Home Blog Page 59

Rollerball

0

It’s a good thing “Rollerball” was pushed back from its original summer 2001 release date. If it had come out then, it would have been lost in a sea of bad movies, indistinguishable from its peers. Coming out now, though, it earns a distinction: The First Unqualified Trainwreck of 2002!

Mercy me, this movie stinks. It is that rare combination of bad writing, bad direction and bad acting — the trifecta of badness. Each element works in concert with the others to produce a truly, truly bad movie, worse than the sum of its parts. It’s synergism at its finest.

The bad writing is by Larry Ferguson and John Pogue, who between them claim credit for screenplays like “Beverly Hills Cop II,” “Highlander,” “The Skulls” and “U.S. Marshals.” (They are working from William Harrison’s short story, on which the vastly superior 1975 “Rollerball” film is also based.) The plot deals with a Russian sport called rollerball, in which participants roller-blade around a rink and attempt to get a metal ball into a hoop. Also, there are motorcycles. Some of the players wear freaky masks. It’s like a crack nightmare version of the XFL, mixed with a bit of hockey and Quidditch. (As the sports commentator says, “The rules are Russian and complicated,” so he just skips them.)

Jonathan Cross (Chris Klein), a promising NHL player, is the newest rollerball recruit, thanks to his buddy Marcus Ridley (LL Cool J). They are disturbed to realize, however, that when things turn violent in the game, the TV ratings go up — which means maybe, just maybe, the ruthless owner Alexi Petrovich (Jean Reno) is rigging it so the violence happens on purpose.

The dialogue is uniformly awkward. The protagonist, clearly not the erudite, scholarly type, uses the word “baubles” in casual conversation. He friend remarks that “we both know cash is king” — the sort of cliché you read in advertising copy, but not in real life.

Adding to this is the bad acting, courtesy of Chris Klein, who is in full Keanu Reeves mode. He’s wooden when he should be excited, and explosive when he should be calm. His character makes no sense — not his words, not his actions, not his motivations. He’s a man who does things because the script tells him to, and for no other reason.

LL Cool J gets his share of hammy moments, too, as does Rebecca Romijn-Stamos as a fellow player and Jonathan’s love interest. But if there were an Oscar for scenery-chewing, Jean Reno would win it, and then they’d retire the category. If his evil Russian businessman character were MEANT to be funny, it would be hysterical.

The director is John McTiernan, who also helmed “Predator,” “Die Hard” and “The Hunt for Red October” — good movies, all. However, he also gave us “The Last Action Hero,” “Medicine Man” and “The 13th Warrior,” so I don’t know what you expected. He filmed “Rollerball” entirely in Confuse-O-Vision, ruining any chance of exciting us with the game scenes because we never have any idea what’s going on. One entire sequence is shot with a green filter on the camera. Why? FOR NO REASON.

Potentially, this movie could have commented on pop-cultural bloodlust and the commercialization of sports. Instead, it is too violent and commercialized. It has no idea what it’s trying to say, and even as escapist entertainment, it can’t even manage one decent action scene.

Olympics Report: The Molympics

0

Some people are concerned that the upcoming Games will turn into the “Mormon Olympics,” due to the high percentage of Utah residents who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These fears are valid, of course, because this sort of thing has happened before. For example, the 1998 Winter Games in Nagano, Japan, were nothing more than a proselyting effort for the Buddhists, and you couldn’t throw a rock in Lillehammer in 1994 without hitting an Evangelical Lutheran missionary.

I’m lying about that, of course, but in truth, religion has always played a part in the Olympics. The ancient Greeks were so overjoyed when the IOC announced Athens would be the site of the first Games in 776 B.C. that they immediately threw a bacchanalia in the street to honor whichever of their random, silly gods they felt was responsible for it. (Yes, the Bacchanalia was a Roman festivity. The Greeks were so excited, they invited them over.)

So with religion and the Olympics linked from day one, and with most Utahns being Mormon, it should come as no surprise that the Olympics have a bit of an LDS flavor. But how strong is the Mormon influence? Take a look at some of this year’s events:

– Women’s Downhill Jump to Conclusions
– The Self-Righteous Huff
– Slalom Minivan Driving with Non-Operating Turn Signal
– Bobsled
– Freestyle Scrapbooking
– Guilt
– Scripture Chase
– Preparing Lesson During Sacrament Meeting While Also Distributing Cheerios Among Toddlers Biathlon
– Southern Utah County Big Hair Curling.

Again, I exaggerate. Yes, this Olympics will have a Mormon influence. But guess what? There are a lot of Mormons in Utah. Utah and Mormons are inseparably connected. You couldn’t hold an event here without there being SOME manifestation of the predominant culture.

The Mormons say there’s nothing wrong with celebrating Utah’s (read: Mormonism’s) culture. The non-Mormons say they’re tired of the Mormon influence — which, it should be noted, they complain about the rest of the time, too. The Olympics just gives them an international forum in which to do it.

So to the world, I say this: Get a load of us! We are, without apology, who we are. We’re a bunch of Jell-O-eating, church-going, gun-owning, Republican-voting, under-tipping, dollar-movie-attending, Osmond-forgiving, California-hating, Idaho-belittling, “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat”-watching, in-the-left-lane-slow-driving conservative family types who are proud of our culture and eager to share it with you. In fact, we would love to send a couple representatives of our culture to your house for an informal one-hour discussion of — wait, come back!

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

0

I would most recommend the Villa’s production of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” to people who have not seen the show before. For them, the show’s inherent charms will shine through; it is certainly a perky and entertaining musical, regardless of who’s performing it.

For “Joseph” veterans, this staging may come up lacking. It doesn’t have as much energy or creativity as some other productions, and the charisma that usually makes the major characters fun to watch is not to be found.

The Villa’s decrepit sound system doesn’t help, either. The synthesized orchestrations are generally OK, but I would swear the show-ending “Megamix” was taped directly from one of the various soundtracks available at your local CD shop.

Joseph — sold into Egypt by jealous brothers, as you’ll recall from the Bible — is played by Forrest Foster, who seems amiable enough but who probably was not yet ready to have a show placed upon his shoulders the way “Joseph” tends to rest on those who star in it. He and Melissa Anderson-Palmer, who plays the Narrator, have fine singing voices, as do the other principals.

Ryan Simmons plays the Pharaoh with flamboyance such as is not commonly seen without the aid of a lot of caffeine. Imagine the genes of Elvis Presley and Pee-Wee Herman being compressed into one human, and you have Simmons’ version of the Pharaoh. His scene has more personality than any other.

The direction is by Villa veteran Kathleen Nutt, with music direction by Joe Manson and choreography by Emily McFadyen. The choreography tends toward the literal: When Joseph’s brothers sing the word “think,” they point at their heads; when they sing “hope,” they put their hands in praying position. Most songs end with someone’s (or everyone’s) hands slowly rising upward, in traditional Community Theater Song-Ending fashion.

Nutt also designed the costumes, which are enjoyable, particularly the eclectic outfits worn during the “Megamix.” It’s also a nice touch that most of the brothers grew beards, adding a bit of authenticity.

Should you go? If you find yourself near Springville, and if you have not seen the show before, it may be worth your time.

Collateral Damage

0

Except for one little twist near the end, “Collateral Damage” offers no surprises. It is the quintessential Arnold Schwarzenegger action flick, right down to the last cliché. It reads like a “Simpsons” parody of an action movie, rather than an actual action movie.

Arnold plays Gordy Brewer, an L.A. firefighter whose wife and son are killed in a terrorist act. Due to diplomacy and red tape, the government is slow in retaliating against the perpetrator, a Colombian guerrilla who goes by the name “El Lobo” (“The Wolf”) and whose real identity is known only to … well, everyone in the FBI, apparently, though he’s still able to get past airport security pretty easily.

Anyway, despite a warning from kindly FBI Agent Phipps (Miguel Sandoval) that he mustn’t take the law into his own hands, Gordy takes the law into his own hands. He heads for Colombia to find El Lobo (Cliff Curtis) himself, doing so while voice-over narration from his firefighter buddies explains how it’s impossible to do. But he’s not gonna take no for an answer! He doesn’t play by the rules! He’s a loose cannon! He’s a one-man wrecking crew! He’s got nothing left to lose! Whatever!

El Lobo is an evil Bond-style villain, at one point killing an incompetent henchman with a snake — not by having the snake bite him, but by forcing the man’s jaws open with forceps and letting the snake crawl down his throat. Somehow, this kills him in under 10 seconds. It’s still early, but I believe this will be the stupidest movie death of 2002.

Gordy, for his part, is resourceful and MacGyver-esque, while also being embittered and vengeful. He has no interest in bringing El Lobo to justice; he simply wants to kill him.

As a viewer, it’s hard to get behind this course of action. Gordy’s feelings are natural, given the circumstances — but we humans tend to find a way NOT to act on our murderous impulses. At some point during the allegedly arduous journey into the jungles into Colombia, you’d think calm and reason would take over. That it doesn’t is further indication that Schwarzenegger doesn’t play characters; he plays types, specially designed to help audiences vicariously live out their violent fantasies.

John Turturro and John Leguizamo show up as people in Colombia who help Gordy, and Elias Koteas is a CIA agent with dubious motives. There1s also Francesca Neri and Tyler Garcia Posey as — get this — El Lobo’s wife and son, who coincidentally are about the same ages as Gordy’s dead family. Mrs. El Lobo explains her husband’s backstory, which tidily boils a terrorist’s motives down to a simple story of revenge. Those guys on CNN may try to tell you that there are complex factors at work in making a terrorist, but in the movies, it all comes down to a personal grievance, politics and religion be hanged.

It is directed by Andrew Davis, whose last memorable film was “The Fugitive,” which also had a scene in which a man goes over a waterfall and lives to tell about it. “Collateral Damage” is nothing more than a retread of other action movies depicting one man against the world. Whether this one makes any money will be the answer to the question of whether Schwarzenegger can just keep cranking these things out without thinking first, or whether we’re going to start demanding some originality.

Ask Eric Stuff 9

0

Directionless? Clueless? Legless? Fret not, because Eric is here with another installment of “Ask Eric Stuff,” in which people ask Eric stuff and he tells them where to go and what to do. All of these questions were submitted [outdated link provided], where you can submit your own questions, too.

Dear Eric: My college adviser told me I need to pick a major. What should I do: engineering, because the 5-1 ratio of boys to girls gives me a better chance of getting married; or nursing, which I’m really better at, but where all my male counterparts will be pansies? — On the Prowl in Provo
Dear Prowly: You’re wasting time even being in school, darlin’. Just rope yourself a guy, stay home, and start birthin’ some babies.

Dear Eric: I’m moving to Texas and buying a house. What should I look for in a primary residence? — Relocator
Dear Dislocator: Find one as far away from the Texans as possible. And whatever you do, don’t “mess” with Texas. That really annoys them.

Dear Eric: How do you feel about Internet romances? — CyberCurious
Dear E-Desperate: Internet romances are very safe, normal and non-creepy, and they always work out in the long run, and no crazy stalkers ever engage in them.

Dear Eric: I’m writing a poem and need a word that rhymes with orange. Any suggestions? — Rhyme Time
Dear Rhyme Thyme: Yes. Get a job.

Dear Eric: I am in a BYU single-student ward, and therefore have been placed in a Family Home Evening group. My question for you is, do you think it’s okay to go out with my FHE group leader, even if he insists upon those in our group calling him “dad”? — Electra Complex
Dear Incestia: I can’t imagine any purpose in having Family Home Evening groups in a student ward OTHER than to get people dating each other. It’s not really your family, and it’s not held at home. It should just be called Evening.

Dear Eric: Do you think that teaching sex education in the schools reflects the lack of morals in our society as the nuclear family becomes weaker and fewer? — Conservative Queen
Dear Queen: Hey, at least it gets kids doing their homework.

Dear Eric: When running a marathon, is it better to wear more cushioned shoes, or lighter shoes? — Slowbut Igetthere
Dear Ha Ha Your Name is Clever: There is no reason to run a marathon. There’s no reason to run at all, unless something is chasing you. And even then, you should pause a moment and think whether it would be all that bad if it caught you. To answer your question, though, you should wear the shoes with the jet packs in them.

Dear Eric: How can I tell a guy that I don’t want to go out with him without hurting his feelings? — Heartless Wonder
Dear Heartless: Who told you guys had feelings?

Dear Eric: What should I name my soon-to-be-born son? — Scared to Death
Dear Scared to Death: I kind of like Scared to Death.

Dear Eric: After exercising, why do I get a tingling sensation in my thighs? — Tae-Bo Teri
Dear Tae Land: Are you exercising with jellyfish? Because if you are, it’s possible one of them is stinging you on the thigh. If not, then maybe it’s a stroke.

Birthday Girl

0

Nicole Kidman is riding high off her successes in “Moulin Rouge” and “The Others,” but “Birthday Girl” is liable to suck some of the wind out of her sails. It’s a fast-moving, original film for the first 45 minutes, and a deathly tedious one for the next 45. It balances out to be mediocre.

Kidman plays Nadia, a Russian mail-order bride sent for by John (Ben Chaplin), a shy, ordinary English banker. When she arrives, she is revealed to be not all she claimed. She doesn’t speak English, for example — she answers every question “yes” — and she vomits from the car window on the way home.

Her redeeming quality, John soon learns, is that she loves to have sex. They begin a physical relationship, mixed with futile attempts on both parts to learn one another’s language and culture.

This stuff is funny, and it breezes by quickly. Soon Nadia’s friends from Russia have arrived, two rough characters (played by Vincent Cassel and Mathieu Kassovitz) with schemes up their sleeves. This changes the scene drastically, and it keeps changing for the next several minutes, always staying fresh and entertaining.

At the half-way point, there’s a major plot development spurred by the two Russian visitors. From then on, it’s more a thriller and road movie than a romantic comedy, though elements of that genre still peek through. It is far less successful here: We’re so accustomed to the high-flying loopiness that the change of pace doesn’t go down smoothly.

Kidman, though mired in a mediocre film, is as winsome and likable as we’ve come to expect. Chaplin, too, is sweetly bashful as John, and Cassel and Kassovitz add a lot of energy as the two insane Russians.

If the film had somehow resolved itself before downshifting, it would be a marvelous piece of work. Unfortunately, it kept going. Not much of a birthday present, if you ask me.

The Singles Ward

0

If you got your Family Home Evening group together one Monday night and made a little “movie,” except you got dozens of your friends to help out, found some editing and sound equipment, and made the thing last 102 minutes, you’d have “The Singles Ward.” There are very few jokes in it that the average Mormon with a sense of humor couldn’t come up with on his own, and most of the performances are nothing beyond what your friends could muster.

That’s not to say it’s a bad movie, although it’s certainly not a very good one. Its amateurishness is sometimes endearing, but other times, the over-the-top performances ruin what might have been passable jokes. (This occurs mostly among the one-scene characters, who exist only to provide punch lines and who apparently thought, incorrectly, that bigger was better.)

The central character, who also talks to the camera Ferris Bueller-style, is Jonathan Jordan (Will Swenson), a 27-year-old stand-up comedian who got married while still at BYU but whose wife subsequently left him. Now he’s single and inactive and resistent to change, though he finds the church’s efforts to reactivate him more amusing than annoying. (“I’m a spy who joined the other side,” he says. “I know all their tactics.”)

As befitting real life, he starts getting involved in the singles ward activities due to his interest in a girl. She is Cammie (Connie Young), a pretty, headstrong gal who thinks Jonathan makes jokes to cover up his real feelings. Jonathan is also egged on, patiently, by his pals: Franklin Planner enthusiast Eldon (Daryn Tufts), urban legend-spouting Dallen (Kirby Heybourne) and all-around good guy Hyrum (Michael Birkeland).

Most of the humor is derived from the sights and sounds of an LDS singles ward in Utah. It is generally broad-side-of-the-barn stuff; you’ve made a lot of the same observations yourself, probably. It does win points, though, for being first to put those observations in a movie. Jokes about LDS life are one thing when you’re whispering them in the back of Sunday School class; there’s something delightful about seeing them on the big screen, even if they’re not exactly original.

The film, written by Kurt Hale and John Moyer and directed by Hale, boasts numerous celebrity cameos. There’s Lavell Edwards, Danny Ainge, Steve Young, Johnny Biscuit and Richard Dutcher (the man behind “God’s Army” and “Brigham City”), among others. Nearly every single one is wasted. Rather than having the famous person show up and do something funny, most of them just show up — the cameo IS the joke. Dutcher’s bit stands alone as clever and amusing, though his presence in “The Singles Ward” is sort of like a student filmmaker inviting Alfred Hitchcock to the set.

There’s a definite sense of fun within the large cast; everyone involved clearly had a good time. But there’s also a definite sense that Hale and Moyer wanted to cram in every LDS culture-related joke they could think of, often at the expense of the story and characters.

They make fun of uptight people who get upset over, for example, the missionary-on-the-toilet scene in “God’s Army.” But later, one of the main characters gets uptight in exactly the same way, overreacting to jokes Jonathan makes at the expense of Mormons — only now, we’re supposed to agree with her. “The Singles Ward” wants it both ways, where jokes about our culture are OK, and where they’re also a sign of apostasy. Comedy is tricky business, and this one’s too slapdash and undisciplined to make it work.

Slackers

0

“Slackers” is sometimes almost surrealistically crude. It’s as if filmmakers have stopped trying to out-sex each other and have opted for out-weirding each other instead. I think that’s a step in the right direction; at least weirdness is occasionally funny, which sexuality usually isn’t.

This film, directed by Dewey Nicks and written by David H. Steinberg, both first-timers, is about cheating your way through college. Specifically, a trio of seniors at Holden University have developed cheating to a science, arguably expending more effort on not working than they would on actually working. They are the smooth-talking ladies’ man Dave (Devon Sawa), the mildly crazy Jeff (Michael C. Maronna) and the fairly stoned Sam (Jason Segel).

While stealing an exam for Sam, Dave encounters Angela (James King), whom he is smitten with. However, he is also caught at cheating by Ethan (Jason Schwartzman), a loutish loser who is psychotically fixated on Angela. In exchange for not having Dave, Sam and Jeff expelled, Ethan wants them to win Angela’s love for him, creating a dilemma for Dave, who wants her for himself.

So it’s one con job after another as the trio tries to find information on Angela to help Ethan woo her, eventually switching to seeking dirt on Ethan himself to reverse-blackmail him.

It’s fitfully amusing, though wildly inconsistent. It’s gross-out comedy one minute, teen romance the next, bawdy sex farce another. Some jokes will make you either laugh or wince, depending on your tolerance for bizarre sexual behavior. (I thought a scene with Angela’s parents was hysterical, but Angela’s roommate’s behavior was embarrassing. Your mileage may vary.)

Devon Sawa has enough baby-fat charisma to play better roles than this, and James King (I don’t know why her name is James when she’s a woman) could do well for herself, too. Jason Schwartzman is basically reprising his “Rushmore” character, but he’s increased the twitchy obsessiveness and diminished any possibility of liking him. It works in this case to have his character so laugh-out-loud annoying and unsympathetic, but it may not be a wise career choice to continue pursuing this type of role.

“Slackers” comes perilously close to being stupid all the time, but it has some genuinely creative moments, too. A scene where Dave has an epiphany accompanied by an a cappella rendering of “The Sign” by Ace of Base borders on being ingenious. The simple fact is, I laughed more than not-laughed at the movie — a fact I’m almost embarrassed to admit.

The U.N. Column

0

The billboard I saw on my way to work said this:

“The United Nations Wants to Take YOUR Gun!”

I was alarmed. How could the United Nations Want to Take MY Gun when I don’t even have one? Are they planning to issue guns to everyone, just so they can take them away? Because THAT sure wouldn’t make any sense. Plus, I don’t want a gun in my house, even if it’s only long enough for the U.N. to take it away. Who knows how long they’ll leave it there before they come get it? It could be days, or even weeks, and in that time, plenty could go wrong, such as my roommate leaving dirty dishes in the sink FOR THE LAST TIME.

Upon checking the Web site referenced on the billboard — www.getusout.org — I learned what I should have known all along, which is that the John Birch Society is behind this. The John Birchers haven’t had much to do since communism stopped being a threat, though you shouldn’t say that in front of the John Birchers, because it will make them reply, “The communists just want you to THINK they’re no longer a threat!” The communists are in hiding, perhaps under the polar ice cap, with the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel and Bigfoot.

Without a strong target that actually exists, the Birchers have moved on to the United Nations. To hear them tell it, the U.N. is hell-bent on removing all the personal freedoms enjoyed by Americans. You want to own a gun? The U.N. will take it away. You want to have as many kids as you please? The U.N. will regulate your womb. You want to make a right turn on a red light? The U.N. will enforce needlessly strict traffic laws.

And yet, just to give you an idea of how sneaky the U.N. is, all you ever hear reported in the news is that they’ve deployed a task force or initiated a peace-keeping effort somewhere. All this secret, rights-stealing stuff they do never makes the news. This is probably because the news media is run by liberals, all of whom have sworn blood oaths to promote the U.N. agenda.

If you read that last sentence and thought, “It’s amusing that Mr. Snider (or perhaps you thought ‘Mr. Snyder,’ the way you spell it in your angry letters) has mocked one of the common complaints about the media by pretending to espouse it,” then you are on level ground. If you read it and thought, “It’s about time someone in the media admits there’s a conspiracy to keep the news liberal,” then you are a wacko.

Having worked at a handful of newspapers in my day, I can tell you that the notion of a deep media conspiracy is a fairy tale. Most newsrooms are so chaotic that the people who work in them can barely remember to wear pants on a daily basis; the idea that papers could cooperate with each other, and that they could all cooperate with TV news — which we consider the mentally challenged stepson of journalism — is ludicrous.

I think the paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists who come up with this stuff get off on being described as “paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists.” Persecution means justification: If no one believes them, that’s just further evidence of how deep the conspiracy runs.

Doesn’t anybody still believe that calmness is the best way of dealing with things? I’m sure there are pros and cons regarding our involvement in the United Nations, although I suspect the major beef some of the paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists have with the organization is that it accepts foreigners as members.

The U.N. is certainly a matter worth discussing. But to look at the hysteria on the Get Us Out Web site, you’d think it was a matter of life and death that must be acted upon NOW! Few things must be decided that hastily. Most things can wait a minute — at least until you’ve washed those dishes, anyway.

No Offense

0

This column occasionally makes people angry, if by “occasionally” we mean “all the time” and if by “people” we mean “sticks in the mud” and if by “angry” we mean “angry.”

One sentiment we hear very frequently from callers and letter-writers is that they usually enjoy “Snide Remarks” — but THIS TIME, I’ve gone too far. In other words, “I used to think you were funny, until you made fun of something I liked. Then you stopped being funny.”

This is actually not as absurd as it sounds. (At least, I hope it sounds absurd.) Most people don’t laugh when something hits close to home. Mel Brooks said, “Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when YOU fall into an open manhole and die.” If we feel too attached to the thing, we’re not as likely to find humor in it as we would if there were some distance.

Which is why, believe it or not, most of the things I say in this column are said with the assumption that most readers will agree with me, or at least partially agree with me. Enough to find the jokes funny, anyway. Think about it: If I wrote with the INTENTION of making everyone mad, well, where’s the humor in that? People don’t laugh when they’re angry. They holler and cry and misspell words.

But despite my best efforts, some columns upset a lot of people. So today, I’m only going to present opinions that absolutely EVERYONE will agree with. (Well, almost everyone. There’s always that one percent whose opinions don’t line up with anyone else’s, like the people who DIDN’T think it was silly when LaVerkin banned the U.N. We can do nothing to accommodate these people, except to back away slowly and not make any sudden moves.)

So what’s the deal with murderers? I don’t think we ought to be killing each other unless we have a really, really good reason. And if someone does kill someone else, then he (the killer) should have to stand trial and account for his actions.

Don’t you just hate when you order something at a restaurant, and then the waitress brings the WRONG THING? That drives me up the wall! I mean, hey: If I WANTED the chicken, I would have ORDERED the chicken!

Recently I was out driving when my car broke down. You buy a car, and you expect it to run properly, and then it breaks. Isn’t life just a kick in the pants?

Canadians, on a whole, are a friendly group of people. Hard-working, honest, patriotic — that’s the Canadian way.

Some people have issues with people from other countries moving to the United States and bringing their native languages and cultures with them. But you know what I think? I’m just glad I live in a country that people WANT to move to! You don’t see people immigrating to Afghanistan, do you? Except that misguided John Walker character, who might be a traitor and who might just be a troubled young man, but in either case, I’m glad he finally got a haircut!

Watching TV, I couldn’t help but notice that a lot of commercials are insulting to my intelligence. “BUT WAIT!” they yell at me. “THERE’S MORE!” OK, I’m waiting. Tell me what’s so great about your product, Mr. Commercial Man!

Say what you will about fast-food employees, but one thing’s for sure: French fries are one of the best snacks around.

I hope I have not offended anyone today. Next time, we’ll discuss why all Canadians should be rounded up and shot.

Maelstrom (French)

0

Denis Villeneuve’s French-Canadian “Maelstrom” is narrated by a fish. Why? Why not!

Actually, it sort of makes sense. The sly, understated morality play about guilt and the value of human life frequently comes back to water as a symbol, and the death of a fishmonger figures prominently in the plot.

Our scaly host introduces his tale as “a very pretty story.” Cut to an abortionist’s office, where we are treated to a rather graphic gynecological episode as Bibiane (Marie-Josee Croze) has an abortion. She’s a promiscuous gal, we soon learn, though this is her first visit to the office; her best friend (Stephanie Morganstern) has had two — “no, three,” she absent-mindedly corrects herself.

Bibiane feels some guilt and some residual morning sickness over the event, though her pal tells her not to. Guilt is useless, she says. What’s done is done. One nigh while driving in the rain, Bibiane hits the aforementioned fish guy with her car. Panicked, she leaves, unseen. The man later dies, and Bibiane realizes she’s responsible.

Now more guilty than ever, Bibiane can hardly cope with life. She leaves her job at a clothing store. She grows distant from her friends. Seeking to elude capture, she tries to push her car into the ocean, an act which turns into a last-minute half-hearted suicide attempt, too.

After she emerges, she meets Evian (Jean-Nicolas Verreault), who turns out to be the son of the dead man (whose murder was unsolved). They become lovers, but Bibiane still harbors terrible remorse, now complicated by her love for someone who, if he knew her secret, might reject her.

The film makes great use of music, particularly with the exaggeratedly operatic and bombastic strains heard when something especially dramatic happens. Villeneuve seems to take his subject matter seriously, but not without a certain healthy whimsy.

Some elements of the story are curiously unnecessary, however. Bibiane is revealed to be the daughter of someone famous, but that relates very little to the central theme. She is involved with her brother in some kind of business, too, but that also introduces more questions than it answers.

