and Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson), and maybe one day become a professional photographer. His powers bring him surprise, fear and delight. He has no idea what’s going on.

Fans know what happens next: Someone Peter loves is killed by a villain whom Peter could have stopped in a previous encounter. Watch the vengeance in his face as he embarks on his first crime-fighting web-swing across New York to catch the murderer. The visual effects are fantastic here — in other scenes, they sometimes are too special-effecty — but Peter’s personal reasons for the chase infuse the scene with incredible energy and emotion. In this moment, he’s not out to fight for truth, justice and the American way. He wants to catch the scumbag who killed someone close to him — and we’re with him all the way.

The whole movie is like that, making us sympathize with the good guys, and occasionally even with the primary bad guy. That would be the Green Goblin, whose real-life identity is millionaire Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe), father of Peter’s best friend Harry (James Franco). It is the Green Goblin (who looks a little too ridiculous, I think) who utters the film’s most comic-bookish lines, statements like, “We’ll meet again, Spider-Man!” and “You’ve spun your last web!”

Which brings us to another great thing about the film, which is that it’s not afraid of the fact that it’s based on a comic book. The lines just quoted are cheesy, but they’re cackled without self-consciousness. No explanation is given as to how Peter manufactures his sleek, form-fitting costume. And since when does being bitten by something give you the powers of whatever bit you? It doesn’t matter. As down-to-earth as our hero is, his story is still beyond reality. What’s surprising is how well the two conflicting attitudes blend into one fantastical, believable story.

So many deft touches, so little space to discuss them. The fast-moving script by David Koepp (“Panic Room,” “Jurassic Park III”). The musical score by Danny Elfman (the only man who should be allowed to score this sort of movie). J.K. Simmons’ film-stealing turn as blustery, tyrannical newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson. Peter coming to understand the gravity of Uncle Ben’s statement that “with great power comes great responsibility.” The heartbreaking Mary Jane Watson moving from one bad situation to another, finding joy only in her occasional interactions with Spider-Man.

And, most exciting, watching them set the stage for sequels.