But the overall story is one of intriguing insight and emotion, well-acted by the cast and ambitiously directed by Villeneuve.

Storytelling

0

“Storytelling” is not a departure for Todd Solondz. If you liked his previous works, “Welcome to the Dollhouse” and “Happiness,” both of which were nearly brilliant and at times nearly unbearable to watch, then you will like this one.

It is not on a par with his previous efforts — largely because the envelope-pushing writer/director uses a lot of his time to respond to his critics, which is rarely as much fun for audiences as it is for auteurs.

The film is divided into two segments, labeled “Fiction and “Non-fiction,” which refers not to the movie (both segments are fictional), but to the types of stories being discussed.

The first is barely 30 minutes long and has already earned the most controversy — due to its graphic sex scene — despite being an underdeveloped story with more ideas than executions. It is about an embittered college professor, Mr. Scott (Robert Wisdom), a Pulitzer Prize winner who now teaches creative writing to half-motivated students who can’t write. Among them are Vi (Selma Blair) and her cerebral palsy-stricken boyfriend Marcus (Leo Fitzpatrick), who has written an autobiographical story that is utter crap.

After a fight with Marcus, Vi goes to a bar, where she encounters the cool, forbidding — but exotic — Mr. Scott. The evening turns into aggressive sex, with unsettling racial overtones, about which Vi writes a story that no one believes.

Part two, the entirely unrelated “Non-fiction,” is about a loser filmmaker named Toby (Paul Giamatti), who wants to make a documentary about the current condition of the American high school student. He chooses as his subject New Jersey burnout Scooby Livingston (Mark Webber), a kid with no ambition except to be a TV talk show host, and even that he pursues only casually. His ineffective Jewish parents (John Goodman, Julie Hagerty), all-American brother Brady (Noah Fleiss) and precocious little brother Mikey (Jonathan Osser) become part of the film, too, and the question becomes how sympathetic Toby is going to be toward his subjects.

This becomes the question about Solondz, too. As is often the case with his work, we are often unsure whether we’re allowed to laugh or not. Where is the line between funny and not funny? Usually, it’s a matter of distance: If we feel too attached to the characters we won’t find their tragedies amusing. Solondz dares to introduce real, honest characters, and then have awful things happen to them for the sake of comedy. And, as Scooby points out, it doesn’t matter, as long as the movie’s a success.

But is that true? After Vi reads her story to the class — an account of what actually happened to her, mind you — one of her outraged classmates says, “Why do people have to write about such ugly characters?” Which of course is one of the chief complaints leveled against Solondz. Similarly, the “Non-fiction” segment suggests that sympathy for one’s characters is irrelevant, as long as your film can get the attention — positive or negative — that it needs in order to make money. Does Solondz really believe that, or is he mocking the argument against him by pretending to agree with it?

Seen just as a movie, “Storytelling” is angst-filled and uncomfortable, and reasonably entertaining. The “Fiction” segment should either be fleshed out into an entire film or cut altogether, but the “Non-fiction” one stands very well. It is ultimately the more disturbing of the two, if that’s a selling point to you.

It is hard, however, to see “Storytelling” as just a movie, given the amount of time Solondz takes to deal with his critics. It’s self-indulgent, really: The guy’s made two films, and already he’s doing a film about his own beliefs. And it raises another question: Does pointing out your own flaws before the critics can get to it make the flaws OK?

The Count of Monte Cristo

0

“The Count of Monte Cristo” is a dazzling, old-fashioned adventure story that brings the Alexandre Dumas novel roaringly to life. For an hour or so, that is. Then it turns into dull Hollywood hokum.

It is directed by Kevin Reynolds, the man behind 1991’s “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,” which was similarly half-and-half, quality-wise. (Remember how great Alan Rickman was, and the sword-fighting? And remember how terrible Kevin Costner was?)

“Monte Cristo” is a grand story, and one deserving of a good Hollywood treatment. It posits that revenge is not altogether a bad thing, if it’s justified — though the film version makes sure the revengees are thoroughly despicable, too, just so there’s no ambiguity about whether the revenger has the right to punish them.

Edmund Dantes (James Caviezel, from “Frequency”) is an innocent sailor-merchant with a gorgeous fiancee Mercedes (Dagmara Dominczyk) and a best friend Fernand Mondego (Guy Pearce, from “Memento”). They have all three been friends since childhood, giving Fernand plenty of time to develop an unhealthy jealousy over Edmund’s good fortune in the love-interest department.

Fueled by this jealousy and aided by snively politician Villefort (James Frain), Fernand falsely accuses Edmund of treason and has him shipped off to the forbidding Cheateau D’If, whence no prisoner returns. While there, Edmund encounters Faria (Richard Harris), a priest who educates him, trains him and eventually helps him escape. Now Edmund wants revenge against all those who did him wrong.

The first half is, as mentioned, highly enjoyable, with character strokes that give it life. Edmund is too trusting and even naive. Fernand is very wealthy, yet jealous of dirt-poor Edmund’s happiness. These are interesting touches.

They are almost completely ignored in the second half.

The turning point is Edmund’s prison break. Almost immediately, he gains a sidekick, the ludicrously anachronistic Jacopo, played embarrassingly by Luis Guzman (who was so good in “Traffic”). Even aside from that, the movie descends into formulaic silliness: Apparently, if your appearance changes in no way other than growing a goatee, no one will recognize you.

It’s a mistake for Reynolds (and first-time screenwriter Jay Wolpert) to ditch the character traits established in the first hour, especially since they are replaced with nothing. As he plans his various revenges, Edmund is not vicious or calculating enough to be a creepy dark hero of vengeance, but neither is he outrageous enough to be funny. He just muddles along, his motivations unclear and his plans equally fuzzy. In prison, he seemed cynical and hardened by the experience. When he gets out, he’s just a moody guy.

And poor Fernand goes from being a complex best friend/worst enemy character to being just a plain old jerk who cheats on his wife.

Dagmara Dominczyk barely registers as Edmund’s beloved; one wonders why seeing her again was such a priority to him.

There is some fine swashbuckling action, and several moments of tension and excitement. But it is a disappointing enactment of a fine story, and it feels far longer than it is. (A friend of mine who loved it said he thought it was about 2 1/2 hours — over-guessing by 30 minutes.) Dumas deserves better.

The Mothman Prophecies

0

As movies with supernatural themes go, “The Mothman Prophecies” is all over the place. There are unexplained occurrences, strange visions, and prophetic hallucinations — all of which usually get their own movies, without being forced to share space with other phenomena.

People who are dead make phone calls, and townspeople encounter actual physical beings — again, a contradiction in movie terms. Usually, there is either an actual monster, or it’s in people’s heads, but not both.

This doesn’t hurt “The Mothman Prophecies,” exactly, but it doesn’t help, either. Were it not for director Mark Pellington’s talent for eerie visuals and creepy sound effects, you’d probably notice that the film is almost devoid of focus.

What is scaring these people? Is it real or not? What does it want? Most suspense thrillers answer these questions, in one way or another, but this one emphasizes its “based on actual events” origin and leaves many things unexplained. As far as we can tell, the thing — whatever it is — just wants to mess with our heads. And so does the movie.

Fortunately, it does a good job of it. You may not care about the unresolved issues, because the film gives you such a good case of the heebie-jeebies.

Richard Gere, as good-naturedly wooden as ever, is a Washington Post reporter named John Klein. His wife (Debra Messing) dies early in the film of a brain tumor, but not before seeing a couple weird things. Two years later, John mysteriously finds himself in Point Pleasant, W.V., where reports of the same kind of weird visions abound.

The local cop, Connie (Laura Linney), is overwhelmed at being 1) a police officer and 2) everyone’s friend. She’s heard all the stories, and they’re freaking her out. Local unstable nut Gordon (Will Patton) reports a voice in his bathroom sink telling him, “Ninety-nine will die,” the night before a plane crash kills 99 people.

John is riding down the supernatural highway, too. One of the film’s more intense moments has him on the telephone with someone purporting to be the monster (or whatever), reading his mind and freaking him out. The monster (or whatever) even has a name, which conjures images of the bat-like creature people have reported seeing, standing at a pay-phone, playing psychic to a newspaper reporter.

On the screen, it doesn’t play out nearly as silly as it sounds on paper. Gere is strong in the lead role, Laura Linney has the right blend of terror and bemusement, and director Pellington knows how to put on the scares. Quick cuts and odd camera angles help the film drip with atmosphere, even if the story itself barely holds water.

A Walk to Remember

0

The title “A Walk to Remember” refers to the fact that the movie is based on a book called “A Walk to Remember.” Other than that, it has no relevance, because there’s not much walking in the movie. There might be some in the theater, though, as people become overwhelmed by the gooey, romantic sentimentalism and walk out before it’s over.

This thoroughly unoriginal puddle of claptrap aims right at the heart of teen-age girls — the ONLY people who should attempt to watch it. (Even they might find it indistinguishable from other movies they’ve seen.)

It is about a rebellious teen-age boy named Landon Carter (Shane West) who gets a kid nearly killed in a hazing rite and subsequently has to do community service. He is also sentenced by his high school principal to be in the spring musical, which is an odd sort of punishment if you ask me.

Naturally, this boy with a bad attitude and no previous acting experience gets the lead, and playing opposite him is Jamie Sullivan (Mandy Moore), the Pollyanna-ish preacher’s daughter with the voice of an angel and the virtue of a saint. They are opposites, which means they will fall in love.

(The musical they’re in, by the way, was written by a student and apparently has only one song — which Jamie sings, and which is accompanied by a piano and an invisible strings section.)

The romance puts Landon in hot water with his troublemaker friends, and rouses the ire of Jamie’s Bible-thumping dad (Peter Coyote). Then the movie turns weepy and drastic. I won’t spoil it for you; I’ll let the movie spoil itself.

It is written by Karen Janszen (who also wrote “Free Willy 2”), based on the Nicholas Sparks novel. Give credit to the film for portraying religious faith in a positive light without being preachy, and for showing abstinence before marriage as a reasonable option. Those qualities are rare in film, and they are to be applauded.

Good intentions are not enough, however, to make a movie worthwhile. This one is certainly well-meaning, but it’s also simple-minded and contrived. The acting is second-rate and the direction (by Adam Shankman, who gave us “The Wedding Planner”) is merely adequate. It is a movie to forget.

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist

0

“Kung Pow: Enter the Fist” has a marvelous premise but fails completely due to some fundamental misunderstandings of the ways of comedy.

The idea is that Steve Oedekerk got a hold of a long-forgotten 1976 martial-arts film called “Tiger & Crane Fists.” He redubbed the dialogue, shot some new scenes, and digitally inserted himself into the action, thus creating a movie that is a parody of karate flicks in general, and a “Mystery Science Theater”-style mocking of this one specifically.

The problem is that I only know all this because I read the press kit. The movie itself does not make it clear, and how is the audience supposed to laugh along with your concept if it doesn’t know what the concept is?

Yes, the movie begins with a title card telling us that “Tiger & Crane Fists” has been given new voices and soundtrack. But then the very first scene has a CGI baby kung fu fighting two bad guys — a scene that obviously has been made from scratch, not rescued from a cellar and redubbed. Our assumption, then, is that they were kidding about the “new voices and soundtrack” thing, and that they’ve made an all-new movie — intentionally bad — and put in silly dialogue.

But then we have scenes that really DO look old, and where the dubbed dialogue makes fun of the action. For example, a man’s robe keeps changing colors from one shot to the next, and the dubbed voice of the man speaking to him makes reference to it. Are they making fun of an actual old movie? If so, funny. Or did they make a new movie and make it bad on purpose so they could make fun of it? If so, not funny, because they’re setting up straw men just so they can knock them down. Not knowing which is the case, the audience is left to puzzle things out and determine whether this is good comedy or bad comedy.

I gave it another chance:

6/8/2011: Re-Views: ‘Kung Pow: Enter the Fist’ (2002)

The audience has to understand the premise. It’s OK to lie to the audience, but it has to be clear that you’re lying. Conan O’Brien has a feature where he shows us “actual ads” from actual newspapers. He insists these are real advertisements, and that you couldn’t make this stuff up. And then it’s obvious from the first example that they ARE made up, and that one of the things he’s mocking is the late-night talk-show staple of showing humorous newspaper clippings (like Jay Leno’s “Headlines”).

“Kung Pow” begins by telling us it’s an old movie redubbed, but then includes obviously new scenes seamlessly integrated with the old ones. They’ve done such an ingenious job of putting new footage with old that they’ve undermined their own comedy.

And then there’s another problem: The redubbed dialogue isn’t very funny. There are moments, yes — the aforementioned robe-changing bit is good, assuming you catch on that this really IS an old scene — but there are far more instances of strained, wimpy humor. Having the mouths out of sync with the words is funny … but not forever. Giving the characters silly voices is funny … but not forever. Nearly every joke goes beyond the realm of humor and into the realm of being over-done. It’s the perfect example of a movie that should have been 15 minutes long.

Steve Oedekerk wrote “Patch Adams,” for which he should not be forgiven. Why he was given free reign over this project — he wrote, directed, starred and produced — is beyond me. With some more brains involved, it could have turned into a wonderful, wacky movie. Someone should have been there to tell Steve he was completely screwing it up.

Beijing Bicycle (Chinese)

0

It is a repetitive plot that does the most damage to “Beijing Bicycle,” an otherwise very promising film that examines the class struggles of the Chinese people.

This is something Chinese filmmakers have not often examined until recently, and for those interested in such things, the scrutiny of inner-Beijing life is well done by director Xiaoshuai Wang and his writers Peggy Chiao, Hsiao-ming Hsu and Danian Tang.

The hero is Guei (Lin Cui), a boy from the country who has gotten a job as a bicycle messenger — “the modern rickshaw boys” — in the big city. His bicycle belongs to the company until he has earned enough to pay for it; unfortunately, it gets stolen before he can reach that point. Without a bike, he doesn’t have a job, and without a job, he has nothing. He must find the bike.

Meanwhile, the bike’s new owner, Jian (Li Bin), is a poor kid whose father had to pay his sister’s school tuition instead of buying Jian the bike he promised him. Whether Jian stole the bike or bought it from the thief is not immediately clear, but his possession of it boosts his status among his hoodlum school friends, and helps him impress the girl he’s after.

Both Guei and Jian, then, need the bike in their own ways, though obviously the bicycle’s rightful owner is the one we are morally obligated to root for. Helping that is Lin Cui’s very sympathetic, sad performance as the loneliest kid in Beijing. Li Bin is no slouch as Jian, either, perfectly executing the frustration and rage of his troubled character.

The back-and-forth between the boys eventually adds up to something, but not before seesawing more than it needs to. It will test the patience of most viewers, and with good reason: The film gives little indication it’s building to anything. It is rewarding if you can stick with it, but perhaps not enough to leave an overall favorable impression.

Gus Mileage

0

The story so far: Eric’s car was towed; the Park City Police Department charged him $80 and then had to refund the money when they realized they didn’t have the car; the guy who DID have the car didn’t want to release it this late at night, even though he had towed it only an hour earlier; Eric finally persuaded him to do it, but at great cost to his own dignity.

I took a taxi to the impound lot, which was 12 miles from Park City. After 20 minutes of standing in the sub-freezing midnight air, I saw Gus (names have been changed) pull up in his tow truck. I will describe him only by saying that if “tow-truck driver” conjures a particular image in your mind, that image probably looks like Gus.

Knowing how unwilling he had been to release the car this late at night — and forever shall I give honor and glory to Gus for shining his mercy upon me! — I treated him with “kid gloves,” as they say, meaning I did not want to touch him with my bare hands. I got out the $80 to pay him, and he started telling me about how the normal cost was $165, but then there was also storage on top of it — $25 a day, and technically, it was now a new day — and I assumed he was leading up to “… but since I told you $80 on the phone, it will just be $80.”

It was silly of me to assume that, of course. He said he was generous enough to leave off the storage fees — may the name of Gus be forever praised! — and the final total would be $165. I pointed out as gingerly as I could that in the 15 minutes I’d spent on the phone with him, begging him to please let me have my car tonight, he had never indicated the cost would be more than the $80 I’d been told initially. He replied by pointing out that he could not accept a credit card or a check.

Silently, I wondered why tow-truck drivers assume people carry around huge wads of cash with them. Vocally, I told him he’d have to drive me to a cash machine.

It occurred to me that Gus could have charged whatever he wanted, and I’d have been powerless to stop him. “Well, I’m gonna have to charge you a standing-up fee, plus a putting-on-my-coveralls fee,” he could have said. “Oh, and there’s a $25 jerk fee that I have to charge you for my being a jerk. You’re lucky I don’t charge you double, as much of a jerk as I’m being.”

Anyway, we rode in Gus’ truck to the nearest ATM, three miles away. Out of the blue, Gus said, “I bought a new bed.” I was amazed to hear this. I had been searching all my life for the topic of conversation that I was least interested in, and now I had found it! A new bed purchased by an obstinate journeyman was precisely the thing in all the universe that I couldn’t possibly have cared less about. And now I was talking about it!

I was afraid if I appeared uninterested in Gus’ new bed that he would change his mind again on how much money I owed him. (“I’m also gonna have to charge you a $25 not-caring-about-my-new-bed fee.”) So I said, “Oh, yeah?” I even raised my eyebrows, the way interested people do.

After getting the money, we went back to the impound lot and Gus released the car. Unfortunately, the evening’s snowfall made it impossible to get the car out from the corner of the yard without — that’s right — being towed. I had to be towed out of the tow yard. (Gus did not charge me for this; in fact, he found it as sadly amusing as I did.)

A caller Wednesday morning said this to me: “I’d just like to know why no one ever puts that them people that stink and smell like smoke comes out and gets people off the roads in the middle of the night, ice-cold, hot, whatever the circumstances are, and they’re there to save everyone else, but they never put that in their little columns.”

I could not have expressed it better myself. The guys who come to your rescue when you’ve broken down perform a valuable service. The companies that do that sort of work exclusively have my respect as hard-working laborers. It’s the ones under contract with cities and police departments to take cars without permission that need to be scrutinized. Whether the towing was justified is irrelevant. The outrageous pricing, the lack of a means for redress, and the odd rules about when cars can be released (seems like if they can tow it at night, they can release it at night) are all due for some examination.

And I’m sorry it took two columns to tell this story. It was only going to be one, but then I had to charge you a one-column reading fee.

Towed You So

0

If you’ve been to Park City during the Sundance Film Festival, then your car has been towed. During the time when the most people visit the town, that’s when the city decides no one’s allowed to park there. It’s like inviting guests over for dinner and then setting the front door on fire before they arrive. Sometimes Park City builds new parking lots just to declare no one can park in them.

For the record, I was not parked illegally when I was towed Friday night. I was parked in an officially designated Sundance parking lot. Allegedly, I was “blocking an entrance,” which I honestly do not understand, since I entered through the entrance, drove another 100 feet or so, and then parked parallel to everyone else. Perhaps what the tow guy meant was not that I was “blocking an entrance,” but that he “wanted to steal $170 from someone.”

I tried to explain to the tow guy, whose name was Gus (names have been changed), that my car should not have been towed. But I didn’t try very hard. For one thing, I feared explaining something sufficiently for a tow-truck driver to understand would tax the limits of my vocabulary and reasoning skills, since tow-truck drivers tend to be that unfortunate combination of 1) stubborn and 2) stupid. For another thing, never in the history of mankind has a tow-truck driver said, “OK, you’re right. We shouldn’t have towed you. There will be no charge, and I apologize for the inconvenience.” If a tow-truck driver’s brain ever even attempted to combine those words in that order, his head would explode. (Raise your hand if you would like to see this.)

Gus used airtight logic in explaining things to me. He said, “You must have been parked illegally, because you got towed.” In other words: “I towed you because you were parked illegally. How do I know you were parked illegally? Because I towed you.” Similarly, all tow-truck drivers smell like a combination of cigarettes, B.O., and engine grease. How do you know they smell like a combination of cigarettes, B.O., and engine grease? Because they’re tow-truck drivers.

But I have gotten ahead of myself. Before I even talked to Gus, I had to talk to the nice folks at the Park City Police Department. They believed the car to be in their possession, so I paid them the $80 and waited for an officer to arrive and show me where the impound lot was. Then we discovered that in fact, PCPD had turned the job over to a private company, Summit Service, and it was in their lot.

Fine. No problem. As long as SOMEONE had the car, I didn’t really care who. (Well, within reason. I wouldn’t want Drew Barrymore driving it, for example, or Hitler.) I called Summit on the phone and was told by Gus — you remember Gus — that since it was after hours, he could not release the vehicle. I would have to come back the next day, he said, and when I told him I had no place to stay in Park City overnight, he told me that, well, then, I shouldn’t have gotten my car towed. That’s when I tried to explain I hadn’t INTENDED for the car to be towed, and that it SHOULDN’T have been towed, but you know how far I got with that.

Mind you, Gus had towed the car only an hour earlier, so he wasn’t opposed to working after hours. It was working after hours when it might actually HELP someone that he was opposed to. Stealing a car, fine. Giving it back again, no.

(And it is stealing, by the way. If your kid were on my property without my permission and I responded by locking him in my closet until you paid a large amount of money — cash only, please, and the amount might change according to my whims — you would have me arrested.)

After much humiliation and begging and pleading on my part, I finally persuaded Gus to meet me at the impound lot and release the car. He told me to get my $80 back from PCPD, because I would need it to pay him. He sounded like he was the greatest martyr the world had ever known for doing this. He did not specifically SAY that he thought I should teach my children to pray in his name, but it was implied.

But there is more to the story. The $80 turned into a lot more, it was really cold outside, and Gus told me about his new bed. Join us Friday for the harrowing conclusion to this greasy story.

Snow Dogs

0

For some reason, Disney keeps making really, really crappy live-action films. Someone must be encouraging them. Oh, that’s right: It’s YOU. You morons, you Americans, who keep paying money to see things like “102 Dalmatians” and “Inspector Gadget.” “Snow Dogs” is YOUR fault, and I want you all to get together and somehow figure out a way to give me back the two hours I spent watching it. Because I HAVE to see the movies; I’m a movie critic. I don’t pay to get in, so I’m not supporting them financially. What’s YOUR excuse?

What’s that? “It’s cute,” you say? As if “cute” is reason enough to plunk down $7? I’ve been told by some that I’m “cute.” If I walked up to you on the street, would you give me $7 to be “cute” for a while? Because I’ve got the time, and I could use the money.

“Snow Dogs” is about an actor named Cuba Gooding Jr., and how he won an Oscar for “Jerry Maguire,” and then decided his next career move should be to only appear in stupid films like “Chill Factor” and “Men of Honor,” and that maybe he should occupy the five most irrelevant minutes of screen time in “Pearl Harbor,” and that to top it off he should play Black Guy Who’s Out of Place in Alaska in “Snow Dogs.”

He plays a Miami dentist named Ted who learns that he’s adopted, and that his birth mother is now dead, and she left him a team of dogs and a cabin in the frozen wasteland of Alaska. So he goes there, and then he slips on the ice a lot. And I do mean A LOT. Disney has been making slapstick B-grade live-action comedies for decades (“That Darn Cat,” anyone? “The Shaggy D.A.,” perhaps?), but seldom has the physical humor been this annoying. I can accept that a man who has spent his entire life in Florida would be ill at ease in the snow; what I can’t accept is that he would slip into this many predicaments, and remained as good-naturedly bug-eyed as he does.

Michael Bolton makes an amusing cameo. James Coburn is irascible as Ted’s natural father. The dogs ARE cute. But good heavens, isn’t there something better to take the tiny tots to?

Italian for Beginners (Danish)

0

There is death all around in “Italian for Beginners.” It’s at the periphery, mostly — main characters’ parents or spouses die, not the main characters themselves — but it’s there, affecting everyone, influencing their behavior, changing their attitudes.

And yet, this is primarily a comedy, and a sweet, happy one at that. One of the sweetest, happiest movies I’ve seen, in fact. It’s a Dogme film — meaning it was shot without any special effects, camera tricks or artificial lighting — and it’s one of the few such films where the minimalism doesn’t become the focus. It is a story well-served by a no-frills attitude.

To Copenhagen comes Andreas (Anders W. Berthelsen), a recent widower who is filling in for Rev. Wredmann (Bent Mejding), who was suspended apparently for being obnoxious and weird. (I, for one, would have enjoyed seeing more of the strange Reverend, as he is very funny.)

At the hotel where he is staying, Andreas meets some locals. Jorgen Mortensen (Peter Gantzler) — who is rarely Jorgen or Mr. Mortensen, but always “Jorgen Mortensen” — is impotent and sad and in love with a lovely Italian waitress named Giulia (Sara Indrio Jensen). His best friend is Halvfinn (Lars Kaalund), an impertinent young fellow whom Jorgen Mortensen has been instructed to fire. (“Don’t put the teaspoon on the tablecloth, you pig!” Halvfinn yells at a customer in the hotel restaurant.)

Halvfinn, meanwhile, is entranced by Karen (Ann Eleonora Jorgensen), a hairstylist with a small salon and a dying mother. And a clumsy bakery employee named Olympia (Anette Stovelbaek), whose father has just died, is here, too, for Andreas to fall in love with.

Several of these characters know each other because they attend the same Italian class at the community center. When the instructor dies (I wasn’t kidding about the death thing here), Halvfinn — the only one fluent in Italian — takes over.

Italian is often synonymous with love, and the ideas are interchangeable in the title: These people are novices in love as much as they are in speaking Italian. They are ordinary people fumbling through life and trying to connect to each other. The film’s director, Lone Scherfig, said that while most American movies make the audience want to be the characters, “Italian for Beginners” is the opposite: “These characters, they want to be you.”

This is an astute observation. We sympathize with everyone — from Olympia’s haplessness to Halvfinn’s defensive rudeness — but we don’t pity them. In fact, there’s much to admire in the way they muddle around, earnestly trying to find happiness — and in the way they succeed.

Sundance Report: Short Cuts

0

On Tuesday, I took a moment to make fun of Robert Redford. Specifically, I called him a “leathery midget.” I fear this epithet may have been taken the wrong way. I only meant that his skin is textured like that classiest of classy materials, leather, and also that he is a midget. Seriously, he’s like 4 feet tall.

I have a great, non-sexual love for Robert Redford. I think he’s a fine actor and a decent director, and of course he deserves movie sainthood for founding the Sundance Film Festival, now entering its third decade and growing stronger each year, especially if strength is determined by counting the number of movies about lesbians, which it is.

All week long, I’ve kidded the festival, and made fun of the movies that are low in quality and/or moral standards. And while Sundance has its share of bad movies, and filthy movies, and movies that don’t make any sense, and movies with more style than substance, and movies that make me wish death upon the people responsible for them, it also has more than its share of GOOD movies. Some of the best films I’ve ever seen have been at Sundance.

It is vigorous work, all this movie-watching. Sometimes I see five movies in one day. By the time I get home, they have all run together in my mind, and I feel like I’ve watched one 10-hour movie (specifically, “Titanic”).

But then something will come along that makes me glad to be in Park City in January (which, in terms of weather, is like being in hell in August). Some movie will remind me why I ever loved movies in the first place, and restore my faith in the art of film. Movies can be powerful, inspiring tools that can make us better people and benefit our society.

But enough of that, because I want to complain about short films. Here’s my opinion on short films: I don’t like them. Either make a movie, or don’t. I guess if your story isn’t detailed enough to justify feature length, I don’t mind you keeping it short. Better to be too short than to be too long, in terms of movies, anyway. But some shorts don’t HAVE stories. They’re just random images of colors or objects or whatever. This is where a director said, “Well, I don’t have any ideas for stories, and I don’t have any actors, but I do have a camera and Adobe Photoshop. Maybe I can just film some random stuff.” Which might be fine for, you know, 30 seconds. But then they make seven-minute shorts in which NOTHING OCCURS. I used to think I could handle anything, no matter how dull, if it was only for a couple minutes. Then I tried to take a statistics class in college and learned otherwise. The shorts thing only confirms it.

The redeeming value of the weird shorts is that the directors are always at the public screenings to introduce them. If you think movie people in general are strange, you should see the ones who make the short films. They’re very enthusiastic and animated, and they seem unaware that the audience is watching their films and saying, “This is bizarre and stupid.” Whoever’s encouraging these filmmakers, knock it off.

Whoever’s encouraging those other filmmakers — you know, the ones who can actually tell stories and entertain people — keep it up. You make Park City a great place to be. In January, anyway. The only way I’d ever go there in February is if the Olympics were coming.

Showdown at the 5-Ring Ranch: Seven Bribes for Olympic Brothers

0

“Showdown at the 5-Ring Ranch: Seven Bribes for Olympic Brothers” is the Desert Star Playhouse’s Olympic-themed musical/spoof/melodrama, and it boils its comedy down to the basics: Make a reference to something familiar to the audience, and the audience laughs.

Utahns are holding a rodeo to celebrate their heritage. “If they wanted to celebrate their heritage, why wouldn’t they just have a Jell-O bake-off?” asks one of the characters. Most of the jokes in this particular show are as simple (read: obvious) as that one, though some are more clever, and all are delivered with enthusiasm and flair.

It’s set in the Old West version of Utah, sort of, except that they’re about to host the Olympics. The bad guy, Mitt Ornery (Steven Fehr), owns most of the land in town but has his eye on the 5-Ring Ranch, owned by a fiesty old coot named Grandpa Bidwell (Scott Holman, who also directed and adapted the script from an original piece written by Michael Claridge).

Grandpa won’t sell, and his grandkids, Chet (Christopher Glade) and Virginia (Holly Braithwaite), back him up 100 percent.

So Mitt and his brassy, dim-witted henchwoman Sally (Arika Schockmel) — she’s the requisite Desert Star character who misunderstands words and gets stuck under things a lot — enlist the help of Rosie O’Grady (Kathleen Richardson), who runs a tavern, to force the 5-Ring Ranch out of business. This includes hiring a non-bathing cattle-rustler named Skunk (Holman again).

Meanwhile, Grandpa’s ranch hand Dave Johnson (Joel R. Wallin) is in love with Virginia, who is waiting for a white knight to sweep her off her feet.

Holman is all crazy energy, as usual, as Grandpa and Skunk. Wallin, making his second appearance at the Desert Star, contributes some nice musical moments, most notably his “L-O-V-E” song sung to Virginia. (“E is every hour/That I’ve lurked outside your shower.”)

The cast’s eagerness to ad-lib and tendency to break character make for some amusing surprises. Monday night, the biggest laughs came from Holly Braithwaite having a giggling fit and Holman reminding her, “WE say funny things, and THEY laugh,” referring to the audience. “If you’re going to enjoy yourself this much, I want you to start paying $12.”

Should you go? It’s worth about $12 for an evening of silliness and slapstick.

Sundance Report: Obsession

0

I love Parker Posey. She’s been in many good movies, including “Waiting for Guffman,” which was the best comedy of the ’90s and one of the best comedies of the past 1,000 years. She was in “The House of Yes,” which contains the only good Freddie Prinze Jr. performance on record. (Scientists believe this was an anomaly that will not occur again in our lifetimes.) I can understand how John Hinckley felt with his obsession for Jodie Foster: If I thought for a moment that Parker Posey wanted me to assassinate someone, I would totally do it.

One of the reasons a person like me goes to the Sundance Film Festival is to see the latest Parker Posey film. She is the undisputed Queen of Independent Films. This year she was in “Personal Velocity,” a chick flick that I, being non-chick in nature, did not find terribly useful. Nonetheless, the acting from her, Fairuza Balk and Kyra Sedgwick is for to make one happy.

You can imagine my childlike wonderment and delight, then, when a publicist for the movie called and asked if I wanted to participate in a round-table interview with the three stars. I said I most certainly did, which was actually only one-third true: I wanted to interview Parker Posey. I couldn’t care less about Kyra Sedgwick or Fairuza Balk, both of which sound like geographic terms from “Lord of the Rings.” (“You must cross the Bridge of Fairuza Balk over into the Land of Kyra Sedgwick.”)

There were five other semi-journalists there, some of them even less qualified than myself. Parker looked casually sassy in a baggy off-the-shoulder sweater and blue jeans. She is pencil-thin but well-proportioned. I don’t recall whether Kyra and Fairuza were wearing clothes. (Actually, I remember Fairuza — who reminds me of the Goth chicks I was afraid of in high school — had well over 1 million rings and bracelets.)

The journalists who were not me dominated the conversation, asking questions about the movie. Kyra and Fairuza talked a lot; Parker, while endlessly bubbly and friendly, seemed least interested in the discussion. The format did not allow for a lot of individual questions — they were there to talk about the movie they’re in together — and so queries as to whether Parker Posey, specifically, would marry me seemed inappropriate.

I did ask Parker — I called her Parker — what she planned to do to stop Christina Ricci from dethroning her as Queen of Independent Films. (The fearsome, bug-eyed Ricci has three films at Sundance this year, while Parker has only one.) She jokingly said, “Oh, I’m lying awake at night worrying about it. Christina and I are going to meet and work something out.” I asked if there would be a fight, and she said I should stop projecting my male fantasies onto her. Then her cellphone rang, and she answered it, “Hi, Christina.” It wasn’t really Christina, but man, what a great joke. I laughed until a year from now.

We also got to interview the writer/director of “Personal Velocity,” Rebecca Miller. She is the daughter of Arthur Miller, who was the greatest American playwright of the 20th century. I asked her whether being the daughter of a bigshot has more advantages or disadvantages, and she said she can’t estimate how much difference it makes, because she has never NOT been Arthur Miller’s daughter. She implied she wasn’t there to talk about Arthur Miller, which meant I had to throw out my entire list of questions, which included: How is Arthur Miller? And: Can you get me Arthur Miller’s autograph? (It is just as well, I suppose; I couldn’t remember whether he’s alive or dead, and I was fearful of using the wrong verb tense when I talked about him.)

The famous people were all very pleasant, as famous people tend to be when they’re in carefully controlled, media-oriented environments. Not a lot of insight came out of the interviews, except that all three cast members and the director think “Personal Velocity” is a great movie. I disagree, but that won’t stop me from seeing it again and memorizing the Parker Posey parts.

Sundance Report: Dressed to Kill

0

So far I’ve seen two self-referential movies at Sundance. One was a documentary about philosopher Jacques Derrida that tells the story of Jacques Derrida while also telling the story of how the documentary about Jacques Derrida came to be. The other was “The Laramie Project,” which is based on a play, and the play is partly about how the authors wrote the play. Imagine if “Hamlet” didn’t just tell the story of Hamlet, but also told the story of how Shakespeare happened to write “Hamlet.” (As if “Hamlet” weren’t long enough already.)

And so, in the true Sundance Film Festival spirit of experimentation, and of copying things you’ve seen other people do, this column will be self-referential. It will be a column, but it will also be ABOUT the column.

During Sundance, Park City’s Main Street is the place to be if you want to see a lot of other people who want to see celebrities. The celebrities themselves, I don’t know where they are. They tend to blend in with the commoners, because everyone — famous people and peons alike — dresses exactly the same. Everyone looks like they don’t know whether to watch a movie or go skiing, like they could walk into a room and buy either popcorn or a lift ticket.

(Originally, that line ended with “watch a movie or go skiing,” but I felt like it needed another clause to drive the point home. Then I figured I needed some material on cellphones, since they’re so prominent at the festival. That material is coming up now.)

Cellphones are part of the Sundance uniform, of course. If you cannot afford a cellphone, one will be appointed for you. It’s ironic, really, given that Park City has cellphone reception worse than what you would get on the moon. Of course, it’s ironic that Park City would be home to a film festival when there are only three actual movie screens in the town, but irony is something you get used to with Sundance, since it’s the favorite literary device of all the angsty Gen-Xers who make the movies.

But back to the cellphones: Everyone talks on them all the time. The latest trend is the headsets, where you trade the hassle of holding the phone in your hand with the hassle of looking like a Gap employee. (Why do the Gap employees need headsets, anyway? What goes on in a Gap store that requires all personnel to be in communication with each other at all times? Are they launching nuclear-powered chinos back there, or activating a doomsday sweater? Is there a show going on? Is one of them the stage manager? (“Ready, pants … pants, go.”) (Are you allowed to include a parenthetical remark within another parenthetical remark?))

Wow, what a nightmare of punctuation THAT was. In technical writing, you use brackets [like this] for parentheses-within-parentheses. I don’t know what the rule is for newspapers. The rule is probably just not to do parentheses-within-parentheses. But in the spirit of Sundance, I am breaking the rules. I am also talking a lot about myself, which is also in the spirit of Sundance.

You have to look the part, and nowhere is that more true than at Sundance. Cellphones, black leather jackets, coffee-oriented beverages — it’s all part of The Look. With it, you’re part of the crowd, whether you’re a director, actor or just a regular ol’ movie-goer. Without it, you’re just a loser. (Will I offend my fellow losers by pretending not to be one of them? That is the ongoing question with this column.)

Sundance Report: The Ten Commandments

0

People often ask me, “How do I get to Sundance?” I give them the same answer as the New Yorker who was asked how to get to Carnegie Hall: What am I, the tourist board?

But seriously. Many filmmakers try to get their films into the Sundance Film Festival, but it requires skill, such as remembering not to say “film” four times in one sentence. You have to have a keen eye as a director, and as a writer, you’ll need a profanity dictionary.

Films are selected by a committee. These people are very committed to the Sundance Film Festival; why, they wear black leather jackets all year long, not just for 11 days in January. The selection process is arduous. The committee members watch films, have extensive debates, and apparently smoke a great deal of crack to determine which films are truly in the Sundance spirit.

Sometimes, the decision is easy to make. For example, this year’s festival includes a movie called “Love in the Time of Money.” It is not a very good movie. If someone gave you a video of it, you would tape over it. “West Wing,” maybe, or “Friends.” But this plucky little film had something working to its advantage: Its executive producer is Robert Redford, the leathery midget who founded Sundance and who I’m sure exerted no pressure whatsoever on the selection committee. (With each passing year, it becomes less likely Mr. Redford will ever submit to an interview with me.)

Short of having the founder executive-produce your film, what can you, the aspiring filmmaker, do to ensure your movie is deemed worthy to play at Sundance? Here are the Ten Commandments of independent filmmaking, as handed down to Robert Redford on Mt. Sundance.

* Thou shalt be “edgy” and push envelopes. Specifically, thou shalt have at least one gay person per movie.

* Thou shalt not allow traditional two-parent families in thy movies, unless a) the parents hateth each other, b) one of the parents beeth a pedophile, or c) the mother decideth half-way through that behold, she is a lesbian.

* If a film existeth that hath too many lesbians, the Sundance committee hath not seen it.

* Thou shalt include in thy cast people like Parker Posey or Christina Ricci; behold, if thou casteth Adam Sandler or Cheech Marin, thou might as well throw thy movie in the Dumpster — yea, verily, in the damn Dumpster.

* Any film which is in the Iranian tongue shall be brilliant.

* In thy pursuits of “edginess,” be thou aware of political correctness. If, for example, thy movie containeth a murderer and a homosexual, be thou sure they art not the same character. And any character who maketh a joke about homosexuals must be a villainous character, or turneth out to be gay himself.

* Behold, where is that intern with my latte?

* Remember thy film editor, and keep him nourished with crystal meth, so that he may edit thy film to look like a music video.

* Religion hath no place in a Sundance film, except as it shall be mocked.

* Thou may know thy movie is good when thy audience understandeth it not but pretendeth to like it anyway, so they may appear smart.


[ Originally, I just started listing “rules” for Sundance movies. I changed to the Ten Commandments format because a) I do so enjoy writing in Bible-style language, and b) it helped me come up with a movie title for the column.
We got this angry letter sent via the Herald Web site. (There’s a feedback form you can fill out, apparently.) It is fairly typical, as angry letters go, but a lot more level-headed than most:
I occasionally read Eric Snider’s various columns and articles.
Here are some conclusions I have come to:
Eric’s approach would be just fine for the BYU Daily Universe or the UofU Chronicle. He speaks fluent college and excellent high school, but the Daily Herald is a newspaper that serves a cross-section of various age groups.
I was surprised to see Mr. Snider resort to name-calling, an act that would guarantee him a C grade for any article or column in any high school or college journalism class. [Obviously, this person did not go to high school or college where I did.] To wit, calling Robert Redford a “leathery midget.” [Writing an incomplete sentence like that would also guarantee a C grade.] I am not an acquaintance nor am I particularly a fan of Mr. Redford’s, but I do know that, as a move personality, he is held in high regard in this area.
Calling him names can only reduce Mr. Snider in the opinion of his readers. [It can ONLY do that? Seem like in most scenarios, the universe allows for more than just one possible outcome.] I do agree with many of Mr. Snider’s observations concerning the Sundance Film offerings, but I wish he would remember those of us readers who have long since graduated from high school and college, yet make up a considerable representation of your newspaper’s readers.
I never heard from the leathery midget himself, but I did hear from several people who cited that as their favorite comment of the week.
In 2011, I recycled some of these jokes for a similar column for Film.com. ]

Sundance Report: Almost Famous

0

The 2002 Sundance Film Festival is four days old now, and the list of celebrities of I’ve seen is very small, unless you count seeing them in a movie, in which case I’ve seen dozens.

In person, though, I’ve only seen people who LOOK like celebrities. I saw a woman who looked like a dumpier version of Jennifer Aniston, for example, as well as a man who looked like Lisa Kudrow, and a guy who was a dead ringer for Ben Affleck (who, despite the film “Bounce,” is still a celebrity). The Affleck guy turned out to be a smarmy Miramax executive named Andrew. “Andrew’s in New York” is what his gal pal said to someone by way of introduction, despite the fact that Andrew was obviously in Park City. What she meant was that he WORKS in New York, as opposed to L.A., those being the only two places that exist to movie people. So now I go around telling people, “I’m in Provo.” This impresses no one.

I have a friend who saw the real Jennifer Aniston, not her dumpy Doppelganger, but she wasn’t with hubby Brad Pitt. (New rumor alert, straight from my imagination: I hear they’re splitting up. Also: Brad Pitt is dead.)

My theory on all the lookalikes is that they’re decoys, designed to keep lower life forms like myself away from the important people. It’s apparently working, because so far Sundance has been a bust in terms of celebrity sightings. But that’s not why I come here. I come here to get out of that infernal, soul-crushing newspaper office for a week. Also, I come here for the movies, which are in abundant supply, it now being easier to make a film than to obtain a driver’s license. This is unfortunate, really, because it means a lot of people make movies, and a lot of those movies suck.

Take, for instance, one of this year’s Sundance entries, a little thing called “Rain.” It’s basically a trashy prime-time soap opera, except you have to pay to watch it. It takes place in a little town where everyone knows each other (and I mean that in the biblical sense), and a woman is having an affair with a high school student, and then it turns out he’s her long-lost son. Hooray! This movie includes a scene of someone literally crying over spilled milk, and another one of someone literally covering her tracks. It is a triumph in the field of Filmed Metaphors. I only wish the filmmakers could have made the movie emit an odor, so we could say it literally stinks.

“Rain” doesn’t have any famous people in it; it actually doesn’t even have much rain in it, which always bothers me about movie titles. (How to tell a good movie from a bad movie: “Fight Club” is actually about a fight club; “Steel Magnolias” is utterly devoid of steel or magnolias.) A movie that’s full of famous people is “The Laramie Project,” which posits that the 1998 murder of Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard was a terrible thing, which I really wasn’t aware we needed convincing of. Apparently we did, though, because the movie spends 90 minutes arguing the point. I kept saying, “OK, I agree! I never disagreed! Stop with the celebrity cameos!” But the movie kept going, and the celebrities kept coming. Some of them, I’m told, are really nice in person.

Anything Goes

0

If you want great jokes, deep characters and social importance, keep looking. If you want a few laughs, terrific songs and high spirits, check out “Anything Goes,” the entertaining, delightfully useless musical now at the SCERA Showhouse.

The show takes place in the 1930s (when it originally was staged) on a ship bound for England. On board are a number of characters who will mix and match and leave each other and find other people.

First there is Sir Evelyn Oakleigh (Doug Zaugg), a stuffy Brit engaged to the beauteous Hope Harcourt (Emily Hecker), mostly at the encouragement of her matronly mother (Tina Barnes). Hope runs into Billy (Chad Mortensen), a dirt-poor, resourceful fellow she once had a fling with. Billy allies himself with Moonface Martin (Andrew Lloyd Hunsaker), a gangster who’s hiding out and who helps Billy disguise himself to avoid being caught by the ship’s crew, who would soon discover he doesn’t have a ticket.

Then there is Reno Sweeney (Laura Whipple), a nightclub singer and one-time preacher (yes, that’s right) who’s good pals with Billy and who starts to take an interest in the bookish Sir Evelyn.

The show centers around Cole Porter’s charming and witty songs; the plot sort of hangs off them loosely, not wanting to detract attention from the show’s best assets. The songs are well-sung by the enthusiastic cast; Laura Whipple and Chat Mortensen in particular have beautiful voices, and the lumbering Andrew Hunsaker gets many laughs in his “Be Like the Bluebird” number. The three of them also do justice to “Friendship,” one of Porter’s liveliest songs.

Doug Zaugg is impressively committed to a character who is written to be such a caricature, he could easily become tiresome. As Zaugg portrays him, though, Evelyn becomes more entertaining as the evening wears on.

Also worthy of mention is Celesta Rimington as Moonface’s squeaky girlfriend Bonnie. Her “Heaven Hop” and “Let’s Step Out” numbers are vivaciously performed.

This is a show that doesn’t add up to much; there’s not much conflict in the story, and I don’t believe anyone learns anything, least of all the audience. Seen strictly as goofy entertainment, though, it fulfills its purpose well enough. I do wish some of the jokes in the very jokey script were handled with a little more panache and comic timing, and that the ensemble were stronger — but these turn out to be non-fatal flaws.

Should you go? For simple, giddy amusement with some great musical numbers, this one’s the top.

Orange County

0

You can tell “Orange County” is from MTV Films because the rock soundtrack barely stops for a minute, there’s a lot of drinking and drug use among the teen-age characters, and someone inadvertently almost ingests a cup of urine. The MTV Films affiliation becomes less clear when you realize how enjoyable the movie is.

It’s about an Orange County, Calif., high school student named Shaun (Colin Hanks) who has been inspired by a Stanford professor-turned-novelist Marcus Skinner (Kevin Kline) to renounce surfing and become a writer. His goal: Get into Stanford and study under Skinner.

Alas, a mix-up with his transcripts causes Shaun to be rejected. His alcoholic mother (Catherine O’Hara), stoner brother (Jack Black) and absentee father (John Lithgow), rather than helping him, merely give him more incentive to leave home. His girlfriend (Schuyler Fisk) is supportive but rather useless. His surfer friends … well, forget about it.

So for a while, the film is all farce and no brains as we follow Shaun’s efforts to get into Stanford. He tries cozying up to a schoolmate’s grandparents, who are on the board; he tries visiting the dean of admissions at home; he tries a lot of more unusual things than that. And it is funny. Jack Black and Catherine O’Hara give all-out performances and make dumb lines better. There are amusing cameos from an impressive array of stars, including Lily Tomlin, Chevy Chase, Harold Ramis, Garry Marshall and Ben Stiller, some of whom appear literally in only scene apiece.

Then the film decides not to leave well enough alone and goes a different route, turning into a lesson about the importance of home and family. It is considerably less funny, and given the aforementioned urine jokes, we’re not liable to be in the mood for poignancy now anyway. What I thought was merely a brief tangent turned out to be a long tangent, and then to be a different direction altogether. The “I’ll get into Stanford if it’s the last thing I do” theme may not have been brilliant, but it was funny.

Putting aside the wrong turns near the end, “Orange County” winds up with more pluses than minuses. The performances are amiable and committed, and the comedy more often than not hits the bullseye.

Brotherhood of the Wolf (French)

0

If you combined “Jaws” with “Dangerous Liaisons,” threw in a dash of “JFK,” and filtered the whole thing through “The Matrix,” you’d have something like “Brotherhood of the Wolf,” a horror/period/conspiracy/action flick that is at once altogether original and strangely familiar.

It takes place in 1764, with a mysterious wolf-like beast killing women and children on the French countryside. King Louis XV sends Gregoir de Fronsac (Samuel Le Bihan) and his taciturn American Indian partner Mani (Mark Dacascos) to find, capture and study the thing, whatever it is, and they encounter a whole slew of poofy Frenchmen, most of whom we won’t bother describing.

We will mention, though, Jean-Francois de Morangias (Vincent Cassel), a one-armed pessimist; and his sister, Emilie (Marianne de Morangias), who serves as Fronsac’s immediate love interest. There is also a good guy (mostly), one Thomas D’Apcher (Jeremie Renier), a nobleman with a pure heart.

But this is not just a movie about some people hunting down a monster. No, this is also a movie about an American Indian kicking the living crap out of people. Inordinate amounts of time are devoted to Mani fighting various groups of people; these sequences are filmed almost lovingly. You figure, there must be some reason why they’d spend this much time on nothing more than a fight. You’d be wrong, I think, but you’d figure it, anyway.

It’s also a movie with a brothel in which one of the whores is also well-versed in the art of divination. Your guess is as good as mine. Eventually, we see the monster. Director Christophe Gans (who co-wrote with Stephane Cabel) is wise to follow to follow the example of “Jaws” and not show it to us until late in the film. He is unwise, however, to make use of such cheap CGI to create it. The monster looks awful. It’s a let-down.

There are also too many false climaxes in the film. Just when it ought to be wrapping up, it produces some saucy new revelation or ludicrous plot twist. We can laugh at a ridiculous movie for only so long before it stops being ridiculous and starts being tiresome.

The film is so thickly stylized, you can barely hack your way through it. Gans works overtime with cinematographer Joseph LoDuca to make everything look dreamy, eye-catching and bold. There are three editors credited, and each did enough work for one movie, in terms of form-cuts, jump-cuts, slow-motion effects and other folderol. It’s a gorgeous film to look at.

“Brotherhood of the Wolf” has no idea how silly it is. Movies about monsters either need to be aware that we’ve seen plenty of movies about monsters before, or else they need to be highly believable and realistic. This one overlooks both options, instead muddying the monster waters with cover-ups and conspiracies that don’t amount to much. All of that, and the film’s inability to end the story when it should end, detract from what could otherwise be a stylish, satisfying thriller.

How to Behave at the Theater

0

Utah County has so much live theater, it’s leaking out at the seams and getting goo all over the adjacent counties. Still, there are some who don’t attend the theater and might be hesitant to try, for fear of committing a social “foe paw,” pardon my French.

Here, then, is a guide to proper theater etiquette, as observed in Utah County.

• Babies love theater. Bring them, no matter how young. It is perfectly acceptable to give birth in the car on the way over and then bring the baby, still dripping, into the theater. Babies love theater.

• If a thought occurs to you, be sure to say it out loud, even if it’s in the middle of the play. A thought that remains unspoken is a wasted thought. If you think one of the actresses is wearing a pretty dress, you should say: “That’s a pretty dress.” If a character reveals something he shouldn’t have, in a manner that will surely lead to humorous complications, you should say: “Whoops!” (Also acceptable: “Uh-oh!”) If you are watching “Beau Jest” at the Hale Center Theater Orem, and seven of the play’s eight characters are already onstage, and someone knocks at the door, and process of elimination tells you it must be Chris, you should say, out loud: “Chris!” A whisper is acceptable in each of these instances, but make sure those around you can hear, so they can share in your excitement over having had a thought.

• Eat like a @#$% pig. Theaters wouldn’t sell concessions if they didn’t want you to enjoy them. Unwrap candy slowly and delicately, savoring every second of unwrappy goodness. If you can find a bag of Skittles in which each Skittle has been individually wrapped in its own cellophane bag, even better. If your candy has somehow been rigged to a box of dynamite, and each bite you take sets off another explosion, that’s fine, too. An audience full of candy-wrapper noise is a happy audience!

• Don’t worry about “dressing up.” If you have shoes on, you’re ready. Is there a hole in your sweatpants? Tie a sweatshirt around your midsection, and go to town.

• Only nerds show up before a play starts.

• Choose the right things to be offended by. Shows featuring racism (“The King and I”), adultery (“Camelot”), spousal abuse (“Carousel”), sexism (“Seven Brides for Seven Brothers”) or any other offensive behavior are perfectly OK, as long as the characters are amusing, and as long as they sing and dance a lot. But if the characters drink or use profanity, complain to the management.

• Turn your cellphone off. But if you forget and it rings during the show, don’t just quickly silence it, as that would be rude to the caller. Instead, answer it, and have this conversation: “Hello … yeah … no, I’m in a play … yeah … yeah, it’s pretty good … OK … OK … yeah … bye.” You should convince yourself that you are whispering quietly enough not to be heard by others, but trust me, this is not true.

• A play a day keeps the doctor away. If you feel yourself coming down with a cold, cough, flu, tuberculosis or the consumption, do not see a doctor. Go immediately to the theater — to a comedy, if possible, so that every burst of laughter can turn into a loud hacking. Do not bring lozenges, as unwrapping them might disturb other patrons.

• Be a true “patron of the arts.” If you ignore all shows except “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat,” which you see each time it is performed; if you dismiss all Shakespeare plays as being “boring” without even seeing them; if you won’t watch anything unless it’s a musical, comedy or musical comedy; if you have seen more than five plays this year in which a man dresses as a woman for comedic purposes; if you believe the actors having learned their lines is enough to constitute a play being “real good”; if any of these apply, then feel free to proudly proclaim yourself a true patron of the arts! Hooray and huzzah!

Cheaper by the Dozen

0

“Cheaper by the Dozen” is about an efficiency expert who runs his large family the way he runs a factory. Any method he can find to save time or energy, he implements it. Fittingly, the play is as efficient as can be, breezing through three acts, one intermission and a whole lot of congenial humor, all in only 100 minutes. My woefully inefficient father used to take longer than that just to say the prayer at dinner.

The play is set in the 1920s, as remembered by Ernestine (Mallory Hansen) and Frank (Daniel Jensen), children Nos. 2 and 3 in a family of 12. They are affable hosts as they reflect on their rigidly structured but very happy childhood.

Their father (Daryl Tucker) has heart problems and will not be around much longer. As a result, he pushes his children to excel in school, to skip grades if they can, so they’ll be as ready as possible for his departure. The children don’t know this, though; they only know he wants them doing homework all the time and won’t let them have much fun.

The oldest daughter, Anne (Kim Hansen), causes turmoil when she starts wanting to date boys and wear silk stockings. The other girls, too, start showing an interest in boys, the little brothers want a dog, Mom (Kaye Woodworth) shows signs of leniency — what’s an efficiency expert to do?

In real life, I suspect a family as tightly wound as this one would be a ticking time bomb. It suits the Gilbreths just fine, though, and the cast portrays the love within the family very nicely.

Dad does a little “minstrel show” near the end that is so racist as to make me, a very white man, uncomfortable. One recognizes it as authentic for the time period — but one recognizes swearing is authentic, too, and that doesn’t stop local theaters from cutting it out of their scripts. A play doesn’t have to use cuss words to be offensive.

Anyway, this play has few things to make you laugh out loud, but it does make you chuckle. It’s a cute show — a bit mishandled when it gets serious, but adorable the rest of the time.

Should you go? It’s a good family outing, and short enough to hold kids’ interest.

Killing Time

0

There is a lot of pointlessness in life, but it’s still kinda swell just to be alive. That’s the message in Anthony Jaswinski’s slacker comedy “Killing Time,” a movie that, while full of pointlessness, is still kinda swell just to watch.

The plot is so minuscule it nearly doesn’t exist. Trevor Phelps (Jack Thyme), a 26-year-old pothead with no direction and no place to stay, heads for a job interview on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. He travels on foot and on the way encounters an ex-girlfriend, some former classmates (he went to an architectural school) and more than one police officer. That’s it.

The point, obviously, is in the dialogue, of which there is no shortage. Nearly everyone Trevor runs into has something to say, some philosophy to spout, some topic to rant on. A guy in a bar speaks casually of “the clandestine intricacies of male bonding,” and a museum security guard imparts all sorts of wisdom to our hero — who may not be Odysseus, but whose personal odyssey is no less important to him.

Dialogue that expresses ideas rather than furthering the plot, actors chosen from among the director’s friends regardless of their ability, the shiftless 20-something characters bored with life — it all reminds me of “Clerks,” though not nearly as funny or subversive. (The closest “Killing Time” can get to counterculture is to have someone boldly declare that he thinks the Beatles sucked.) Both films will either charm you or bore you, depending upon your connection to the characters. These people exist in a world that is very real, but that may be far distant from those who, for example, are in their 30s and/or have jobs.

First time writer/director Jaswinski has some distance to travel before he’s breaking real ground in either capacity, but he demonstrates an instinct for how to make all the elements of filmmaking come together. There’s a fantastic scene in which Trevor calls his well-to-do mother in White Plains in which we, like Mom, can only hear his voice over the phone, without seeing him. The distance between the two figures, both geographic and emotional, is clear in the dialogue, in the acting and in the fact that the camera never shows us Trevor’s face throughout the scene.

Jack Thyme’s performance as Trevor is key to the film’s success. I think everyone has a brother who looks like Thyme; he is Every Brother. His acting is a bit stilted — too much emphasis on the pot-smoking aspect of the character, perhaps — but generally warm and personal. Though he rarely smiles, his voice always makes it sound like he is. He exemplifies a movie that is funny, laid-back and sweet.

Devil’s Playground (documentary)

0

Those unfamiliar with the inner workings of the Amish people — and that would be most of us, I think; if you’re Amish and you’re reading this on the Internet, you’re in BIG TROUBLE — will find “Devil’s Playground” an utterly fascinating documentary. For it examines a very unusual aspect of the faith, wherein 16-year-olds are allowed out into the world to get a taste of earthly pleasures before forever committing themselves to the Amish way of life. Some of those teens don’t come back.

Director Lucy Walker follows several youth from LaGrange County, Ind., as they experience “rumspringa” (literally, “running around”). The central focus is on Faron, who at 18 has been rumspringing for two years and shows no signs of stopping: When the film opens, he is well on his way to becoming a crank dealer in order to support his crank habit. Surprisingly, he says he still plans to renounce the world, be baptized, and live an Amish life. He’s just not sure how many wild oats he needs to sow before that occurs.

The other figures are Gerald, who says he won’t join and who rarely wears a shirt, apparently; Velda, who suffers from depression; and Joann, who is unsure what her plans are but who still dresses in Amish garb even while participating in non-Amish activities. (This is not uncommon for girls, we learn — one of many interesting revelations in this film.)

“Devil’s Playground” benefits from its novelty. We’ve never seen a documentary on this subject before, so it’s new to us. But Walker shows some storytelling skill, too, wisely paying the most attention to Faron: The film suffers when it focuses on the others, none of whom is anywhere near as compelling as this guy. Over the course of the film, he becomes a fully developed person. More than just a misguided drug dealer, he’s a likable young man with a faith that is actually rather inspiring. You root for him.

According to the onscreen statistics, 90 percent of Amish youth do wind up returning to the faith, even after tasting hedonism. What it is that brings them back is a question Walker hardly addresses, but the individual stories give some anecdotal evidence that is deeply thought-provoking.

Run Ronnie Run

0

The sublimely offensive fellows behind HBO’s “Mr. Show” have expanded their considerable talents into movie form with “Run Ronnie Run,” which is by turns hilarious and amateurish, but which is mostly very entertaining.

If you were unfortunate enough to see “Joe Dirt,” you are already acquainted with the plot, which explores what happens when white trash becomes famous. Ronnie Dobbs (David Cross) is a well-known figure in Doravilla, Ga., liked by everyone except the cops, who arrest him regularly for reckless juvenilism like urinating in the reservoir or stealing a school bus.

He is arrested so often, in fact, that he’s become a familiar face on a “Cops”-style TV show. This draws the attention of Terry Twillstein (Bob Odenkirk), the British, bow-tied man of a thousand infomercials who desperately needs a product that will sell. He whisks Ronnie away from Doraville and puts him in his own reality TV show: “Ronnie Dobbs Gets Arrested,” where he is dropped into a different city every week, left to his own devices, and inevitably arrested by the local fuzz.

Soon he is rich and famous, and joined in Hollywood by some of his Georgia friends (including one played by David Koechner, who also narrates). All that remains is to convince his estranged wife Tammy (Jill Talley) that he’s worth a second (well, fourth) chance.

The mullet culture is played heavily for laughs, but unlike the unlikable “Joe Dirt,” this film is not ONLY about mocking the white trash among us. There are many sly, laugh-out-loud-funny bits parodying TV and celebrity culture, and a wonderful throwaway diversion about the “gay conspiracy” the conservatives are always talking about.

That said, there is much great humor at the expense of white trash, too, though none of it seems malicious. There’s a montage set to that great dirtbag anthem “Every Rose Has Its Thorn,” and Ronnie himself is as cheerfully belligerent and socially ignorant as every moron you’ve ever seen on “Cops.”

Celebrity cameos abound, from the likes of Ben Stiller, Patrick Warburton, Jeff Goldblum, Garry Shandling, Jack Black and Mandy Patinkin. Patinkin is uproariously funny as himself, playing Ronnie in “Ronnie Dobbs: The Musical.” (“Y’all Are Brutalizing Me” is his big torch song, sung to the cops who are trying to arrest him and who clearly are not brutalizing him.)

Some of the biggest laughs are from the shock value and not from the actual content; a hilariously literal sex song appearing in the movie is considerably less funny the second time through, when it’s heard over the closing credits. Unlike some shock-meisters, though, Cross and company (he, Odenkirk, Scott Aukerman, BJ Porter and Brian Posehn — all of “Mr. Show” — are credited as writers) seem somehow innocent about it. Rather than rolling in the filth, they merely present the filth with a straight face and move on. They never shove it down your throat, and it doesn’t seem like they’d mind if you didn’t find it funny.

The hit-to-miss ratio on the jokes is surprisingly good, but the movie still has very little to it. It is, after all, just a dumb story about a dumb guy, and it’s sometimes too simple for its own good. When something subversive and witty happens, one realizes how much better the film could have been, had it stayed with that route.

Soft Shell Man (French)

0

The title character in “Soft Shell Man,” a light French-Canadian comedy, is Alex (David La Haye), a Montreal photographer who, like all men, wants desperately for everyone to like him.

This is an insight from writer/director André Turpin, who paints Alex as a guy who won’t commit, but who won’t commit to being non-committal, either. To commit would be to solidify an opinion, and the trouble with opinions is that someone might disagree with them. He flirts with every woman he meets (including an E.R. doctor and a surly airline ticket agent) — not because he’s oversexed, but because he wants to be liked.

He wants men to like him, too, and he’ll pretend to be, say, a wakeboard enthusiast if that’s what his current company enjoys. He even runs drugs for his junkie friend Audrey (Pascalo Desrochers), rather than stand up to her and say no.

Normally, characters like Alex are nerdy, timid creatures whose desire for acceptance is born of isolation and insecurity. But Alex is handsome, successful and decent. Turpin’s point is that in reality, all male humans are needy.

The matter at hand is that Alex sort of has a thing for Marie (Isabelle Blais), while also developing a crush on his best friend’s deaf girlfriend Sara (Chantal Giroux). Meanwhile, he’s delivering drugs to rugged rich jerk Armando (Charles Armand Turpin), who speaks in an amusing French/English hybrid, and preparing an exhibit of his own photographs at a local gallery.

Turpin is making his directorial debut here, having previously worked as cinematographer for several Canadian films (including last year’s whacked-out “Maelstrom”). He fills that role in “Soft Shell Man,” too, and uses strange close-ups and camera angles to his advantage, making the film quirky and memorable without getting ridiculous about it.

La Haye gives an appealing performance as Alex, conveying earnest likability even while keeping the character’s motives intentionally vague. (The whole point, of course, is that Alex has no idea why he acts the way he does.) The wryly comical script is played well by the entire cast; if a plot twist late in the game is a little predictable, we readily forgive.

The Slaughter Rule

0

In the six-man football league that exists in the rural Montana of this film, the “slaughter rule” is that if a team ever comes to be trailing by more than 45 points, the game will be called — a mercy killing, as it were.

But the point of “The Slaughter Rule” — a moody and occasionally poignant film — is that the slaughter rule doesn’t exist in real life. The protagonist says, “My father told me if I was hard enough, I wouldn’t break. He lied. Everything breaks.”

The protagonist, Roy Chutney (Ryan Gosling), begins to break when his father, ironically enough, commits suicide. Days later, he is cut from his high school football team. While still quietly grieving, he is recruited to play six-man football by Gideon (David Morse), a scruffy and nearly homeless newspaper carrier who comes from Texas, where such sports are “a religion.” Roy’s best friend, an American Indian named Tracey (Eddie Spears), soon joins the team, too.

A friendship emerges between Roy and Gideon, though Roy begins to wonder, as do others in the town, if Gideon doesn’t have more on his mind than friendship. There are uncomfortable moments between them, played with extreme talent and confidence by David Morse and Ryan Gosling. The intensity of some scenes is palpable; the two actors work very well together.

The movie is scarcely about Gideon’s possible homosexuality, which begs the question what it’s doing there in the first place. The contradictory nature of male bonding — how football players will slap each other’s rear ends but shy away from a hug — is explored very briefly, and perhaps ought to have been fleshed out.

Similarly, the role of Roy’s mother is underwritten, and questions about her are left unanswered. (I don’t wish to pry, but why exactly is she shown lying naked on her bed, half-sobbing?) Clea DuVall plays Skyler, a greasy-spoon waitress who sleeps with Roy and serves as proof to the audience that he is straight; she serves virtually no other purpose — but, like Mom, she could have been a lot more.

Written and directed by twin brothers Alex and Andrew Smith, “The Slaughter Rule” has atmosphere to spare and a gorgeous, evocative look. It has hints of greatness, but fails to completely realize them. Morse and Gosling are excellent, but the film they appear in is less so.

Bark

0

It is said that if you think you’re crazy, you’re probably not. People who actually are insane don’t usually realize it. “Bark” adheres strikingly well to this theorem. It is good when it allows its characters to be themselves, and bad when it demonstrates too much awareness of its own lunacy.

There is much lunacy to be aware of, too. First and foremost is Lucy (Heather Morgan, who also scripted), a fairly ordinary woman who has now stopped talking and started barking. In fact, her behavior becomes more and more dog-like every day, complete with sniffing people and growling at strangers.

Her devoted husband, Peter (Lee Tergesen), has no idea what to do. First he tries to snap her out of it and convince her to talk. Then he seeks advice from his veterinarian (he has a real dog, too), whose name is Darla (Lisa Kudrow). Then he corners a reluctant psychiatrist, Malcolm (Vincent D’Onofrio), and asks for counsel. Finally, with nothing else to do, he has Lucy committed to a mental hospital.

It is slowly revealed, primarily through flashbacks, that Lucy found life too stressful and disorganized and preferred life as a dog. Dogs, after all, are unconditionally loved and cared for, and their lives are the very picture of simplicity. Through all this, the film, directed by Kasia Adamik (who heretofore has been only a storyboard artist), demonstrates a certain tenderness. Adamik does an admirable job drawing pathos from what is truly a ridiculous situation.

A few scenes stand out as being especially funny, and all of them succeed because they show the people just being people, not caricatures. One is with Lucy’s alcoholic father, insane mother and bitter sister — an absurd romp of dysfunction. Another is between Darla and Peter’s best friend Sam (Hank Azaria), flirting with each other and eventually kissing in Peter’s kitchen.

But then there are amusing touches that are taken too far, such as Malcolm’s desire to be a harp player, and a running joke about the size of Darla’s mouth. One needn’t beat the wackiness quite so hard. It is better to be sublime than to be a sledgehammer.

Lee Tergesen is good in a difficult role, and Heather Morgan imitates the behavior of a dog surprisingly well. Lisa Kudrow, lovably daft as always, blathers on in an endearing manner.

Alas, they are all working in a 90-minute film that really only has a 20-minute plot — and yet, even when stretched out, it still is unsatisfactorily resolved. Adamik shows promise, but “Bark” is not everything it could be.

Rain

0

Katherine Lindberg’s “Rain” is about people who act in passion, and then must deal with the consequences. It takes place in a small Iowa town cursed with bleak, flat landscapes and moody cinematography, not to mention a lot of small-town people who have sex with each other all the time. This is pure cheesy prime-time soap opera fodder, artfully filmed and peppered with profanity.

Our heroine, I guess, is Ellen (Melora Walters), who is tearful and probably crazy from the first moment we see her, which is when she kills her husband, presumably because he’s been having an affair with Patsy (Jo Anderson), whose husband Ben (Ezra Patterson) is running for mayor and who seems to have had some connection with Ellen years ago.

Ben’s son Tom (Jamey Sheridan) figures into things, too, seeing as how he’s having an affair with Ellen, which makes you wonder why she was so judgmental about her husband’s infidelity — if, in fact, that’s why she killed him (the movie doesn’t tell us).

Ellen’s mother Audrey (Diane Ladd) is there, too, nosing in people’s business and whatnot. And Tom has a couple friends (Ellen Muth and Adrian Johansson) who have a Scooby-like knack for stumbling on crime scenes.

There is some intrigue in the plot twists, and viewed as trashy melodrama where everyone speaks fervently through clenched teeth, it fares well enough. The ending is utterly ridiculous, but it’s possible that when your whole movie is over-the-top, the only way to end it is to go even further.

None of the performances is anything other than serviceable.

In all, it reads like the pilot episode for a TV soap. How else to explain Tom’s friends suddenly developing sexual tension, making out — and then never referring to it again? Obviously, that point would become relevant in a later episode, as would some background on Ellen’s obvious mental instability, and why she is the WORST LIAR in movie history.

There is a scene where Audrey literally cries over spilled milk, and one where Ellen literally covers her tracks. It is a breakthrough in the genre of Filmed Metaphors. If only they could have figured out a way to make the projector issue a scent, so we could say the film literally smells funny.

Lola

0

“Lola” is about a woman’s journey to find out who she really is. You can tell this because about 20 minutes into the film, someone says to her, “Who are you Lola? What do you do?” Next thing you know, she’s off trying to find herself. It reminds me of how a TV sitcom will have conversation in the first few minutes about how Uncle Sid needs to quit being so uptight, and sure enough, that episode winds up being full of events that make Uncle Sid loosen up. (“What a coincidence!” the characters must think. “We were just talking about that very subject!”)

Lola (Sabrina Grdevich) is a carefree Canadian woman married to a normal, responsible man, Steve (Colm Feore), who is increasingly frustrated with her flightiness. She makes artsy clothes and sells them at a consignment store, parks the car illegally and gets it towed, strikes up conversations with strangers at bus stations; he has a job with clients and wears suits and stuff. It is Steve who demands to know what Lola is all about, and soon Lola wants to know, too.

One day she saves a gal named Sandra (Joanna Going) from getting hit by a car, and they strike up a strange friendship. Sandra is trouble with a capital T, you can tell, partly by the fact that she kisses Lola on the lips soon after meeting her, and partly because she owes money to a bad guy. Sandra hasn’t been back to her small home town in 10 years but is considering going now because her father has just died. In Sandra’s life, however, Lola sees an opportunity to start her own life over — or at least to get a better handle on things.

Writer/director Carl Bessai often seems to be working hard at achieving “moodiness,” with long, languid shots of Lola hitchhiking, for example. There are several scenes of people NOT talking. Rather than create a story with natural atmosphere, Bessai has resorted to forcing it.

Sabrina Grdevich is good enough in the title role, but not good enough to overcome the weak material. It’s an odyssey of self-discovery in which nothing happens. Some movies can be about the journey and not the destination, but this one hardly has either.

Soft for Digging

0

“Soft for Digging” is a tense, compelling horror film for 45 minutes or so. And then you realize it’s not going to be anything more than a very basic campfire story, and the disappointment settles in. What a waste of perfectly good atmosphere! What a waste of a good concept!

The concept is that there is almost no dialogue. The protagonist is an old man (Edmond Mercier) who lives alone in a shack in the woods. One morning while pursuing his errant cat, he witnesses a little girl’s murder. The cops are unable to find any evidence, though, and the old man is not believed. He would doubt himself, except that he begins having visions of the dead girl, leading him to seek out her murderer.

To a point, the absence of dialogue is ingenious. It means the film can be, essentially, a standard horror-flick without being saddled with standard-horror-flick dialogue. (No one can say, “I’ll be right back” if no one’s saying ANYTHING.)

The characters do speak to each other, of course, but the camera backs away when they do, or we switch to another scene. The things that don’t need to be spelled out for us, then, are not spelled out. We don’t need to hear the old man explain to the cops that, well, these woods all look alike, and that’s why he can’t find the exact spot the murder occurred. We get that.

Writer/director JT Petty has a good thing going here, with cinematography (by Patrick McGraw) and sound (by Matthew Polis) that remind me of the original “Night of the Living Dead.” The film looks much older than it is, no doubt due to the film stock not being the most expensive available — a practical matter that winds up being a plus, as it enhances the movie’s creepy feel.

The problem is in the story, which turns out to be utterly unoriginal and virtually twist-free. No matter how useful a gimmick is, a film needs to be able to stand without it. This one collapses even WITH the gimmick; without it, you’d never give it a second thought.

Taboo

0

“Taboo” should be watched on video with a group of friends who enjoy a good bad movie. It goes on the same list as recent self-serious cheese-fests like “Gossip,” “The In Crowd” and “The Skulls” in that it’s utterly worthless as an actual film, but quite entertaining as an object of derision.

But we must review films in relation to what they are attempting to be, not in relation to any alternate uses we may find for them. After all, most DVDs could be reviewed quite positively if you disregarded the movie and judged them solely on how they do at being drink coasters. And so “Taboo” — based on what the filmmakers apparently THOUGHT it would be — gets a very negative review.

It is sloppily written, badly acted and falsely hip — strange, given everyone involved in making it is young. You’d think hipness would be the least of its troubles. But no, the dialogue (written by Chris Fisher, in his first and hopefully last screenplay) is forcibly arch and often rather awkward. No one actually talks the way these people do, and it’s not believable for a moment.

It begins at a college graduation party for six miserable individuals who claim to be friends yet who are as bitchy and sniping as you could ever imagine your worst enemy to be. They are playing a parlor game in which cards with provocative sexual questions such as, “Would you ever sleep with a relative?” are passed around. Respondents answer anonymously, and then the fun comes in reading back the questions and anonymous answers, then trying to guess who would give that answer to that question.

We skip ahead to a New Year’s Eve a year later. We’re at the same out-of-town mansion, and it’s a dark and stormy night. The same six wretches are back again. They are: Christian (Nick Stahl), an ardent conservative Christian — yes, the movie is lazy enough to give a character a name that describes him — who owns this house; Elizabeth (January Jones), his fiancee; Adam (Eddie Kaye Thomas), who seems a little smarter but also a little more lecherous than the rest; Benji (Derek Hamilton), who is merely dumb and lecherous; Katie (Lori Heuring), his girlfriend; and Piper (Amber Benson), the alcoholic. All are wealthy and horrid.

Soon a package arrives containing five cards with the words “Homosexual,” “Rapist,” “Infidel,” “Prostitute” and “Hypocrite.” There are only five: One of the six people is accusing the other five, based on the answers to those questions a year earlier. But who is doing the accusing? Probably the same one who is killing everyone off one at a time, which commences shortly.

It sets up Elizabeth as the murderer, even though she is the one character whose whereabouts we always know, which means she can’t have done it. Then there is a twist, and then some more stuff, and then another twist. It’s all blazingly stupid and laughable.

It is, sort of, a tale of revenge, jealousy and moral absolutism, but to suggest it contains much insight on any of those would be giving it too much credit. It’s a tawdry affair, directed with an eye for trash by Max Makowski. If it were meant as a send-up of ridiculous horror films, it would be a success. But since it meant us to take it seriously — indeed, even to feel suspense at its proceedings — it barely avoids failing altogether.

Barking up the Wrong Triage

0

We thought our friend Sassy Winger (names have been changed) had appendicitis, so we took her to the hospital. Turns out it was just an ovarian cyst that had burst. YOU WANT TO KEEP READING NOW, DON’T YOU????!!!!

I’m uncomfortable discussing Sassy’s ovaries, so from here on, we’re going to call them phone books. Sassy began experiencing pains in the general area of her phone books — sharp, stabbing pains, as though someone had stabbed her with something sharp — and she feared it could be her appendix. Trying to be helpful, I related the story of my brother Jeff, and how he had his appendix taken out when he was 4, and how the scar has subsequently grown to be over a foot in length, due to Jeff as a whole having also grown exponentially since that time.

Sassy found this unhelpful, and Luscious Malone and I took her to Utah Valley Regional Medical Center. There we waited as she met with the triage nurse. I love the idea of triage nurses, because I love the idea of someone’s job being to tell you whether you’re sick enough to be there. She’s like the bouncer at an exclusive nightclub, holding open the velvet rope for some, but not others. (“You, you, you, not you, you, you, not you….”)

Anyway, as Sassy pled her case before the triage nurse — and each time I’ve typed the word “triage,” it has come out “triangle,” by the way — Luscious and I looked around the emergency room to figure out who was sickest.

It gave me time to reflect on all the time I’ve spent at that particular hospital, almost always to visit someone else. My first major experience there was in 1998, when my friend Chris was in a terrible car accident where he almost died and missed his own wedding. (The woman married him after he got better, and now you’d never know he even had an accident, except that he talks about it ALL THE TIME.) For a couple weeks, my friends and I would go hang out at the hospital in the afternoons, watching TV and pretending to be family so we could sneak into the ICU and see him.

The difficult thing with this accident was that Chris’ spleen was crushed, and theretofore, “spleen” had been one of our favorite funny-sounding words. Now, it was no longer funny. (It is funny again now, by the way; the statute of limitations has passed. Soon we’ll be able to make fun of George W. Bush for being stupid again, too.)

In 2000, Luscious Malone herself was the recipient of a car accident, and we all scurried down to see her in the E.R. She reports that the wooden slabs they put possible back-injury people on were not made for persons above 17 pounds in weight, and that she, being larger than that, began to feel like a Luscious-kabob. She also reports that, at least in her case, if you swear in front of your nurses, they will think it’s funny.

(My first memory of meeting Luscious Malone, by the way, was when she was playing Nintendo at a mutual friend’s house, swearing in such a manner as would knock a buzzard off a crap-wagon, if you’ll pardon my use of the vernacular.)

She also reminds me that you know you’re in bad shape if they put you in a private room in the E.R. Usually, you just have the curtain separating you from the other victims. But if they foresee a lot of screaming or sawing, you get the private room. Fear the private room.

Sassy Winger didn’t get a private room, fortunately. She was relieved, if grossed out, to learn it was merely a phone-bookian cyst and not something worse. They told her to let the phone books rest for a couple weeks, and everything will be fine. Even so, maybe we’ll head back to the hospital, just to visit. I hope we can get in. (“You, you, not you….”)

Impostor

0

A title card at the beginning of “Impostor” tells us that it’s based on a story by “legendary futurist” Philip K. Dick, and that he wrote it in 1953. This is supposed to impress us, I think, because we’re supposed to marvel at how chillingly accurate his vision was, way back in the ’50s. And it’s true: At that time, stupid science-fiction movies were in their infancy. How could he have known we’d have perfected the art by the year 2002???????

“Impostor” can’t fairly be called a bad movie, because it hardly even tries to be a good one. Why bother giving a student an F when he sleeps through class anyway? Give him a D, and let him pass. He’s not hurting anything.

It is The Future in this movie, specifically 2079. Life pretty much sucks, what with the planet Centauri being at war against us 24/7, and with the shield over Earth that keeps out the Centauris as well as most of the sunlight. People do all that futurey stuff like say “TV on” to turn the TV on, and ride in cars that fly rather than drive, and float in the air when they have sex (I’m guessing on that one, but it seems right).

Anyway, Spencer John Olham (Gary Sinise) is a brilliant scientist who becomes mistaken for a Centauri humanoid. Seems those smart aliens have figured out a way to create robot duplicates of people that are just like people, with emotions, blood, organs and everything. Virtually impossible to tell them from the real thing, until they get close to the target they’ve been programmed to destroy and then blow up, which I guess clues everyone in.

So some government guys, led by the dogged Hathaway (Vincent D’Onofrio), think Spencer is one of these humanoids, and of course part of being a humanoid is you don’t remember being one, so hell, maybe he is one. He doesn’t think so, though, and he’s determined to prove it via some weird medical test that he and the movie choose not to explain to us, the viewers. But to do THAT, he has to get to the hospital, where his wife (Madeleine Stowe) works, and for THAT, he enlists the help of an underground freedom fighter (or something) named Cale (Mekhi Phifer).

So it’s basically “The Fugitive,” with a guy who swears he’s innocent running from the feds while trying to gather evidence of his innocence. Except that Gary Sinise, who is normally a good actor, is no Harrison Ford in this movie, and Vincent D’Onofrio, who I can take or leave, is no Tommy Lee Jones in any scenario I can think of.

And Gary Fleder is no whoever-directed-“The Fugitive”; he’s who directed “Don’t Say a Word” and “Kiss the Girls” — two reasonably good thrillers, for what they are, and each far better than the self-serious absurdity that is “Impostor.” For here Fleder was faced with an unenviable task: Create a feature-length movie out of a story that would work better as a half-hour “Twilight Zone” episode, where silly last-minute twists amuse, rather than annoy, like this one does. (Indeed, “Impostor” was originally meant as one-third of a movie, along with a couple other Philip K. Dick stories.) By the time the predictable twists present themselves, you’ll be hard pressed to find anyone watching who still cares. Or anyone still watching, for that matter.

Special FX

0

It’s that time of year again: Time to make my New Year’s resolutions. The Columnists Code mandates that all newspaper columnists write about this, so here goes:

• I resolve not to actually write a column about New Year’s resolutions.

Now, on to more important matters, like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” It used to be that you had to be embarrassed if you watched a show with a title like that. But nowadays you can watch nothing but 20-year-old reruns on Game Show Network and still feel good about yourself, as long as you don’t read what the people at HarkTheHerald.com say about you. (By the way, if there’s a more illiterate bunch of hate-spewing special-ed dropouts than the people who post regularly at that site, I’d like to believe they live far away from me and don’t have access to sharp things.)

I got addicted to “Buffy” this fall, when the FX cable channel started showing all the old episodes, in order, from the beginning. Then they started showing two a day, which dramatically impacted my social life, insofar as now I was always watching “Buffy” when no one called me, instead of being on the Internet.

You may be interested to know that many of my fellow Orem residents could not partake of the daily Buffy buffet because Orem’s only cable company, AT&T, doesn’t offer FX as one of its channels. It doesn’t have Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, TCM or BET, either — all channels that are widely considered to be part of pretty much every basic-cable package. I believe you could get more out of your TV by taking the guts out and using it as a flower pot than by using AT&T in Orem.

Which is why I got Dish Network, a satellite service that brings well over 1 billion channels directly into my home, including some from other planets. (At least, I assume that’s where the people on “Iron Chef” are from. Certainly no regular people get that excited about cooking dinner.)

I don’t remember how much Dish Network costs, but I would gladly pay twice as much (unless the current price is infinity; I don’t want to cause any mathematical conundrums), if just for purposes of Buffy. Which is what we were talking about in the first place. (Well, second place.)

“Buffy the Vampire Slayer” is about a girl named Buffy who is a vampire slayer. She lives in a town that is overrun with dark forces and sinister beings who seek the destruction of mankind’s freedom. This town is called Provo.

No! I am “joshing” you, as people who aren’t named Josh say. The town is called Sunnydale, and for as evil as many of its inhabitants are, at least they haven’t outlawed public dancing. Buffy’s job is to kill any demons, vampires, Masons, mummies, elves, aliens or Webelos she stumbles across. The show depicts the forces of evil being slewn by an attractive, lip-glossy young lady — far more empowering for women, I would think, than a show like “Friends,” where the same three women keep choosing sexual partners from a pool of the same three men. (Buffy, by way of comparison, sometimes dates vampires.)

Another show I’m addicted to is “24,” which airs on Tuesdays on Fox. It’s about a government agent trying to stop the assassination of a politician. (Discussion question: Why?) The gimmick is that the entire season of 24 episodes takes place over the course of one day, with each episode representing exactly one hour of time. This is similar to ABC’s tactic with “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” where each hour-long episode is shown in “real time,” including 45 minutes of contestants thinking or taking bathroom breaks, leaving time for approximately two questions.

Speaking of non-20-year-old game shows, how many of you are still watching “The Weakest Link”? No one? That’s what I thought.

Anyway, since one of my New Year’s resolutions is to bring every column around full circle, let me mention that one of my New Year’s resolutions is to watch more TV this year. It will be tough, but I think I can do it.

Beau Jest

0

“Beau Jest” could easily be the next play everyone does too often, like “The Foreigner.” It is pleasant and funny and involves a guy pretending to be something he’s not, which results in many high jinks and shenanigans. (High jinks and shenanigans are very popular in live theater.)

A production of the play directed by Syd Riggs is now at Hale Center Theater Orem, where the casual, homey environment is perfectly suited to the show’s good-natured jollity.

The faker in question is Bob Schroeder (Ryan Radebaugh), an actor who has been hired by Sarah Goldman (Jolene Sayers) to pose as her boyfriend for the benefit of her extremely Jewish parents (Nancy Douglas Candrian and Larson Holyoak). They wouldn’t approve of her real boyfriend, Chris (Doug Shattuck; normally played in this cast by Kevin Goertzen), because he’s a gentile.

Unfortunately for Sarah, Bob turns out to be no more Jewish than her actual boyfriend is — which complicates the matter even further when the charade becomes reality and Sarah and Bob begin to fall in love. It’s a ridiculous premise — why not just have the gentile boyfriend pretend to be Jewish, rather than hiring a Jewish actor? — but the cast generally plays it realistically and avoids the pedestrian farce that might have crept in otherwise. Nancy Douglas Candrian and Larson Holyoak are especially believable as the fussy Jewish parents, without becoming stereotypes.

Jolene Sayers reminds me of Kirsten Dunst, both in her pretty looks and her perky-but-smart demeanor. Ryan Radebaugh excels at playing unflappable characters thrust into strange situations — he was great in last year’s “Over the River and Through the Woods,” dealing with similar parental and grandparental aggravations — and this role seems tailor-made for him. Rather than getting flustered and frantic as Bob improvises his way through dinner with Sarah’s parents (Sarah has also saddled him with the character trait of being a doctor), Radebaugh plays him as cool under pressure. This proves the point that in comedy, realism is almost always funnier than absurdity.

“Beau Jest” moves along smoothly, clocks in with a short running time and feels even shorter. It’s solid stuff and delightfully entertaining.

Should you go? Jews and gentiles alike should find it easy-going and enjoyable.

Delta Bad Hand

0

I’ve always maintained that the airline industry is the most incompetent organization in the world, coming out ahead of even the U.S. Postal Service and communism in terms of ineffectiveness and disorganization.

Granted, the airlines have been under extraordinary duress in recent months. However, the effect of this has merely been that now, in addition to being incompetent, the airlines are also paranoid and delirious. It’s like going up to a man who’s already insane and telling him his rear end is on fire.

My experience last week while trying to return to Utah after Christmas was the topper. I don’t think I’d fly again now if I sprouted wings and a beverage cart.

I don’t want to say which airline I was dealing with, so we’ll call it Shmelta. When I checked in, the Shmelta representative said the flight would be delayed slightly. This was not a terrible inconvenience, because due to increased security requirements, I had arrived at the airport 17 hours early anyway. What’s another 30 minutes on top of that?

So I had lunch at the airport Shmapplebee’s, read a book, loitered, frittered, puttered and dilly-dallied. Fifty minutes after the scheduled departure, we were allowed to board the plane. Thirty minutes after that, the plane headed down the runway. Then, instead of going faster, we started to slow down.

Now, I don’t know a lot about airplanes, but I do know that in order to get off the ground, you have to be going fast. We were told there were “mechanical problems,” and we deplaned so they could fix them. We waited in the terminal for another two hours, and then were allowed to board the plane again. (I found it amusing that as we boarded, they checked our IDs again at the door — as if a terrorist would have waited that long. Can you picture him, chilling out in the terminal, reading a John Grisham novel, making conversation with other passengers about how he’ll never fly on Shmelta again?)

After another half-hour of sitting on the plane, we were hustled off again, and the flight was canceled. Apparently, all the boarding and un-boarding was just for practice. There were no more flights to Salt Lake City that night, so Shmelta booked us on the first flight the next morning and put us up in a nearby hotel for the night.

If you think the nightmare was essentially over now, you have overlooked the possibility that the hotel might not give me the wake-up call I requested, and I might wake up with only 40 minutes to spare before the plane took off. In fact, that is exactly what happened. Fortunately, I was sleeping on the world’s most uncomfortable bed — a document verifying this hangs on the hotel room wall — and I was waking up frequently anyway. At one point, I turned on the TV to see what time it was and discovered it was 90 minutes past the time I had asked to be woken up. I was going to miss my flight! This may not have occurred literally, but figuratively, I immediately and completely voided my bladder all over the bedsheets.

Frantic at the thought of missing my flight, I sprang from the world’s most uncomfortable bed and tried to remember how to do anything. I could not remember how clothes go on a person’s body, or what shoes look like, or whether it’s hands or feet that you’re supposed to walk on. I stagger-lurched blindly down to the lobby, gurgled something about a shuttle to the airport and issued a few choice words regarding to the person from whom I had requested the wake-up call. A shuttle-van driver who clearly had been in this situation before tried to calm me, but if you have ever tried to soothe the nerves of a person who is about to miss his flight and who is unshowered and untoothbrushed and who is pretty sure he has forgotten his underclothing in the hotel room, you will know that it is impossible. I felt like an insane man whose rear end was on fire.

I made it through the security checkpoint in record time, and learned that if you’re an unkempt, wild-eyed individual in a tremendous hurry to get through the metal detectors, the national guardsmen will look at you and your shoes very suspiciously.

Fortunately, I got on the plane with seconds to spare, and I was in Utah a couple hours later. I’ve never been so happy to be in the Beehive State. The people at Shmelta will surely be getting an angry letter from me, too, though there’s every chance the post office will lose it.

Beauty and the Beast (IMAX)

0

Walt Disney Pictures re-released “Beauty and the Beast” to theaters on New Year’s Day, but not just to any theaters. The 1991 classic, cleaned up, remastered and with a new sequence added, is playing only on IMAX and other large-format screens. Take every possible opportunity to see it.

It’s always been one of my favorites, but seeing it again — and in this large format — I was reminded of several things I’d forgotten.

The first reason you should see it is that it’s simply one of the best films ever made, animated or otherwise. It’s about the power love has to transform people, and the true nature of beauty. Like all the greatest movies, it makes you laugh AND cry. It’s warm, sweet-natured, satiric and funny.

It’s also a marvel of efficient storytelling: It’s full of plot and characters and singing and dancing, yet still is only 90 minutes long. There’s not a moment wasted and not a bit of padding, but the pace is never rushed, either.

Shall we talk about the wonderful, funny characters brought so vividly to life? Or the Oscar-winning score, which is a truly impressive piece of work, full of themes and motifs and every bit as complete as a Hammerstein or Sullivan score? Or the “Be Our Guest” number, which may be one of the greatest showstoppers EVER? Or the deep, simple humanity that runs through the whole piece? Few movies have power to elevate their audiences the way this one does.

The IMAX version enlarges the beauty of the film — the ballroom scene is more spectacular than ever — as well as the flaws. In crowd scenes, particularly, it’s apparent that some people have not been given much character; the large-screen format makes this more obvious.

But never mind that, for Disney has added a six-minute sequence to the film called “Human Again.” This song was written and storyboarded for the original film but never animated; directors Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise felt it didn’t move the story along and they cut it. Subsequently, the song — in which the inhabitants of the castle sing about what they’ll do when the curse is lifted — appeared in the “Beauty and the Beast” stage show, where it was met with enthusiasm.

So the original animation team and vocal talent were gathered to create the song that sat on a shelf for 10 years. The song itself is a lovely, wistful waltz, and it’s accompanied by some amusing character moments with Cogsworth, Lumiere and the much-overlooked Wardrobe.

The sequence also includes a scene of Belle and the Beast reading “Romeo & Juliet” together — an absolutely sublime moment. Everything fits so well into the original film that you’ll wonder how they ever did without it.

It would be hard to overstate how great “Beauty and the Beast” is, but I don’t want to run the risk of doing it. Seeing it again will remind you of all its charms.

The Best and Worst Movies of 2001

0
The Best and Worst Movies of 2001

If 2000 was the Year of the Bad Movie — and believe me, it was — 2001 was the Year of the Mediocre Movie.

Some were flat-out bad, of course (see separate list). But the more prevalant trend was to be mediocre, to start with good potential, and then blow it. Movies like “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider,” “The Mummy Returns,” “Rush Hour 2,” “Hannibal” — all films with good pedigrees and a lot of money behind them, but with lackluster scripts, direction and/or acting.

We had to look outside of Hollywood for our great movies, and outside-of-Hollywood answered the call. Among the 10 films I consider to be the best of the year, four were from the Sundance Film Festival (Nos. 1, 6, 8, 9), one was foreign (No. 10), one was from a Spanish director making his English-language debut (No. 4), and two were filmed Down Under (Nos. 2, 3). Only two on my list (Nos. 5, 7) can be considered “Hollywood movies.”

Among the movies that rose above the sludge, here are the best. Your rebuttals are welcome.

1. “Memento” I saw this in early January at a pre-Sundance screening and was immediately taken with it. All year, I waited for something to come along that was more tightly written, intriguing, intelligent, thought-provoking and exciting. But nothing came.

This psychological thriller about a man with no short-term memory who is searching for his wife’s killer is told in reverse order, which makes us almost as disoriented as the protagonist. It’s a jigsaw puzzle of a film, but the pieces are all there, and putting them together is supremely satisfying.

On top of that, it introduces some unsettling ideas about how we deal with unpleasant realities. Repeat viewings reveal no flaws in the film’s structure. If anything, you understand it better the more times you see it. If you think there’s a hole in the plot, watch it again, and you’re bound to discover a line or reference you missed that explains the perceived flaw. It’s a brilliantly entertaining film.

2. “Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” Was there a more highly anticipated film this year? Maybe, with “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.” And every place that film failed — poor adaptation, bad pacing, no heart, etc. — “Fellowship” succeeded. Three hours never flew by faster, and with more heart-wrenching emotion and heart-stopping action, than with this film.

3. “Moulin Rouge” An old-style movie musical, but on crack. The story was the basic stuff of melodramatic romances, but the vocal performances (who knew Ewan MacGregor could sing so well?) and Baz Luhrmann’s dizzying directorial style elevated this to new heights of comedy and tragedy.

4. “The Others” Before 2001, I paid little attention to Nicole Kidman. Now, with this and “Moulin Rouge,” she’s got two spots on the list. Her performance in “The Others,” as a widowed mother tormented by other-worldly visitors, should get her an Oscar nomination. The movie itself was a classic example of how to scare people: You don’t have a guy with a knife jump out at the audience; you make the audience THINK a guy with a knife is going to jump out at them. Giddy, eerie atmosphere at its best.

5. “Monsters, Inc.” The folks from Pixar (“Toy Story”) proved that painstaking effort and a whimsical mind are the best tools a filmmaker can have, in this story about why monsters hide in our closets to scare us, and why they’re just as afraid of us as we are of them. Hilarious and heartwarming.

6. “Series 7” A scathing parody of American pop culture, “Series 7” takes “reality TV” to extremes with a show in which strangers have to kill each other. Detail-perfect and morbidly funny.

7. “The Royal Tenenbaums” From writer/director Wes Anderson and his co-writer Owen Wilson — the duo behind “Bottle Rocket” and “Rushmore” — comes this subtle comedy in which every character is quietly, inobtrusively insane. Full of bemused goofiness and wonderfully silly dialogue, with a layer of family values underneath. Way underneath.

8. “L.I.E.” Unsettling but admirably discreet, this Sundance entry is about childhood lost and the heartbreaking pathos that comes from adolescents being left to become adults on their own. The central character is a 15-year-old boy who is targeted by a pedophile, but the movie is more about loss of innocence than pedophilia specifically. Some of the best acting of the year, and a cathartic experience overall, even if it does make you wince now and then.

9. “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” 2001, the year of the movie musical? John Cameron Mitchell’s off-Broadway camp smash about a rock singer who had a botched sex-change operation translated well to the big screen. The songs are great, the dialogue is witty, and the style is edgy and smart. And is it kinda sweet, too? Yeah, it is.

10. “Amores Perros” A plot-driven movie full of ironic twists and painful discoveries; everyone’s plans go awry here. It is often cynical, but it has warmth for its characters — who are, after all, only human.


The Worst Movies of 2001

There was a lot of competition, but here are the worst movies of 2001:

1. “Freddy Got Fingered” I’m tired of people trying to say this movie’s awfulness was the result of careful calculation and planning — that it was bad on purpose. This movie was awful because its star, Tom Green, didn’t realize his improvised MTV shtick wouldn’t work when it’s not improvised anymore. Never mind that it’s offensive and crass — its being punishingly unfunny is what ruined this one. Literally the worst movie I have ever seen.

2. “Black Knight” More self-indulgent, let-the-star-do-whatever-he-wants, we-don’t-need-a-script garbage, this time with Martin Lawrence — was he EVER funny? — as a guy transported back to the Middle Ages. Plenty of humor available with that premise, right? Yeah, probably. Too bad nobody wrote it, or got an actor with comic ability to perform it.

3. “Head over Heels” What would a year’s-worst list be without Freddie Prinze Jr.? And guess what: He’s not even the worst actor in the cast. (There are supermodels present, too.) Don’t miss the hilarious Freddie-has-diarrhea scene! It has forever stained my soul.

4. “On the Line” What? You mean the guy from ‘N Sync can’t act after all? And the script is stupid? And the movie doesn’t make any sense? And it flopped at the box office? How can this be happening?!

5. “Hardball” Keanu Reeves plays a bad guy who turns good when he’s forced to coach an inner-city Little League team. Then, to make sure we’re crying, one of the kids gets killed. Emotional manipulation at its lowest.

Black Hawk Down

0

Watching “Black Hawk Down,” I was gripped by the onscreen events and found the 2 1/2 hours of running time to feel like a lot less. It is a great in-the-moment movie, one that completely wraps you up in itself.

Afterward, a feeling began to sink in: What was the point of this movie? Why was this story told? It really didn’t add up to much, did it? The story is true, and very basic. U.S. soldiers attempt to restore order in Somalia in 1993. Their mission this particular day is to capture two of warlord Muhammad Farah Aidid’s top men. A soldier is injured and his men must rescue him, causing the get-in-get-out operation to turn into a day-long war.

Certainly valor and honor are exhibited, not to mention scant traces of grim-faced humor, final requests to tell Mom and Dad I love them, and suggestions from commanding officers that you suck it up, soldier.

But we have come to expect these things in war movies, and despite the novelty of this being about a recent event, “Black Hawk Down” is really just another war movie. The dialogue is cobbled together from the battle epics of the past 60 years, as are the characters: the eager, fresh-faced kid; the office soldier seeing his first real action; the new staff sergeant who is young and idealistic; the hardened captain; the class clown; the guy who gets killed right away; and so on.

There is little time for distinct performances in the first half, as that is where most of the action takes place. Once things settle (for a moment; it’s never calm very long), though, some highly serviceable acting comes into the picture. Josh Hartnett is the squad’s commander-by-default, leading by stoic example more than by words. Ewan McGregor is forceful as a guy who’s always wanted to do some real work but has been stuck doing administrative things. Orlando Bloom (recently of “Fellowship of the Ring”) is the brand-new kid, fresh out of basic training.

Jason Isaacs, Tom Sizemore, William Fichtner, Sam Shepard and Jeremy Piven are among the other grunts, each performing as well as can be expected under difficult circumstances (i.e., no characterization to speak of and not much real dialogue).

The Internet Movie Database lists 45 speaking roles, not one of which is female, if that tells you anything.

The visuals are quite impressive. Comparisons to the gorier moments of “Saving Private Ryan” are inevitable and justified, for director Ridley Scott at times seems to be trying to top that film on purpose. The gritty, sped-up style that worked well in Scott’s “Gladiator” battle scenes is used to good effect here, too, and the action scenes never fail to engage the senses.

The question is, is that enough? War is hell, to be sure, but what good is another movie that tells us that, and only that? In “Black Hawk Down,” we have a gruesome, blood-spattered piece of work that captivates for a couple hours, then completely disappears.

I Am Sam

0

Some movies melt your heart. “I Am Sam” microwaves it. Rather than go the long way around to your emotions — you know, with sympathetic characters and good writing — it uses movie shortcuts like retarded people and cute kids. Put those in a movie, and the tears are guaranteed, regardless of how clumsy or inept the movie is.

“I Am Sam” is about a retarded adult named Sam (Sean Penn) who fathered a child seven years ago and has raised her on his own, thanks to the mother walking out on him almost immediately after giving birth. The little girl is Lucy (Dakota Fanning), and if she’s not just the cutest thing in the world, then I don’t know what is. They have a sweet father-daughter relationship, and Lucy is only mildly concerned that, at 7 years old, she has the same mental capacity as her daddy.

Alas, the courts feel otherwise. Unless he can prove he’s a competent father, Sam will lose Lucy. Lucky for him, a high-powered attorney named Rita (Michelle Pfeiffer) is guilted by her colleagues into taking his case for free, but she has her work cut out for her. All of Sam’s friends are mentally challenged, too, which makes them less than ideal on the witness stand. His only non-retarded acquaintance is Annie (Dianne Wiest), and she’s agoraphobic and won’t leave the house.

The movie is smug, bent on using the Enlightened Retarded Guy to show us the error of our ways. Sure, he’s retarded, but at least he’s devoted to his daughter — which is more than you can say for the endless parade of contrasting examples the movie sets up for us. (One guy keeps correcting his son during a classroom presentation, a divorcing couple argues over which partner should be stuck with the kid, Rita herself doesn’t spend enough time with her son — and so on.)

And consider this: In the movie, anyone who even raises the idea that maybe a retarded man with a part-time job and no spouse is not the ideal parent is made out to be an unfeeling villain. Shame on you for even thinking such a thing!

Sean Penn gives more of an imitation (albeit a good one) than a performance, while Michelle Pfeiffer is embarrassingly flustered and high-strung as the lawyer. Little Dakota Fanning yanks the heartstrings like she’s starting a lawnmower.

Writer/director Jessie Nelson wrote the equally maudlin “Stepmom,” and her work on “I Am Sam” is no improvement. It is a film calculated to MAKE YOU CRY. If you like being manipulated in obvious ways, go for it.

The Best of ‘Snide Remarks’: 2001

0

Random highlights from the 800,000 “Snide Remarks” columns published in 2001:

Feb. 2: I thought I saw Mick Jagger at the Sundance Film Festival, but it turned out to be just a telephone pole with some trash stuck to it.

May 2: My recent trip to Disneyland revealed a park vastly different from the one I knew as a child. The Mickey’s Hernia Operation ride is new, for example, as is Tigger’s Crack House.

May 23: Hindering my sleep on the plane was a baby who shrieked like he was passing a kidney stone made out of Satan. This baby was very young; I believe his mother had given birth while boarding the plane.

June 1: BRIGHAM YOUNG: I see you’ve invited the entire world to visit our fair state in 2002 for an athletic contest of some kind. This is certainly a reversal of the policy I established, under which foreigners were shot on sight. Or perhaps that is still your intention, in which case I wink slyly at your cunning and say, bag a Frenchman for Brother Brigham!

June 13: New York is the city of dreams, the city of excitement, the city of people who stand on the street and want money. Some of these people are selling something, but some of them want money merely for standing there. I saw a guy who was standing motionless on a box, and he was painted gold from head to toe. People were throwing money in a cup in front of him, in exchange for his continuing to stand there, gold. I saw no reason to give him anything. I wasn’t the one who told him to paint himself gold.

June 15: I tend to lose weight quickly, I think because I send my body into shock. I go from eating 100 grams of fat a day to eating about 20 grams of fat a day, plus I’m jogging. So my body sees the sudden drop in fat consumption and says, “Crap! He’s dying!” Then, with the running, my body says, “Crap! He’s dying AND someone’s chasing him!” And we start getting rid of stuff that’s weighing us down, like we’re an airplane that’s lost an engine. All the excess items get tossed out. My appendix actually removed itself last week.

July 11: The Victoria’s Secret war heated up when a local mother walked past the Victoria’s Secret in Ye Olde Provo Towne Centre Malle and was shocked and appalled to see a shocking and appalling poster in the window. Her 6-year-old son saw the poster, too, and immediately burst into puberty. The mother’s head exploded. The mall caught fire. The world ended. (Remember?)

July 18: I love that you’re allowed to talk during a baseball game. Not like church, for example, where you can’t yell “chatter” at the players (“Hey, preacher, preacher, preacher, he’s no preacher!”), and where only a few of your more liberal sects permit the eating of nachos.

July 27: I was halfway through the four-hour “Family Feud” marathon on the Game Show Network when a thought struck me: Sweet Allah in heaven above me, is this what my life has become? I’m a big loser! Then Richard Dawson said, “Name a yellow fruit,” and the contestant said, “Orange,” and I felt better.

Sept. 7: PETA’s latest victory in the war against common sense is that Disneyland employees will no longer shoot fake bullets at the fake hippos on the Jungle Cruise ride. This was long overdue, as the fake animals had been tormented by fake bullets shot from fake guns by fake river guides for decades. It took a fake hippo nearly fake dying from a fake bullet wound before Disney finally did the sensible thing and began shooting PETA members instead.

Oct. 3: A telemarketer called last week. He said, “I am calling to tell you about a ‘funtastic’ new offer from–” and I hung up. Any product that can be described as “funtastic” is not a product I want in my home.

Oct. 24: The Wal-Mart Supercenter: Where you can have your oil changed, buy groceries, visit the eye doctor, get a mammogram and adopt an underprivileged African child, all in one overcrowded, city-sized store where the employees may not be exactly at the top of their field. I mean, do you really think guys are graduating from optometry school saying, “I hope to open a practice at Wal-Mart, looking for astigmatisms in housewives who are pushing seven barefoot children in a shopping cart”?

Nov. 2: Newspapers are not exempt from these cutbacks. The Orange County Register recently laid off 105 employees, and the Dallas Morning News sent 73 folks packing. The New York Times even had to sell its theater critics’ thesauruses. (“A tragic tragedy of tragic proportions!” is how one critic described it.)

Nov. 7: The ballet was not boring. It was beautiful and exciting. The stage was filled with so many lithe young men and flat-chested young women, I thought an Obsession commercial was going to break out. The music and dancing complemented each other, telling a story. (“Once upon a time, there were some people who were dancing.”)

Nov. 28: I flew on a tiny plane with only 50 seats. It was designed by elves, for elves; unfortunately, the passengers were all non-elfin. I used the bathroom on this plane, and I believe it was not only the smallest bathroom I’ve ever been in, but the smallest space I’ve ever been in, period, including the womb.

Gosford Park

0

Robert Altman’s penchant for huge casts, slowly panning cameras and subtle satire are brought to bear in his delicious new film, the whodunit social commentary “Gosford Park.”

It is 1932, and Sir William (Michael Gambon) and his wife Lady Sylvia (Kristin Scott Thomas) are hosting a hunting party. All the fancy-pants Brits are coming, accompanied by their personal maids and valets, which leads to two distinct settings: upstairs at the house, where the guests are; and downstairs, where the servants live. The bluebloods rarely find themselves subterranean, but nearly every room upstairs has a servant in it at all times, which means every conversation is overheard by someone. (This movie is heavy on overhearing.)

As one character puts it, the situation makes for “tough luck on anyone who’s got secrets to hide.” Well, guess what. That would include everyone.

An hour and 15 minutes into the movie, a murder occurs, and the victim is someone everyone had a motive to kill. The mildly competent Inspector Thompson (Stephen Fry) is called in to investigate, and the movie is in full Agatha Christie swing. (The detective even smokes a pipe, like you’d expect him to.)

Agatha Christie didn’t delve much into social classes, though, and social classes are what “Gosford Park” is all about. The film takes both lighthearted and dismal approaches, evoking laughter many times and pity at other times.

The perfect servant has no life of his own, knows his master’s whims before the master himself knows them, and has no thought but to serve. Knowledge of this is what ultimately aids the murderer in accomplishing his or her task; the servant-master relationship also keeps the murderer’s identity a secret. This impeccably proper society make murder an easy thing to do, basically.

The performances are utterly delightful, from Stephen Fry’s inspector to Maggie Smith as a hilariously catty relative. (I’d want Maggie Smith to be my grandmother, except I’d be afraid to ever do anything incorrect in her presence.) Helen Mirren is believably rigid as servant Mrs. Wilson, Emily Watson sweet as Elsie the head housemaid, Bob Balaban funny as a Hollywood producer.

Also of note are Ryan Phillippe as a suspicious Scotsman, Jeremy Northam as an ingratiating movie star and Kristin Scott Thomas as the lady of the house.

Altman, working from an idea he and Balaban came up with, and a script written by Julian Fellowes, has an impossible number of characters to keep track of. There are around 30 speaking parts, and it is sometimes difficult to remember who’s who, especially when so much of the gossipy conversation revolves around people who are not present. The movie is not confusing, per se, but we’d get a lot more out of it if we had a score card or something.

Monster’s Ball

0

“Monster’s Ball” is about very different strangers brought together by fate, though that time-worn plot device doesn’t begin to do justice to the complexity of this emotionally rich film.

In fact, none of what the film is “about” can adequately be explained just by describing it. It’s about racism, yes, and breaking off from poisonous family traditions, and the death penalty, and a thousand other things that have been dealt with already in other movies. But through Marc Forster’s slow, dreamily paced direction, Milo Addica and Will Rokos’ clear, simple script and — especially — Oscar-caliber acting from Billy Bob Thornton and Halle Berry, this film made of old parts seems as fresh and alive as if every one of its ideas were brand-new.

It is set in Georgia, a place with a long history of deeply felt racism. Hank Grotowski (Thornton) has inherited this from his now-decrepit father (Peter Boyle), but the hate seems to be watered down with each generation: Hank only seems to mirror his father’s attitudes, enacting them out of habit more than out of genuine belief in them, and Hank’s grown son (Heath Ledger) hasn’t got any of it at all.

Sonny, as he is called, is a disappointment in other ways, too. Old Buck and Hank both were correction officers, and Sonny — as profoundly unhappy as any film character you’ll see — has tried to carry on the rugged family tradition. But he is not cut out for such brutal work as overseeing executions, and Buck and Hank consider him weak.

Among those to be executed under Hank’s watch is Lawrence Musgrove (Sean Combs), the husband of Letitia (Berry), who has lost any love she ever had for her murderous spouse. She barely notes his death, though the film does not flinch for a moment in depicting his visit to the electric chair.

A second look:

10/26/2011: Re-Views: ‘Monster’s Ball’ (2001)

Circumstances cause Letitia to be acquainted with Hank — the man who flipped the switch on her husband — and an unlikely bond develops between them. They have in common a great deal of familial pain, not to mention violent tempers. “Monster’s Ball” becomes the story of how two such coarse, flawed people can refine one another into something workable.

This is by and large a quiet movie, with very little musical underscoring and not a bit of flashiness. Forster is confident enough in his script and actors, as well he should be, and is content to let them shine.

The inevitable discovery by Letitia that her new boyfriend was her husband’s executioner is dealt with so admirably, I wanted to stand up and applaud. When I think of the melodrama that could have resulted, and ponder how this film turned it into something beautiful and life-affirming instead, it makes me hopeful about the intelligence and depth motion pictures can convey. It doesn’t need to be cheap and easy to win an audience; moviegoers like it when movies assume a certain level of maturity in them.

Much has been made of Thornton’s and Berry’s performances, and with good reason. Thornton’s Hank is a closed-off man, reminiscent of his work in “The Man Who Wasn’t There,” in which he also played a working-class guy with no access to his own emotions. Berry plays Letitia with marvelous insight and realism, giving the impression we are watching not an actress but a real person.

An Obsessive-Compulsive Christmas

0

We Sniders are an obsessive-compulsive lot that can barely function in normal society without a lot of medication and public embarrassment. And nowhere is this made more manifest than at Christmastime. We’re big on traditions — so much that anytime something new happens on or around Christmas, we declare it a new tradition and insist that it happen again in all subsequent years. (This includes accidents and family tragedies.)

For example, one year when we kids were young, Dad tried to take a shower before coming out to the living room so we could all open presents. We were enraged that he would delay the proceedings. The next year, he turned on the shower, and when we heard it, we raced down the hall to kill him. Turns out he was still fully clothed and was merely pretending to take a shower to see what we’d do. And the merry new tradition of pretending to shower was born.

So each year we add more and more traditions to the 30 years’ worth we already have, making Christmas more and more complicated, to the point that we now have to begin observing it on Dec. 20 just so we can be done by New Year’s. I shudder to think what will happen the first time I’m not able to fly home for the holidays. I suspect the family will do everything as per normal, and just leave silent spaces where my lines would normally go. (Sample dialogue: “Now I remember why I moved out”; “Someone get rid of that stupid cat”; “I have TWO sisters?”)

One of our traditions is accusing each other of ruining Christmas. This is sometimes done in a joking manner, and sometimes it is accompanied by a torrent of tears. It is an essential part of the American Christmas experience, as it helps remind us that no matter what goes wrong, it is always someone else’s fault.

The greatest crime this year was committed by Mom (the record-holder in the field of Christmas-ruining), who allowed her yappy little dogs to dictate the placement of the presents. Normally, of course, the presents are under the tree, where they belong, as mandated by the Bible. But the chihuahuas, Andy and Pee-Wee, apparently wreaked havoc on them, so they (the presents) were put on the pool table instead.

Now, I ask you: Is it acceptable to put Christmas presents on a pool table? Can you picture the Wise Men doing that? Do the Norman Rockwell paintings allow for it? If you ask me, it’s a travesty with a capital T. Besides, any dog that can’t climb up on a pool table is no real dog at all, and trust me, Andy and Pee-Wee are not real dogs. They are gophers, or throw pillows, or things to kick. They bark ALL THE TIME, in accordance with the law of nature dictating that creatures with the least capacity for coherent thought should also make the most noise. (See also Jerry Falwell.) Pee-Wee is also Andy’s father AND grandfather, thanks to some mating shenanigans that apparently are OK in the dog family but that we humans tend to frown upon, at least this far North. I think the inbreeding actually made them stupider than your average chihuahuas, if you can believe that.

Anyway, speaking of stupid, our newest tradition is riding my brother Jeff down the stairs. See, Jeff’s a big guy. Huge, in fact. He could eat you under the table, and then eat you and the table. And our parents just bought a new house, with a second story, and the house we grew up in had no stairs, so stairs are a novelty. And so now for fun, Jeff lies on his belly and slides down the stairs with someone on his back, riding him like a sled. We have video footage of Mom doing this.

Some families get really dysfunctional around Christmas. But not mine. We’ve got all that medication to help us out.

Kate & Leopold

0

Meg Ryan has carved out a niche that should be named after her, where she plays perky career women who find love in New York City, often with Tom Hanks.

In “Kate & Leopold,” her character is named Kate McKay (not to be confused with “You’ve Got Mail,” where she was Kathleen Kelly), and she is a marketing research executive who occasionally shows romantic comedies to test audiences to see what they like. Kate lives her life this way, too: She likes her relationships to be normal, straightforward, and typical. She doesn’t believe in catering to the small minority with different tastes and opinions; she prefers to make everything as fully marketable and mass-appealish as possible.

“Kate & Leopold” presents her this way without irony, even though you are no doubt already seeing it emerge: Meg Ryan, who plays the same role in every movie, is playing a woman who for that reason would probably be Meg Ryan’s biggest fan.

Her ex-boyfriend, would-be inventor Stuart (Liev Schreiber), lives in the apartment above hers and is one day joined by a guest. It is Leopold (Hugh Jackman), a very proper British noble whom Stuart has snatched from history (1876, specifically) and brought forward through a naturally occurring time portal. (In the version of the film shown to critics, Leopold was Stuart’s great-grandfather. This gives a reason for his being chosen, but it also means Stuart’s ex-girlfriend wound up with Stuart’s great-grandfather, which presents some thorny DNA issues. Thus, the film has been re-edited to remove Stuart and Leopold’s kinship.)

Leopold is unfailingly polite and charming, and Jackman does some of his best work to date in a role that allows him to be funny and affable while also setting female audience members’ undergarments on fire. Leopold and Kate are destined for each other, naturally, though she has a hard time believing he’s actually from 1876, as does her actor brother Charlie (Breckin Meyer).

Much of the film is devoted to the budding romance between the title characters, though in the background we remember a point mentioned right off: Leopold has to go back to the past at a certain time next Monday, or else he’ll be stuck here forever. Whatever will they do?

Director James Margold (“Girl, Interrupted”) has this film firmly entrenched in romance, pushing all the buttons that make women coo and men roll their eyes. There are Gershwin songs in the score, for crying out loud. Margold has fashioned quite a good date movie, though, leaving out the embarrassing sex and nudity and leaving in enough actual comedy — and solid stuff, too — to keep everyone happy.

The script, by Mangold and Steven Rogers, has some sloppy points that need to be mentioned. First is the obligatory public speech at the end, where Kate has to make her decision and embarrass herself. (The fact that Meg Ryan is apparently now sleepwalking through these performances doesn’t help it any.) Second is a series of anachronisms: Leopold references Jack the Ripper, who didn’t come on the scene until 1888; he says he saw the world premiere of “The Pirates of Penzance,” which wasn’t until 1879 (and he gets the story wrong, too); he refers to Thomas Edison and the light bulb, also a few years too early. I found all this information on the Internet in less than five minutes; surely one of the two screenwriters could have done the same.

But I’m awarding extra points to Mangold and Rogers for NOT including a bunch of bad time-travel comedy — you know, where Leopold walks out into the streets and says, “What are these strange horseless carriages that roar like lions? They will not devour me, will they?,” or where he tries to drink out of a toilet or something. Leopold is a bit freaked out at first, but he gets over it fast, thank goodness.

The plot is all over the place, with Kate using Leopold as a TV-commercial pitchman, Charlie using Leopold’s expertise in wooing women, and Kate’s boss (Bradley Whitford) attempting sexual harassment against her. None of these really goes anywhere; they are amusing diversions while we’re waiting for Kate and Leopold to get together. The whole movie, in fact, is an amusing diversion while we’re waiting for something better to come along.

The Shipping News

0

Director Lasse Hallstrom’s last two films, “The Cider House Rules” and “Chocolat,” were glossy, pretty-looking pictures about gentle people with gentle souls. “The Shipping News” is no different in that respect.

It also perpetuates Hallstrom’s tendency to treat emotionally huge issues in a very non-huge way. “Cider House Rules” had abortion, “Chocolat” had spousal abuse (one frying pan to the head, and the problem is solved!), and now “Shipping News” has a brief flashback in which we learn someone was the victim of incest rape at age 12, and that it resulted in a pregnancy. But it’s all better now, and we need never mention it again!

(There’s also exactly one reference to a child having been sold to a black-market adoption agency. One line, nothing more.)

Maybe Hallstrom is just choosing the wrong books to base his movies on, and maybe his current screenwriter of choice, Robert Nelson Jacobs (who also adapted “Chocolat”), lacks the discernment to know which plot points to keep and which ones to cut because he can’t devote full attention to them. I haven’t read the book “The Shipping News” is based on, but I suspect the incest-rape thing is given more gravity there than it is here.

Thematically, it’s a relatively important point. Everyone in this movie has a past that haunts them, and everyone has to overcome those obstacles to build a better future. The protagonist, an unambitious New England native named Quoyle (Kevin Spacey), fell in love with the wrong woman, fathered a child, and now finds himself in the tiny Newfoundland town that his “people” came from.

There he meets a whole host of quirky, funny small-town people, including Wavey (Julianne Moore), who has a mildly retarded little boy and no husband to speak of. There’s also Quoyle’s aunt Agnis (Judi Dench), who dragged him here in the first place and who has a number of personal issues to deal with, not the least of which is a penchant for stealing people’s ashes. Oh, and every single townsperson has some trouble in his past, many of these centering around boats and drownings, which are prevalent in the wintery fishing-centered community.

Family is important to the movie. Quoyle is never given a first name, presumably because, as the locals suppose, he is a Quoyle, nothing more or less. Family can also be the greatest source of our problems, though, as is also noted in the film.

The movie begins brusquely, thanks primarily to Cate Blanchett as the crass, flighty woman Quoyle has an affair with. Once she’s out of the picture, it’s remarkably uncynical, and altogether pleasant. Which is sort of the problem: Some of the elements should be a lot more unpleasant than they are. Aside from being more fair and mature that way, it would also give the film some weight. As it is, it has very little resonance.

Kevin Spacey is characteristically excellent as Quoyle, supported ably by Julianne Moore and Judi Dench, as well as Scott Glenn, Rhys Ifans and Pete Postlethwaite as his co-workers at the tiny newspaper he writes for. No, there’s nothing wrong with the performances here. It’s the whitewashed writing and superficial directing that keep this decent movie from being a truly great one.

Ali

0

Michael Mann should be honored for his talent at sleight-of-hand. In 1999’s “The Insider,” the writer/director took a dry subject (ethics in journalism) and made it riveting. In his new film, “Ali,” he takes an interesting topic (Muhammad Ali’s career) and makes it dull. Presto!

This 157-minute film begins and ends with Ali in a boxing match, first against Sonny Liston in 1964, and then against George Foreman in 1974. Both of these matches are shown approximately in real time, somewhat compressed from how long they actually took, but still without any cutting away.

The movie in between has the same real-time feel. Some scenes, already about nothing, go on interminably. We see a lot of things without ever getting an indication of why Mann saw fit to show them to us.

Curiously, there are some important details Mann leaves out. For example, the name of Ali’s second wife. Or what city it all takes place in. (Maybe you already know Ali was from Louisville; maybe you don’t.) Or what year it is: After the caption says 1964 in the first scene, we are never told again. Suddenly he’s getting divorced, and remarried, and there’s a child, all with no sense that any time has passed. The only method the film gives you to know the final match is in 1974 is to have someone say Ali is not the same fighter he was “10 years ago,” and even that is obviously open to a lot of different interpretations.

Will Smith plays Cassius Clay, who changes his name to Muhammad Ali as the result of his affiliation with the Black Muslims. A big chunk of the movie focuses on his attempt to avoid being drafted to Vietnam due to conscientious objection — but then, when he wins his court appeal and doesn’t go to jail, it’s glossed over quickly.

That sense of detachment pervades the movie. We see a lot of events, and hear a lot of talking, but it never seems to mean anything in terms of who these people are. The most interesting relationship is between Ali and Howard Cosell (an unrecognizable Jon Voight), but even that is more entertaining than insightful. (“You want some food for that thing?” Ali says in regards to Cosell’s toupee.)

Smith nails Ali’s swagger and the cadences of his speech; like Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman a couple years ago, he’s not playing the role so much as channeling it. There’s a fine line between doing an impersonation and playing a character. “Ali” points out that sometimes the only difference is that impersonations allow you to wear wigs and makeup (see Jon Voight), while characters require you to bulk up your muscles and change your hairstyle. But in neither case are we actually seeing a real person; it’s still just a caricature.

There’s a parade of supporting characters: Jamie Foxx as Ali’s Jewish friend Bundini, Mario Van Peebles as Malcolm X, Mykelti Williamson as Don King, Giancarlo Esposito as Ali’s father. What was it about Ali that attracted them to him? Who was Ali, and why did he do what he did? Why was America so fascinated with him? Someday, maybe a filmmaker will spend 157 minutes answering those questions.

A Beautiful Mind

0

Ron Howard has had trouble earning respect as a director, but that may be changing soon. Most of the people who only remember him as Opie must be dead by now, and even those of us who think of him as Richie Cunningham are getting on in years. Soon, a whole new generation of people will remember him only as the director of proficient, well-made, unspectacular films like “Far and Away,” “Apollo 13” and now “A Beautiful Mind.”

“A Beautiful Mind” is the true story of Dr. John Nash, a Princeton-educated math genius whose work for the government led to a number of interesting and quasi-interesting developments. Russell Crowe plays Nash at an Oscar-caliber level, far outshining anyone else involved — including Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman.

It begins with Nash at Princeton in 1947, using math principles to figure out the best way to pick up girls — and then rushing back to his apartment to develop the theories, rather than actually using them. His roommate, Charles (Paul Bettany, last seen as Geoffrey Chaucer in “A Knight’s Tale”), is a hard-partying English major, and he does what he can to keep Nash sane.

It doesn’t really work, though. Nash goes on to work at M.I.T. at the Wheeler Defense Labs, helping the government crack codes and keep the Commies out of America. It’s 1953 now, and people are very afraid of Commies, and Nash’s beautiful mind has trouble dealing with it all. In the midst of this, he marries one of his students, Alicia (Jennifer Connelly).

Crowe carries the movie on the shoulders of his nerdy, befuddled Professor Nash. Any doubts as to Crowe’s actual talent should be dismissed now; his performance is the genuine article, full of nuances and subtleties and realism.

Jennifer Connelly is no slouch, either. She proved herself in last year’s “Requiem for a Dream,” and now she gives a marvelous supporting performance as Nash’s long-suffering wife. It is reminiscent of Marcia Gay Harden’s role in “Pollock,” both in content (the wife of a troubled genius, and so on) and in quality. Both are quintessential “supporting” roles, in that you hardly notice they’re there until afterward, when you reflect on how much less the movie would have been without them. The movie itself is solid, if unspectacular, and it has a few moving moments and some glossy themes about having a logical mind in an illogical world. As usual, Howard directs without manhandling: You can tell the film was made by someone who knows what he’s doing, but not by someone who wants to draw attention to himself. It’s crisp and well-organized and thoughtful. It’s not life-changing stuff, any of it, but maybe it doesn’t need to be.

Joe Somebody

0

Tell me if this sounds familiar: A well-meaning but weak man is embarrassed by a bully in front of his family, vows to get revenge by fighting the guy, and in the process of preparing, his family gains new respect for him, he becomes a better person, and he realizes violence is not the answer. In the end, everyone is proud of everyone, and there are hugs all around.

It’s a sitcom, right? One half-hour episode of a TV sitcom. Right?

No, sucker! It’s an entire FULL-LENGTH MOVIE, called “Joe Somebody.” It’s three times as long as a TV sitcom, but with just as much depth, a bit more swearing, and probably fewer laughs. You won’t like it, but it’s my job to tell you about it anyway, so I will.

Tim Allen plays Joe Scheffer, a nobody who gets slapped around by a mean guy (Patrick Warburton) in his company’s parking lot, with his daughter Natalie (Hayden Panettiere) as a witness. He tells the guy he’s going to fight him in three weeks to avenge his honor, and in the meantime seeks the martial-arts expertise of a washed-up action-movie actor (James Belushi).

Also in the meantime, he becomes an office celebrity. Everyone hates the bully, and even though Joe hasn’t actually stood up to him yet, they’re glad he’s planning to. He becomes a Somebody, and a co-worker named Meg (Julie Bowen) starts to fall in love with him.

The movie is from first-time writer John Scott Shepherd, and director John Pasquin. Pasquin previously directed Allen in the “Home Improvement” TV show, as well as in “The Santa Clause” and “Jungle2Jungle.” He’s very familiar with Allen, so he knows just how to coax that special Tim Allen magic out of him: Make him act like a clueless imbecile, and make sure he gets whacked in the groin every few minutes. Instant comedy!

(Side note: The daughter, Natalie, is impossibly precocious, and the actress who plays her looks like Jonathan Taylor Thomas, who played Allen’s son on “Home Improvement.” It’s creepy.)

James Belushi earns a few laughs as the has-been movie star, and there are assorted chuckles elsewhere, too. But the overall impact is so slight and transparent. The comedy is broad, simple and amateurish. If you’ve watched even a few TV sitcoms, you’ve seen everything this movie has to offer — but in much less time.

The Majestic

0

Jim Carrey makes another desperate grab at an Oscar nomination with “The Majestic,” a lovely movie from Frank Darabont, the heart-tugging director of “The Shawshank Redemption” and “The Green Mile.”

For Carrey, desperately grabbing at an Oscar nomination means NOT behaving desperately. He is low-key and human, almost Jimmy Stewart-esque (notably for being in such a Frank Capra-esque movie), mainly because his character gets whacked in the head. Who knew it would take a concussion to finally calm him down?

He plays Peter Appleton, a Hollywood screenwriter in 1951 who writes B-movies like “Sand Pirates of the Sahara” and is tormented by the nameless, faceless studio heads who keep “improving” his work the way only nameless, faceless studio heads can. (The great inside joke is that the studio heads are played by Garry Marshall, Paul Mazursky, Sydney Pollack, Carl Reiner, Rob Reiner and Brian Howe — all real-life directors and producers.)

It is the height of the McCarthy Era, and Peter soon finds himself blacklisted due to having innocently attended a Community Party meeting while in college. Drunk and depressed, he accidentally drives his car off a bridge and wakes up with amnesia in a small town called Lawton, Calif.

Lawton is a somber, quiet community, having lost 62 men in World War II. Peter bears a striking resemblance to one of them, Luke Trimble, and Luke’s father Harry (Martin Landau) believes Peter is really his long-lost son. With the amnesia, Peter is in no position to argue. Maybe he IS Luke Trimble.

If he is, it means he’s engaged to Adele Stanton (Laurie Holden), daughter of the town doctor. It also means he grew up helping Harry run the Majestic theater, which has since closed down. Aided by the former usher (Gerry Black) and candy girl (Susan Willis), Peter and Harry renovate and reopen the theater, bringing vitality back to the town … and some memories back to movie buff Peter.

“The Majestic” spends a lot of time on the power of movies to uplift and entertain us, in the same vein as “Cinema Paradiso.” At the same time, it presents a contradictory message about the corruption of Hollywood. (In 1951, it’s hard to separate “Hollywood” from “movies,” since there really was no independent filmmaking.) Michael Sloane’s script wants to have its cake and eat it, too: Show us how great movies are, while mocking the way movies are made.

Another contradiction is in the film’s climax, which takes place in a courtroom. Most courtroom climaxes are awful and cliched, and this one is no exception. Funny how in the opening scenes, we’re watching film executives ruin Peter’s movie by introducing senseless crowd-pleasing elements, and in the closing scenes, we’re seeing “The Majestic” ruined the same way.

We live in patriotic times, to be sure, but I suspect the rah-rahism of that courtroom scene will be too much even for the most flag-waving of Americans. It’s overdone, melodramatic and unrealistic. (Mark Isham’s intrusive musical score doesn’t help any.)

Carrey’s performance is fine, considering his character is in a stupor most of the time, but Martin Landau is fantastic. He’s the most honest character in the movie, and a joy to watch.

Up until the climax, “The Majestic” is a perfectly good film, with equal parts humor, whimsy and sweetness. Carrey probably won’t get that Oscar nomination, but at least he made a decent movie while in search of it.

Sidewalks of New York

0

Edward Burns’ “Sidewalks of New York” is about love among urbanites, but it’s also about a more platonic kind of affection: the love people have for their city.

Of course, everyone loves New York these days, but writer/director/actor Ed Burns has been loving it for a long time, as have many other filmmakers who set most (if not all) of their movies in the Big Apple.

“Sidewalks of New York” lets a few characters wax rhapsodic in their dialogue, but mostly, we fall in love with New York just by seeing it. It’s a gritty place, and the faux-documentary style Burns uses here brings it lovingly to life. It’s not the soft focus, dreamy-looking Manhattan of a Meg Ryan romantic comedy; it’s the real deal, full of grimy concrete and 9 million strangers.

A few of those strangers are brought together in various ways in “Sidewalks.” First we meet Tommy Riley (Burns), a TV producer who has recently been kicked out by his girlfriend and is living with his pal Carpo (Dennis Farina), a sweaty lothario who issues questionable dating advice.

Tommy meets Maria (Rosario) in a video store and asks her out. She is available due to having divorced her husband Ben (David Krumholtz), a sweet, desperate fellow who can’t commit to monogamy and who is now pursuing a waitress named Ashley (Brittany Murphy), who is involved with Griffin Aretzo (Stanley Tucci), a married jerk. Griffin’s wife is the idealistic young Annie (Heather Graham), who begins to suspect her husband is having an affair and who, as a real estate agent, is showing apartments to Tommy.

The way the characters move in and out of each other’s lives is interesting, but not nearly as interesting as the characters themselves. They are believable, funny people, with attributes and vices. Even Griffin, who is basically a swine, has the redeeming quality of being endlessly amusing to watch.

To effect the documentary style, Burns shows each of the characters being interviewed by an unseen filmmaker at various times throughout the movie. They offer their opinions directly, bringing issues to the forefront much more quickly than could be done with regular dialogue.

Still, there is a great deal of sharp, dynamic dialogue in the movie. Characters don’t do much beyond the ordinary things New Yorkers do — go to dinner, do laundry, and so on — but they make up for it with plenty of yakking. Fortunately, it’s entertaining yakking, yakked by characters we enjoy watching.

Master of the Universe

0

A mistake was made recently at The Daily Universe. Now, I know the BYU student newspaper routinely makes mistakes, including that one time back in the ’90s when they let me be editor in chief for a semester. But this error wasn’t the fault of the students. This one came from the Communications Department.

The mistake was in firing John Gholdston as managing director of The Daily Universe, a position he held for 15 years. Under his compassionate tutelage and vast real-life-journalism experience, hundreds of students were immeasurably enriched and enlightened by John Gholdston. (Trivia: He does not like to be called “Gholdie.”) We also learned how to use words like “tutelage.”

Firing him was a mistake, pure and simple. What’s worse, it was a cowardly, back-stabby mistake. He was unceremoniously dumped, without notice and without cause, two weeks before Christmas.

This is the man who led The Daily Universe through its integration with the broadcast journalism program, and under whose guidance The Daily Universe won awards year after year after year. And then he was treated the way you treat part-time seasonal help, or the kid who occasionally mows your lawn. Rarely have I seen such ingratitude and cluelessness, even from BYU officials, among whom ingratitude and cluelessness are seen as favorable traits. (They call them “self-reliance” and “child-like innocence.”)

Gholdston has legal reasons for not discussing the reasons he was given for the firing, but he did tell me this: “I did not violate any Honor Code principles, and I broke no rules or laws involving BYU or the LDS Church — nor was I accused of such.” In other words, he didn’t do anything wrong, and the Communications Department doesn’t claim he did.

So why was he fired, then? The mass e-mail sent by some students last weekend says the Communications Department accused Gholdston of being inaccessible to students, and unwilling to mentor them. I hope this is not really what the Communications Department said — they’re not talking to the press, either — because it is an absurd statement. In fact, it is the least-true statement I’ve ever heard in my life. A team of liars working around the clock for a thousand years could not come up with a statement any less true than that.

Being available to students is what John Gholdston was best known for! If you’re going to fire someone and make up a reason for it, at least make up a GOOD reason. Don’t accuse the guy of NOT being the one thing he was best known for being. It’s like firing Santa Claus for not being jolly.

Speaking of Santa Claus, I would like to remind you that the firing took place two weeks before Christmas.

The topper was when NewsNet General Manager Jim Kelly refused to let student editors run a story about the firing in last Friday’s Daily Universe. Communications Department Chair Michael Perkins said in Tuesday’s Daily Herald that this decision was a matter of news judgment: “It really wasn’t a news story,” he said.

A beloved teacher and role model is suddenly fired, and it’s not a news story? Well, here’s a partial list of things that WERE in Friday’s Daily Universe, which means they apparently ARE news stories:

“Donation Needs Exceed Contributions.” (What? You mean there are still poor people? What happened to that 10 bucks I gave United Way?)

“Students Learn Survival Skills.” (Report on a graduate student’s lecture on managing finals-week stress.)

“New Planner Promotes Y.” (FranklinCovey has unveiled a new BYU-themed day planner.)

“Shortened Break Causes Concern.” (Many students — well, two are quoted in the story — wish Christmas break were longer.)

If stories were omitted from The Daily Universe due to not being newsworthy, each day’s edition would consist of two 8 1/2″ x 11″ sheets of paper (front only). And if Gholdston were still there to teach and instruct, the stories would be written by students who’d been infused with a passion for journalism, and who were allowed to make mistakes now and then as part of the learning process. Under the new management, I suspect they’ll be infused with a passion for bureaucracy and double-speak — good training for the public relations students, I guess, but not the journalists.

Attention BYU: Take my name off your mailing list, because I’m not donating anymore. Attention whichever university hires Gholdston now: Just tell me who to make the check out to.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

0

The first part of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, “The Fellowship of the Ring,” is the most thrilling adventure movie in at least a decade, and one of the most visceral, emotional films of the year. When it’s not stopping your heart, it’s breaking it, filling it or lightening it.

Fans of the J.R.R. Tolkien novels have eagerly anticipated the trilogy of films (the other two parts, filmed concurrently with “Fellowship,” will be released at Christmas 2002 and 2003). I don’t think they’ll be disappointed. I haven’t read more than chunks of “Fellowship,” but the film seems to be a respectful, smart adaptation (by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and director Peter Jackson), capturing the spirit and intention of the book even as it has to, of necessity, trim a few things here and there. (Tom Bombadil is gone altogether, for example.)

The story, for those unfamiliar with it, is an epic Hero’s Journey. A hobbit named Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), accompanied by friends and aided by the wise old wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), must travel a great distance to the aptly named Mt. Doom to destroy an evil ring, resisting its powers and temptations along the way. All the while, they are pursued by the Dark Riders, dreadful creatures called orcs, and all manner of foul beasts, some of whom seek the ring for themselves and some of whom simply like to kill things.

It runs three hours and fills every minute of it. There is never a moment not occupied with some exciting bit of action or important nugget of dialogue. If you can find even five minutes that should have been shaved off, you’re better at Shorten the Long Movie than I am, and Shorten the Long Movie is one of my favorite pastimes. (“Titanic”? Didn’t need the framing story with the old lady. “Harry Potter”? Could have omitted the entire opening sequence with baby Harry. “Pearl Harbor”? The 90 minutes before the bombs started dropping could have been trimmed to 45.)

Director Peter Jackson delivers a feast for the eyes without being overly flashy or scintillating. The war scenes are horrific, the evil cities monstrous, the city of Rivendell gorgeous. The troll that traps our heroes in a cave is terrifyingly real. The orcs are straight out of a nightmare.

But unlike a certain other wizard-oriented book-based film in recent memory, “Fellowship” was not content to merely transfer the events and characters from page to screen. Jackson has also captured the emotions and relationships of these beings. When Gandalf goes to his old friend Saruman (Christopher Lee) for help, only to learn that Saruman is no longer one of the good guys, we feel his pain. The dialogue is often melodramatic, almost Shakespearean, as written, but it’s delivered with such conviction that it instantly conveys connections between people. The characters’ relationships to each other have weight and mass and substance — not because the books told us they do, but because they actually do.

Frodo, overwhelmed by the task he’s been assigned and all its associated dangers, wishes aloud that none of this had ever happened. Gandalf, sympathetic but wise, says he doesn’t blame him for feeling that way, but reminds him that we don’t get to decide which cards we’re dealt in life. “All that you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you,” he says.

Can it be that this fantasy-novel-turned-roller-coaster-ride has some magnitude to it? That it all MEANS something beyond providing a thousand thrills and adventures? “The Fellowship of the Ring” is enjoyable on a “popcorn movie” level, to be sure. But it goes so much further than that with its pure, earnest themes of Good vs. Evil, bravery, friendship and devotion. It is a massive, grand film that is massively, grandly entertaining.

2,001 Angry Letters

0

2001 was an unpleasant year, and not just because it spawned so many gratuitous references to dull science-fiction movies. I would like to end things on a positive note, but instead, I’m going to share with you The Year in Angry Letters, a wrap-up of the mail I got this year in response to “Snide Remarks.”

Back in February, I made a passing reference to Richard Paul Evans and his “Christmas Box” books, and how they are crap. Then I received this e-mail:

“I haven’t noticed any of your writings made into books [as a side note, don’t forget to buy the two “Snide Remarks” books, published in 1998 and 1999, on sale at the BYU Bookstore], so all of that “crap” from Evans must be liked by quite a few people. [Oh, I didn’t say it wasn’t popular. Just that it wasn’t good.] Personally, that kind of language offends me and I really didn’t see the necessity of using it [except when you’re quoting a columnist, apparently]. Ideas can be put across using a better selection of words.”

Ideas CAN be put across using a better selection of words. Did you hear that, Richard Paul Evans?

In April, I discussed the difference between “chick flicks” (which only women can enjoy), and “date movies” (which men can sort of tolerate). I said men will endure any kind of boring date the woman can conjure up — even reading magazines in a gynecologist’s office — as long as he thinks he might get a kiss at the end of it.

That column begat this angry, anonymous letter. See if you can figure out what the writer is actually angry about. (Hint: You can’t.)

“I try not to read your column. [Not very hard, apparently.] … However, I must be a sucker for punishment because I go back to it when I have time to open my Daily Herald. … ‘Snide Remarks’ should be re-titled ‘Ignorant Bliss’ by Mr. Dumb A**. [Alas, that name’s already been copyrighted by Rush Limbaugh.] …

“Are you really so provincial to think that a date is for the woman’s enjoyment only? … Where did you find your lovely wife? Russia? [Did she just manufacture a wife for me out of her imagination and then make fun of her? Yeah, I think she did.]

“Incidentally, I challenge you to find a woman brassy enough to include a trip to the gynecologist as part of a date. [Because for sure I wasn’t exaggerating when I mentioned that as a possible date.] This is NOT a fun activity by the way.” [What?!]

She went on for a while, but I lost interest faster than a guy at a Bette Midler movie.

A month later, I mentioned computer demon SuperDell, and how he’s the most annoying man on the face of the Earth, which has actually been verified by the Supreme Court. I got this e-mail, which was spelled exactly as it is here:

“I read you article on SuperDell and I hate him as well! However, you sound like a tight [swear word] close minded [swear word] and your topics and writing ability suck perharps you should ask yourself why superdell is worth a few million and all you can do is criticize him”

Yes. Perharps I should. Perharps we all should wonder how someone so rich could possibly be subject to criticism.

On July 4, I referred to how the founding fathers “slapped together this great nation of ours.” I also mentioned Andrew Jackson’s drunken inauguration party, which is well-documented by history. I got this e-mail:

“How dare you say that the ‘Founding Fathers slapped together this great nation of ours’. [Which word did she object to, “slapped” or “great”?] Who do you think you are? [Who DON’T I think I am?] The remarks made about Andrew Jackson are atrocious. [And true.] You would do well to consider what it cost the men who founded this country, and consider doing something similar.” [I should found my own country? OK, but you won’t be allowed in.]

In a separate letter she wrote for the Opinion page, she said she was “horrified” to see this column in the paper. I picture her cowering under her chair at the breakfast table, maybe making a cross with her fingers to ward off the power of the column. And then I wish I had a photograph of that.

After the last letter was printed, we received this one from someone named “LaJean,” and it was written exactly as follows:

“I would hope by the time you get this a written apology by, Eric Snider, has been made. I to was concerned as was the neighbors who wrote on July of their objection of the July 4 remarks by him. In talking to others slap in done in objection to. For Eric to say our forefathers slapped together this great nation. The other slander in the article was rediculous.”

Perharps those founding fathers should have done more with the public school system. Perharps, perharps, perharps.

Not Another Teen Movie

0

The dictionary says a “parody” is “a literary or artistic work that broadly mimics an author’s style AND holds it up to ridicule” (emphasis mine).

“Not Another Teen Movie” does a fine job mimicking the common plot devices and stock characters of teen movies: the studly guy who turns the “ugliest” girl into the prettiest, the off-beat guy who pursues that girl, the horny freshmen, the vapid cheerleaders, etc., etc.

It also accurately points out the cliques and social distinctions that exist in high school, and rightly observes that whoever is like you, that’s who you’re forced to hang out with.

But guess what. There’s more to being funny than just being accurate. If no one had ever before pointed out the subcultures in high school (and in high school movies), then the “it’s funny because it’s true” theory might work. But since these have already been discussed, noticed and dealt with at length, it becomes “Not Another Teen Movie’s” lot not just to point them out, but to make fun of them. It must mimic what is done in other movies, AND take it a step further by mocking it.

This it does not do. “Not Another Teen Movie” shows us the conventions of the teen genre, but has no idea how to make fun of them. It thinks that re-creating events from famous movies is the same thing as “parody” or “satire,” when in reality, re-creating an event is just re-creating an event.

Putting characters in detention in a room that looks just like the room in “The Breakfast Club,” and then having the SAME ACTOR from that movie (Paul Gleason) show up and engage in pretty much the same dialogue from that movie is NOT A PARODY. It’s a reference. You’re referring to another movie, and if we recognize what you’re referring to, maybe we smile knowingly. But we don’t laugh at it unless you somehow tweak the situation, thus “pointing out the folly, vice or stupidity” of the referrent material (the definition of “satire”).

I gave it another chance:

6/22/2011: Re-Views: ‘Not Another Teen Movie’ (2001)

And how dare a movie make fun of gross-out comedies like “American Pie,” and then indulge in the same excrement-for-laughs behavior as the films they’re mocking! Either you’re saying that sort of humor is worthless, or you’re using it. You can’t have your crap and eat it, too.

“Not Another Teen Movie” does itself another disservice by addressing both classic ’80s teen movies as well as recent ’90s ones. The film’s best shot at real parody — a scene with Molly Ringwald — is wasted because most of the film’s target audience is too young to fully appreciate the greatness in hearing Molly Ringwald grumble, “[expletive] teen-agers.”

There are cast members in this movie, but none you’ve heard of. They were chosen because they fit the types — jocks, nerds, sluts, and so on — and not because they can act.

The movie’s one good scene — and it borders on greatness — is an out-of-nowhere musical number just before the prom. This scene says that teen movies amusingly place too much emphasis on the importance of The Big Dance, but it does so without anyone actually saying the words, “Teen movies amusingly place too much emphasis on the importance of The Big Dance.” Throughout the rest of the movie, anytime a satiric point is to be made, it is made by someone saying it point-blank, which generally removes all possible humor from it.

In this movie’s universe, the best way to make fun of the idea of token black characters is not to show the ridiculousness of it, but to have a character say, “I’m the token black guy” and leave it at that. Nothing is implied or subtle. Everything is spelled out in big, stinky letters, and then you’re smacked in the face with it.

“Not Another Teen Movie” is, in fact, just another teen movie. In director Joel Gallen’s attempt to spoof the genre, he has merely added another lame entry to it. This one is stupid, obvious, unfunny, desperate and insulting — even for people who like teen movies. It was a great idea for a parody, but it was handled just about as badly as it could have been.

The Other Side of Heaven

0

“The Other Side of Heaven” is an account of Mormon general authority John H. Groberg’s missionary experiences in Tonga in the 1950s, based on his book, “In the Eye of the Storm.” It is mildly uplifting and reasonably enjoyable, but lacks the emotional or spiritual power that, say, one of Elder Groberg’s general conference talks might have.

Adapted and directed by Mitch Davis, “Heaven” faithfully tells the stories from Groberg’s mission as if faithfully telling the stories from Groberg’s mission is all it needs to do. It starts with the beginning of his mission, ends with his homecoming, and in between is full of healings, baptisms and South Pacific islander shenanigans — but no sense of purpose. Groberg (played here by Christopher Gorham) does not appear to change or grow over the course of it. He is friendly and righteous and rather non-descript to begin with, and he’s that way at the end, too.

The blame for the lack of dynamics is shared between Davis the writer/director and Gorham the actor. The script is episodic, moving from one event to another with little sense that any of them are having any lasting effect, and no sense of building toward something in particular, plot-wise. There’s very little adversity that isn’t overcome quickly and easily; the closest thing the movie has to a “villain” is a bureaucratic mission president — and he immediately apologizes for it.

Even when emotional depth might be called for, Gorham doesn’t do it. Sure, he cries a couple times, and Groberg does some amazing act-of-faith kind of stuff. But Gorham’s attitude throughout is so blandly go-with-the-flow — almost cavalier — that we wind up liking him, but not knowing him.

To his credit, Davis has control of his craft in terms of making things look good. No amateur (despite this being his first feature film), Davis makes good use of beautiful locales, has an able cast of actors, and doesn’t let the pace slow down too much. A couple storm sequences are very exciting. This all makes it a decent film, if not a great one.

To be interesting or memorable, movies must be driven by plot or character. Either we like the stuff that’s happening, or we like the people it’s happening to. The best movies do both. “The Other Side of Heaven” does neither. Nothing happens, and it happens to flat characters. It is not beyond enjoyment, but it is so soft and weak-willed that it’s not liable to live in anyone’s heart for longer than it takes to watch it.

The Royal Tenenbaums

0

The people in “The Royal Tenenbaums” are deadpan, matter-of-fact and not given to histrionics. They, like the movie — which presents itself with little camera movement and a lot of straight-on, non-angular shots — are quietly, unobtrusively insane. You’re familiar with characters who get the most laughs by tossing off lines under their breath? This entire movie feels like it was delivered that way. It soars to great comedic heights, but without even breaking a sweat.

Gene Hackman plays Royal Tenenbaum, a once-wealthy New Yorker who has been separated from his wife Etheline (Anjelica Huston) for 18 years. Their children were geniuses and have turned out screwed up in different ways. Chas (Ben Stiller) is freaked out over his wife’s death six months ago and is obsessed with business and strategy. Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow), the adopted daughter, is a secretive playwright, married to understanding psychologist Raleigh St. Clair (Bill Murray). And Richie (Luke Wilson) is a tennis pro who recently suffered an on-court meltdown, and who has an unhealthy devotion to his adopted sister. Richie’s childhood friend Eli Cash (Owen Wilson) is also attached to Margot, as is her husband.

In the present time, Royal announces he is dying of stomach cancer and wants to reconcile with his wife and children. He wants to develop a relationship with his grandchildren, Chas’ sons Ari (Grant Rosenmeyer) and Uzi (Jonah Meyerson). But mostly, he wants a place to live, and to stop Etheline from marrying her long-time accountant and friend Henry Sherman (Danny Glover).

Chas is most reluctant to let Royal back into his life, while Margot and Richie have varying degrees of mistrust. Raleigh, meanwhile, wants to find out whether Margot is cheating on him, Tenenbaum family assistant Pagoda (Kumar Pallana) has to figure out his loyalties, and there are Dalmatian-spotted mice running around the house. It has the makings of a mad-cap farce, but the zaniness here is calm and low-key, which in fact makes it funnier.

Director Wes Anderson and his co-writer Owen Wilson (the two also worked on “Bottle Rocket” and “Rushmore”) have fashioned a wonderful world. There is a skewed perception of reality, and it seems every character in the movie, including the minor ones, has written a book. It is not enough for the narrator (Alec Baldwin) to tell us that something happened long ago; we get to see it, too, even if only for two seconds. The movie always gives us something interesting to look at and something amusing to hear.

The acting is uniformly suited to the film; clearly, the entire cast was on the same page when Anderson explained the style he was going for. Most of the characters employ irony or sarcasm, but the film is not caustic or cynical. It is rather sweet, actually, beneath the layers of bemused goofiness.

Vanilla Sky

0

Cameron Crowe wrote and directed “Say Anything,” “Jerry Maguire” and “Almost Famous,” which earns him a lot of leeway. (That’s the rule: You write and direct three great movies, you can do whatever you want after that.)

He’ll need that leeway with “Vanilla Sky,” an interesting but ultimately inconsequential psychological drama that reunites him with his “Jerry Maguire” star, Tom Cruise.

It’s a remake of the 1997 Spanish film “Abre Los Ojos” (“Open Your Eyes”), which was directed by Alejandro Amenabar, who recently directed “The Others,” which starred Cruise’s ex-wife Nicole Kidman. See how Hollywood is one eternal round?

Anyway, “Vanilla Sky” tells the story of a rich, arrogant New Yorker named David Aames (Cruise), the spoiled heir to a publishing company who takes nothing seriously. You can tell this is so because he plays racquetball with his buddy (Jason Lee) instead of going to a board meeting. He has a non-committal sexual relationship with his pal Julie (Cameron Diaz), who unfortunately perceives it as very committal indeed.

One night at a party, David meets Sophia (Penelope Cruz, who also starred in “Abre Los Ojos”) and believes he may be falling in love. She is optimistic and pure and wonderful — the real deal.

Then Julie commits suicide by driving her car off a bridge, and she does it while David is a passenger. His face is horribly disfigured, and he seeks out Sophia to try to reconnect to the one true thing he ever had in his life.

That’s where the movie opens its bag of shenanigans, leading to the much-hyped “unforgettable ending,” which is not nearly as jaw-dropping or surprising as the TV commercials would have you believe. I don’t want to spoil the film, so I’ll just say that David comes to be accused of murder, and someone may be messing with his mind.

Cruise has come to be a reliable actor, but he rarely goes beyond that. His performance here is adequate, but he arouses little sympathy for his character. Even when David has become scarred and grotesque (kudos to the makeup folks, by the way), the audience cares little for him. He’s not unlikable so much as he is pesky.

Diaz doesn’t have much to do before she gets killed, but she does it prettily. Cruz’s nearly indecipherable accent, which was funny in “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin,” reaches an unintentional comic zenith here. I don’t know what she’s saying, and I don’t believe she means it anyway. Can we rid ourselves of the notion that she’s a good actress? She’s not.

Crowe’s directorial style shows surprising warmth and honesty — the hallmarks of his films — until the end, when it turns cold. “Vanilla Sky” is ethereal, but it’s really just a lot of whacked-out psychological mumbo-jumbo, reminiscent of “A.I.” and “The Matrix,” and not in a good way. It is fairly interesting to watch once, but I can’t imagine sitting through it again.

Lantana

0

“Lantana” opens in that most intriguing of fashions, with the camera panning through thick underbrush to reveal a woman’s dead body. As the film gets underway, we are left to assume the corpse was a vision of what’s to come, and that one of our female characters is destined to wind up dead in the bushes. Who will it be? It piques our interest.

It is not properly a murder mystery, though that does figure in. “Lantana” is primarly a film about the amusing and poignant ways strangers’ lives intersect, and about how we tend not to value what we have until we lose it, or almost lose it.

Leon Zat (Anthony LaPaglia) is a police detective who has heart trouble and is prone to fits of violence. He is having an affair with Jane (Rachael Blake), whom he and his wife Sonja (Kerry Armstrong) know from their ballroom dance class. Jane is separated from Pete (Glenn Robbins) and lives next door to Nik (Vince Colosimo) and Paula (Daniella Farinacci) — the only happily married couple in the film.

Sonja knows her marriage is in trouble, and she’s seeing a psychiatrist named Valerie (Barbara Hershey). Valerie’s 11-year-old daughter was murdered two years ago, and she’s written a book about the experience — a deed her husband John (Geoffrey Rush) does not approve of. Their marriage has been in the rubbish heap since their daughter died, and now Valerie thinks John may be having an affair with her gay patient Patrick (Peter Phelps).

All of these relationships and indirect connections become relevant in light, playful ways, and then more seriously when someone turns up dead. What do men like John and Leon have to live for anymore?

The writer is Andrew Bovell, based on his play “Speaking in Tongues.” That title is more useful than “Lantana” is. “Speaking in Tongues” suggests the story’s theme of communication within relationships, while “Lantana” is a thick, bushy shrub — presumably where that corpse was found. It is more metaphorical now: The seeds of skepticism have grown into a full-blown jungle of mistrust and fear among the characters. Without breaking through that obstacle, none of these people can be happy.

Director Ray Lawrence keeps things on an even keel, coaxing solid performances from all the leads and maintaining a brisk pace. These are, for the most part, believable and honest characters, though I’m not sure they always behave the way they would in real life. “Lantana” does not penetrate the heart the way it ought to, but it certainly make an impression.

Iris

0

In “Iris,” the British novelist Iris Murdoch herself says that education and freedom of the mind are the most important things. Later, when asked about her love for words, she says, “If one doesn’t have words how does one think?”

These are tragic notions for a tragic movie, because we know Iris is destined to be stricken with Alzehimer’s, which will destroy the very mind she lives in. If you don’t know this walking in, you know it soon enough: The film barely lets us meet Fully Functioning Iris before turning her into Alzheimer’s Iris.

That is the film’s greatest flaw. We catch a glimpse of how brilliant and lively Iris was, played with typical classy perfection by Judi Dench. As usual with Dench’s characters, we wish we could meet this character and be her friend. And then, almost immediately, she begins to forget things, to fumble for words and to slip into incoherency. It should not need explaining that incoherent characters do not make for very good protagonists, but that’s what we have in “Iris,” which was directed by Richard Eyre and written by him and Charles Wood, adapted from Iris’ husband John Bayley’s memoirs.

Iris’ descent is intercut with scenes from her early life, in which she is played by Kate Winslet. She meets John (Hugh Bonneville), a stammering young student who can’t believe anyone as gorgeous and popular and Iris would want anything to do with him. He will spend the rest of his life devoted to her, putting up with her occasionally difficult behavior because he knows, at the end of the day, that she loves and needs him.

It is the needing him that eventually becomes centerpiece to their relationship. The older John is played by Jim Broadbent, and this, in fact, is the performance to watch. Winslet, Bonneville and Dench are all fine in their various capacities, but they don’t get to do much. Broadbent, on the other hand, plays a character with flesh and bones, with passions, ideas and thoughts. Most of all, John is filled with sweet, doddering old love for his Iris. The film is about the power of the mind and the tragedy of losing it, but it is also a very moving love story, played with heartbreaking sincerity by Broadbent. He deserves the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor; I only wish the character he’s supporting were given more humanity. Knowing the original Iris would have made her fate even sadder.

Kandahar (Farsi)

0

Prior to Sept. 11, the Iranian film “Kandahar” was hardly known outside a few film festival circles. The unfortunate familiarity we now have with the Afghanistan city of the title has made it a more distributable film, and that is good: It’s a good movie, and worth seeing.

It is about a woman named Nafas (Nelofer Pazira) who moved to Canada as a young girl but who now is returning to Kandahar to save her sister from suicide. The sister lost her legs to a land mine — the country is riddled with them now, souvenirs of the lengthy war with the Soviet Union — and lives under the oppressive Taliban. There is no hope for women anyway, and even less for a women with no legs. She wants to die. Nafas wants to stop her.

Nafas’ journey is the focus of the story. She disguises herself in the traditional garb of the local women, hires a young boy to lead her through the desert, and ultimately teams up with an English-speaking doctor (Hassan Tantai) for part of the trip. In the process, she comes to deal with the society she was born into, the society she thought she had escaped from forever.

Pazira’s performance as Nafas is natural and penetrating. Writer/director Mohsen Makhmalbaf’s style is realistic, and the documentary-style acting complements it. Tantai is less than adequate as the doctor, but at least his bland delivery goes along with the bleakness of the situation.

Another recent Iranian film, “The Circle,” made some of the same points about the plight of Muslim women as “Kandahar.” Both are of increased interest now that the world’s attention has focused even more tightly on the Middle-East, but their messages are timeless.

Ask Eric Stuff 8

0

Well, bless my stars with gravy, it’s time for a Very Special Christmas Episode of “Ask Eric Stuff,” the remarkably distasteful feature where people ask Eric stuff and he answers them like he’s some kind of know-it-all. All of these questions were submitted at [outdated link], which involves using the “Internet,” or at least a really fancy typewriter.

Dear Eric: My wife’s birthday is the day after Christmas. What can I do to make her birthday special, and keep it from getting swallowed up in the Christmas festivities? — Doghouse Dweller
Dear Fido: On her birthday, arrange for a bunch of friends to stop by the house and sing, like Christmas carolers, except they replace the Christmas lyrics with clever and sweet lyrics about your wife, and how special she is to you. Then, tell her you want a divorce. When she starts crying, tell her you were only kidding. The emotional roller coaster will make her forget you didn’t actually buy her a present.

Dear Eric: Why on earth has Provo City installed roundabouts at every intersection? — Irritated
Dear Irr: It’s a test to see if, no matter how many roundabouts there are, people will still have no idea how to use them. Some scientists believe that, even if every single intersection were a roundabout, drivers would still feel compelled to come to a complete stop when they reach them.

Dear Eric: There are so many charities asking for money during the holidays. Which one should I give to? — Altruistic in Altruismville
Dear Altoid: Avoid less-reputable charities with questionable names like the Red Crotch and the United Crack Whore College Fund. Instead, give to charities that bear the Eric D. Snider Seal of Approval. These include: Eric D. Snider’s Checking Account, Eric D. Snider’s Savings Account, United Way, and The Safety Deposit Box at Eric D. Snider’s Bank.

Dear Eric: Will I get that cool new X-Box for Christmas? — Greedy in Greenville.
Dear Greeny in Greedville: Not until you finish your W-Box!

Dear Eric: I have met a lot of Californians who have a very negative attitude toward Utah, even though they’ve never lived here. Can you help me understand this? — Utah Pride
Dear Pride Is of the Devil: A lot of Californians have a very negative attitude toward hell, too, but I’ve never questioned that assessment.

Dear Eric: What is the purpose of underarm hair? — Follicly Curious
Dear Curious George: It’s an easy way to spot which women are lesbians or European.

Dear Eric: Do you believe in Santa? — Believer
Dear Bee Liver: Do I believe in Santa? Why, you might just as well ask whether I believe in the sunshine, or in rainbows. Santa Claus lives in the heart of all good people everywhere. He is the embodiment of the Christmas spirit, and the spirit of giving and good will. Without Santa Claus, there is no joy. (Short answer: No. What am I, 6?)

Dear Eric: If A squared plus B squared equals C squared, why doesn’t A cubed plus B cubed equal C cubed? — Ms. Mathematically Challenged
Dear Can’t Add: It doesn’t? The IRS owes me a BIG refund, then!

Dear Eric: Fire or ice? — Robert Frost Fan
Dear Frosty: Depends. Are they both fresh today? Because I got some stale fire last time I was here.

Dear Eric: What should I get my mother-in-law for Christmas? — Curious in Costa Mesa
Dear Curious George: If your mother-in-law is like mine, she doesn’t exist, because you’re not married. Get her some chocolate. Old ladies love chocolate.

A Tuna Christmas

0

Patrons of the dear departed Provo Theatre Company fondly recall the 1997 and 1998 productions of “A Tuna Christmas,” the devilishly funny play that starred Duane Stephens and Lynn Frost as all the residents in a tiny Texas town.

(It was a personal milestone for me, as it’s the only time I’ve written a nothing-but-positive review and STILL gotten an angry letter: Someone couldn’t believe I would speak so highly of a show that contained an obscene hand gesture.)

Well, Stephens and Frost have reunited for another production of the show, this time at the Grand Theatre in Salt Lake City. No director is credited; one assumes the two have performed the show so many times, no further direction is needed.

I would agree with that. Stephens’ and Frost’s characterizations were spot-on before, and they still are. If anything, Stephens’ best character, the long-suffering housewife Bertha Bumiller, is even more real than before, and Frost’s version of Bertha’s skanky daughter Charlene is twice as funny as I remember it.

The show depicts a day in the town of Tuna, Texas — Christmas Eve, specifically. There’s a “Christmas Phantom” going around ruining people’s yard decorations, which has perennial contest-winner Vera Carp worried. At the same time, Bertha fears her delinquent son Stanley may be the phantom, and also has to wonder where her absentee husband Hank is these days. Gun store owner Didi Snavely has to deal with her dim-witted, U.F.O-spotting husband and her senile mother, while Aunt Pearl Burras needs help getting blue jays out of her front yard. (She uses a slingshot.) The town production of “A Christmas Carol” may be shut down if they can’t pay the light bill. And so on.

Writers Jaston Williams, Joe Sears and Ed Howard first created many of these characters for “Greater Tuna,” to which this is a sequel. Stephens and Frost put the crackling script to good use, piling one laugh on top of another as the characters bad-mouth each other and speak in a wonderful dialect full of euphemisms and metaphors.

The show does not lean on the gimmick of all the roles being played by two actors; indeed, it would be just as funny if it had a cast of 22, provided the other 20 were as talented as these guys. The roles are played so honestly that when radio DJ Arles Struvie is dancing with Bertha Bumiller, you forget that Bertha is being played by a man: All you see are two people sharing a nice moment.

Should you go? The jokes, like the characters, are honest and true — and underneath all that sarcasm and wackiness, there’s a hint of true Christmas sentiment.

Piñero

0

Movies about artists almost always do them a disservice by making them look crazy and/or pretentious, which in truth only about 75 percent of them are. “Piñero” does not escape that trap, but it does feature a bravura performance by Benjamin Bratt as the title character, the tortured Puerto Rican-born playwright/poet/actor Miguel Piñero.

Piñero died of cirrhosis in 1988, and the film jumps back and forth between that period of time and the early ’70s, when he was fresh out of jail and beginning to find fame as a writer. (His most famous work, in case you haven’t heard of him, was the 1974 play “Short Eyes.”)

The film itself, written and directed by Leon Ichaso, is like the breezy jazz music that plays on its soundtrack. It bounces around from one time to another, switches from black-and-white to color, from video to film, all without warning and yet all without violently upsetting the viewer. We grow accustomed to the seeming randomness of the storytelling and learn to enjoy its rhythms.

That said, I wish the film had more to say. Another curse of the artist biopic is in assuming the viewer already worships the subject as much as the filmmaker does. Who was Piñero, and more to the point, why should we care? Bratt brings him to life, but we come away appreciating his genius no more than we did before.

Comfy KOSY Are We

0

The Surgeon General has advised those indulging in the Christmas spirit to do so in moderation. If you are attending a Christmas party, be sure to appoint a Designated Scrooge — someone to remain less merry than everyone else, stay away from mistletoe, and at all costs avoid trolling the ancient yuletide carol.

The Surgeon General’s point is that it is possible to have too much of a good thing, like the time I drank a half-gallon of egg nog in one sitting and subsequently was able to hear colors. I learned my lesson, and now I limit myself to one cup of nog per week, and no nog at all outside the month of December, and no nog-drinking when I’m alone or to escape my problems. I don’t know what nog is made of, but the way it oozes down your throat, I suspect there’s flannel in it.

The Surgeon General has also issued this advisory for those listening to Christmas music: Take it easy, Bobtail. For example, let us discuss KOSY 106.5. This radio station normally plays “easy listening favorites” — i.e., songs you don’t like but lack the energy to hate — but since Thanksgiving, KOSY has been playing nothing but Christmas music, 24 hours a day, at least seven days a week.

At first it filled me with so much Christmas cheer that it would have made Charles Dickens himself vomit in his hat. Then it dawned on me that, just like every other station, KOSY was playing the same songs over and over again. You’d think that with 50 years’ worth of Christmas recordings available, with no restrictions on genre, they’d be able to avoid playing Barbra Streisand’s on-crack version of “Jingle Bells” thrice daily, much less that nightmarish “Little St. Nick” by the Beach Boys.

Besides, playing contemporary Christmas music is really just an experiment to see who can screw up a Christmas carol the most. Maybe a pop diva like Mariah Carey or Vanessa Williams will take a simple melody like “Silent Night” and turn it into one of those awful things where each note is replaced with seven different notes, so we can be impressed with how “well” they sing. Or maybe someone will convert “The First Noel” from 3/4 to 4/4 time and make it more of a march. Why? Because they can!

I can say I have stood at the precipice of hell because I have heard Rosie O’Donnell and “Sesame Street’s” Elmo sing “Do You Hear What I Hear?” (If what you hear is a brass-voiced Gorgon dueting with a shrill sock puppet, then yes, we are hearing the same thing.)

And so I began to hate Christmas music. It began to make my stomach hurt, like the time I drank a half-gallon of egg nog in one sitting and subsequently … did I already tell you that story? Fine. Then it made my stomach hurt like the time I got punched in the stomach.

Eventually, I realized KOSY probably didn’t expect me to listen to KOSY every single time I got in the car. Normal people, enjoying the Christmas spirit in moderation, would not hear the same songs multiple times, so they wouldn’t be bothered by Karen Carpenter singing “Merry Christmas, Darling” with that voice of hers that always sounded like it had syrup all over it (which, if it had been true, might have saved her).

No, most of us have the sense to take Christmas in doses no larger than we can handle. ‘Tis the season, sure, but remember what the song says: “We need a little Christmas.” A LITTLE Christmas. Not a shload of it.

So be careful this holiday season. Deck the halls, sure, but don’t deck the crap out of them. Watch out, don’t cry, don’t pout, but don’t get obsessive about it. And if you’re going to dash through the snow, for heaven’s sake, don’t don you now your gay apparel. People will make fun of you.

The Business of Strangers

0

First-time director/screenwriter Patrick Stettner must have been absolutely thrilled to get Julia Stiles and Stockard Channing to star in his movie, the very theatrical and dialoguish “Business of Strangers.” Stiles and Channing must have likewise been eager to sink their chops into characters with some depth, and to do some real SCENES, instead of all that cut-and-paste, start-and-stop stuff that usually goes into movie-making.

They all probably wish “The Business of Strangers” didn’t have the most predictable ending since “Titanic.”

Aside from that, it’s not a bad film. It’s a character study, mostly, about high-powered business executive Julie (Channing). While hopping from city to city, giving software presentations to big corporations, she gets the word the CEO is flying out to meet with her. She believes she is to be fired and calls corporate headhunter Nick (Frederick Weller) to get there first and help her find a new job.

Turns out she’s actually being promoted to CEO, as the current bigwig is stepping down. She feels bad now about firing the young peon Paula (Stiles) who showed up late with her audio-visual aids at the last presentation. She happens to run into the dour young lady at a hotel bar, they make amends, and a strange friendship starts to brew.

To anyone with two eyes, Paula is clearly not even close to what she claims to be. Her behavior toward nearly everyone is combative, and her romantic overtones toward Julie are downright creepy, in a “Single White Female” kind of way. She tells Julie of a dreadful act perpetrated by none other than Nick the headhunter years ago, and the two plot revenge against him. Again, if you don’t know what’s really going on here, you’ve never seen a motion picture before.

Channing and Stiles are solid in their roles; Stiles, who is always so aloof anyway, is well-cast as the enigmatic (read: lying) Paula. (I’d like to see Paula hook up with the Talented Mr. Ripley, by the way.) Julie begins to doubt her happiness as a power-hungry corporate gal, thanks to Paula’s expertly placed seeds of despair.

Stettner no doubt wanted to recall “In the Company of Men,” in that both films deal with the battle of the sexes as fought evilly and maliciously. “The Business of Strangers” comes nowhere near the power of the other film, but as a first-time effort, it’s not altogether bad.

Ocean’s Eleven

0

I’m a sucker for movies with big, all-star casts. It’s the same reason I like the Academy Awards: All those big-shots together in the same room! I wonder what they talk about? My silly dream is to make a movie where EVERYONE is a celebrity, including the extras. Like there’s a guy who walks past the main character on the street, and it’s Robert De Niro, and he doesn’t have any lines and no one acknowledges that it’s Robert De Niro. He’s just THERE, for two seconds, then he’s gone. Wouldn’t that be great?

Anyway, “Ocean’s Eleven” has one of those casts where even the extras seem to be stars, directed by Steven Soderbergh, who is himself a star after his two Best Director nominations at the last Oscars. It takes place in Las Vegas, which is a star of a city. It’s about an elaborate heist, which is one of the most popular, durable and reliable plots in movie history. It’s a remake of a legendary Rat Pack film. It’s written by the guy who wrote the cannibalism drama “Ravenous.” Except for that last part, this thing’s got “GOLD” written all over it!

“Ocean’s Eleven” is indeed as cool as ice, with some arch dialogue dryly delivered, mostly by George Clooney and Brad Pitt. Both men are in fine form as Danny Ocean and Rusty Ryan, professional thieves who undertake to rob three Las Vegas casinos all at once, on a night when there’s sure to be at least $150 million in the vault.

Their accomplices include Matt Damon as a promising young pickpocket, Don Cheadle as the Cockney explosives expert, Eddie Jemison as the surveillance specialist, Bernie Mac as the inside guy, Elliot Gould and Carl Reiner as old-timers drawn in for another job, and Scott Caan and Casey Affleck as “the Mormon twins” who do various grunt work and day labor. Andy Garcia is the evil owner of the casinos, and Julia Roberts is his girlfriend — and Ocean’s ex-wife, which explains some of Ocean’s motivation in robbing these particular establishments.

The film’s look and style are appropriately retro, as is the jaunty soundtrack. One senses that a lot of fun went into making the film; there is especially much delight in explaining just how impossible the heist is, and then showing it happen anyway.

But for all its individual charms, the movie is not nearly as great as it could have been — nay, should have been. It is interesting but not enthralling, amusing but not hilarious, exciting but not heart-stopping. It is above-average but below-potential. The atmosphere is ripe with giddiness, but the dialogue doesn’t measure up to it. It’s the kind of movie you really like, but not as much as you want to.

No Man’s Land (Bosnian)

0

The title of “No Man’s Land” refers to the strip of dirt that lies Serbian and Bosnian lines, where the bulk of the film takes place. But it also refers to everyone’s passivity regarding that war, a war no one will accept responsibility for and which the rest of the world would just as soon ignore.

Those ideas are what give the Oscar-winning film its gravity and importance, but they are combined with a healthy dose of cold, grim humor that arises naturally from the life-or-death situation the protagonists find themselves in. Instead of being a relentlessly bleak war picture, “No Man’s Land,” written and directed by Danis Tanovic, reminds us that even in dire moments — perhaps especially in dire moments — life’s little ironies and amusements will emerge.

A Bosnian relief squad has been gunned down in a trench in no man’s land, and two Serbian soldiers are sent to make sure no one survived. They are Nino (Rene Bitorajac), a young, inexperienced man with glasses; and a grumpy, older soldier (Mustafa Nadarevic) whose name we do not learn.

In the trench, not everyone has died. Tchiki (Branko Djuric) has escaped with smallish injuries, and he hides as Nino and his partner investigate. As a cruel joke, the older Serbian puts a mine underneath the body of one of Tchiki’s fallen comrades. It is weight-sensitive, so that when someone moves the body, it will explode.

As it turns out, the dead body is that of Tchiki’s friend Tsera (Filip Sovagovic), and he is not dead after all. Neither Nino nor Tchiki can escape the trench without being hit by the other side, and Tchiki won’t leave without Tsera anyway. It’s a stalemate, and the two enemies must become resourceful.

Tanovic tells his story coolly and carefully, allowing it to speak for itself without much showiness on his part. The performances are low-key, and the dark comedy of the situation is played with deadpan precision. War is stupid, and the people who participate in it are buffoons.

The uselessness of the U.N. forces, the earnest cluelessness of the media, the absurdity of the civil war that started the whole thing — all are targets. Ultimately, the tone is sad and somber, and very, very touching.

Baran (Farsi)

0

“Baran” puts a human face on a statistic we Americans are only vaguely aware of: 1.5 million Afghan refugees live in Iran, where they are not allowed to work without special permission.

The specific human face is that of Lateef (Hossein Abedini), a tactless, immature teen-ager who pretends to work at a construction site but mostly just loafs around. It’s the Afghans who do the difficult work, though they must scramble to hide every time a government inspector (Jafar Tawakoli) comes around.

At the film’s outset, an Afghan worker named Najaf (Gholam Ali Bakhshi) is injured on the job and unable to work anymore. In desperation — we gather there is no worker’s comp in Iran, or at least not for an illegal alien — he sends his daughter (Zahra Bahrami) to work, dressed like a young man everyone calls Rohmat. Lateef behaves spitefully toward “him” until he discovers the kid’s secret and becomes powerfully drawn to her.

But these are difficult times for everyone, and nothing is conducive to blossoming love. When one part of the equation is masquerading as a man, that just makes it more difficult.

The selflessness of Lateef’s behavior, and his gradual transition into adulthood, give the film a good deal of sweetness. This is enhanced by writer/director Majid Majidi’s intimate style and cinematographer Mohammad Davudi’s bittersweetly realistic depiction of Tehran.

I only wish that Hossein Abedini, acting in only his second film, were better at his few really emotional scenes, where he comes up embarrassingly flat. Otherwise, “Baran” is lovely and poignant and may help us foreigners better understand our quarrelsome neighbors to the east.

Blame Everyone

0

I went up in a hot-air balloon with my pet cat, and when we were several hundred feet up, I held the cat by one leg and dangled him over the edge of the basket. He slipped out of my hand and fell to his death. Now I am suing Superman for not arriving in time to catch the cat before he hit the ground.

If you think that lawsuit is stupid, consider the one filed recently by the Wayment family. You’ll recall that in October 2000, Paul Wayment left his 2-year-old son, Gage, sleeping in the truck while he scouted out a hunting area. When he came back 45 minutes later, the boy had wandered off. His frozen body was found five days later by rescuers. Paul was convicted of negligent homicide and, stricken with guilt and grief, committed suicide in July of this year.

The story of Paul and Gage Wayment is a dreadfully sad one. We never had to blame Paul for leaving Gage alone; from the beginning, he blamed himself. His subsequent suicide was tragic, but I’m not sure I could live with that kind of guilt, either. It was a poignant, heartbreaking end to an emotional story.

Now, however, the family has filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the various counties and sheriff’s departments that helped search for Gage, saying if they had done their job properly, the boy would have been found a) sooner and b) alive, meaning Paul would not have c) committed suicide.

I respect the memory of Paul and Gage Wayment. But the sympathy I had for their family is fast dwindling.

One hates to use terms like “opportunistic white trash,” but let’s look at the facts. Dad wants to go hunting, and for some reason wants to take his son along. Fine. Family togetherness, father-son bonding, teach them to kill things while they’re still young, whatever. I question dressing the boy only in his pajamas in October in the mountains, but perhaps they were really warm pajamas, made out of fire or something.

Leaving the boy alone was stupid; Paul admitted that. It was clear from Paul’s suicide that he blamed himself — not the searchers — for Gage’s death. But now, in hindsight, the family has decided it was the searchers’ fault after all. “Never mind, Paul,” they are saying. “It wasn’t your fault after all! It was the searchers’ fault! Your death was pointless!”

Wayment family attorney Barry N. Johnson has said the intent of the claim is not “to criticize (searchers’) noble efforts.” Instead, he said, “The intent of the claim is to make my clients and myself very, very rich. Rich, I tell you!” Then he clicked his heels and hopped around the courtroom.

No, I have made up that last quote, as well as its accompanying mental image. Johnson actually said, “The Wayment family remains extraordinarily grateful to the numerous volunteers involved in the search effort.” Then he added, “But the Wayments also want the volunteers to feel guilty, resentful and dirty, like the Wayments are.”

There I go again, making up quotes. What he REALLY said was that the purpose of the claim “is to create the changes necessary to ensure that future search efforts are competently organized and implemented, thereby resulting in a greater number of successful searches.”

Oh, I get it. The Wayments, who appear to be greedy, selfish and evil, are actually trying to help their fellow man. If they can milk $1 million from these government agencies and live on Easy Street for the rest of their lives, it will teach those bad volunteers a lesson they won’t soon forget! Searchers will be sprouting wings out of their armpits and developing heat-seeking night vision to enable them to search better, faster and more accurately. Sure, it will cost $1 million, effectively crippling the agencies involved and terrifying anyone who might consider volunteering his time and energy to a rescue effort. But it will be worth it, for all the precise searching and rescuing it will lead to! They’re heroes, those surviving Wayments.

Plus, as you know, the $1 million will cause Paul and Gage to spring back to life as though nothing ever happened. The question is, will they be too ashamed of their family’s behavior to associate with them?

Quash the Ravin’

0

A new study shows that women suffer more brain damage from taking Ecstasy than men do. This is alarming, because if they’re taking Ecstasy, that means they’re not very smart to begin with.

Ecstasy is a common “rave drug,” which means the critics are “raving” about it. (“Ecstasy is the feel-good hit of the summer!” says Roger Ebert. “It’s what I was taking when I gave ‘Final Fantasy’ 3 1/2 stars!”)

You’ll have to pardon me; sometimes I joke. Ecstasy is known as a “rave drug” because it’s often present at raves. From what I understand — and bear in mind, I’m way out of my element here, as “my element” consists only of my house and Wal-Mart — raves are big loud parties held in abandoned warehouses, chosen for their famous good acoustics and ample restroom facilities. Word spreads through e-mail and other unreliable channels that a rave is to be held, and soon everyone who’s anyone who’s a slacker is gathering there. Raves don’t start until very late at night, and there are usually drugs there. So it’s like a midnight screening at Movies 8.

What I’m curious about is where the kids find all these abandoned warehouses. Do they live in Action Movie Land? That place is full of abandoned warehouses, with machinery that still works, so the bad guys can get killed at the end.

Anyway, Provo is currently rave-free, thanks to the highly effective, well-thought-out, non-oppressive, not-at-all-stupid Dance Hall Ordinance passed by the Provo City Council earlier this year. You’ll no doubt recall that prior to the passing of this ordinance, Provo was practically overrun by raves. Every night of the week, there were raves being held in every abandoned warehouse on Main Street. Sometimes, the teens would commandeer a non-abandoned facility, such as Los Hermanos, clear out the furniture, and hold a rave there. Thousands were killed.

I’m lying, of course; Provo doesn’t even HAVE a Main Street. The only “raves” here were at Club Omni, and to my mind, if a rave is officially sponsored by a dance club, it’s not a rave anymore. Approval from grownups de-raves it.

But Provo wanted to combat the non-existent problem, so the city council passed an ordinance saying dances have to end by 1 a.m. (1:30 on Fridays!) and have surveillance cameras, metal detectors and security guards. Government, school and church dances are exempt.

Raves, if there had ever been any, would continue unabated, since underground operations don’t usually abide by city ordinances. That’s one of the quirks that makes underground operations so lovable.

So the only institution directly affected by the ordinance is Club Omni — which some believe was the actual target of the ordinance anyway. That sort of makes sense. Not that I want Club Omni shut down — actually, not that I care one way or the other — but at least Club Omni exists, unlike the raves that were the alleged target.

Club Omni’s status as a relative non-nuisance seems to have been lost on the city, though. When a Daily Herald reporter told a city councilman that Club Omni is a veritable merry old land of Oz compared to the depravity that goes on in the Salt Lake clubs, the councilman told her, “You shouldn’t be going to clubs anyway. You should just go to church dances.”

Yes, it’s amazing that a city councilman would say such a ridiculous thing. But it’s less amazing when you consider he’s never seen “Footloose” and is therefore unaware of the irony that drips from him and his fellow councilors like so much flop sweat.

(The joke’s on him in regards to church dances, anyway, as this particular reporter is a member of the Church of Satan.)

In summary: Ecstasy is bad, raves are not a problem in Provo, the city council is full of fusty old sticks-in-the-mud, and “Final Fantasy” was boring. Any questions?

Behind Enemy Lines

0

“Behind Enemy Lines” is typical of war movies in that its action scenes are fantastic, and its talking scenes are embarrassing.

It’s almost sitcom-like, in fact, the way things get moving: Fun-loving fighter pilot Chris Burnett (Owen Wilson), bored with drills and maneuvers on an aircraft carrier, yearns for some real action. Two seconds later, he and his partner Stackhouse (Gabriel Macht) are shot down while doing reconnaissance over Bosnia. Now he’s fighting for his life behind enemy lines. Be careful what you wish for, Burnett!

Back on the ship, Admiral Reigart (Gene Hackman) is dealing with bureaucracy, insofar as some Marines don’t want Reigart to expend much energy getting Burnett back, since he was breaking the rules when he got shot down anyway. (Sharp-eyed readers will recognize all plot points so far as being identical to those in “Spy Game” — a coincidence, surely, since both films were shot around the same time and released within two weeks of each other.)

There is a lot of overwrought, super-intense dialogue, helped a little by Wilson and Hackman. Their acting styles are very different but they have a common thread: honesty. You always believe these guys, no matter how ridiculous they are. Wilson’s better at comedy, but he makes a decent, if not spectacular, action hero.

As a war movie, “Behind Enemy Lines” works very well. The sequence in which Burnett and Stackhouse are shot down is thrilling, and there is palpable, eerie tension in a later scene of a bombed-out town full of trip wires.

First-time director John Moore and first-time cinematographer Brendan Galvin have obviously seen “Saving Private Ryan” a time or two (which is just doing your homework if you’re shooting a war picture). Some scenes are visceral, powerful and scary, aided by effectively choppy editing and quick cuts. (The editor is Paul Martin Smith, who also edited “The Phantom Menace,” where he didn’t get to have nearly as much fun.)

There is an attempt to make the whole thing meaningful, with an “oh-the-humanity!” lesson on the horrors of war and genocide and what-not, but that part rings most hollow of all. “Behind Enemy Lines” is a war movie, and a solid one at that. It does best when it sticks to its guns.

Texas Rangers

0

As old-fashioned shoot-’em-up Westerns go, “Texas Rangers” is not bad. Aside from being in color and starring James Van Der Beek, it is hardly different at from the dusty old flicks that starred the likes of John Wayne or Lee Marvin. No one in “Texas Rangers” ever actually says, “This town ain’t big enough for the two of us,” but you can tell they want to.

James Van Der Beek plays Lincoln Rogers Dunnison, an educated Philadelphia transplant whose family is killed by cattle rustlers in 1875, prompting him to join the newly re-formed Texas Rangers. The Rangers are led by Leander McNelly (Dylan McDermott), a former preacher who suffered trauma in the Civil War and is now hell-bent on punishing the wicked before he dies. Dunnison becomes McNelly’s right-hand man, urging moderation against McNelly’s kill-them-all-let-God-sort-them-out brand of justice.

I just realized I made the emotional conflicts in the movie sound more interesting than they actually are. Sorry about that. In truth, those elements are in place, but the film doesn’t do much with them. Why develop the Flawed Hero theme when it’s so much easier to put white hats on the good guys, black hats on the bad guys, and let the Laws of Westerns take effect?

The bad guy here is King Fisher (Alfred Molina), a weaselly man whose band of marauders pillages the Texas frontier and makes shady deals with Mexico. At one point, they happen upon a traveling Mexican circus — which consists of one tiger — and force a woman to juggle in order to save her own life. If she drops the balls, it’s curtains for her!

Now I have committed the opposite mistake. I made that juggling thing sound LESS stupid than it is in the movie. Again, I apologize.

There’s a racist Ranger whose life gets saved by a black guy. Also in accordance with tradition, there is a woman who appears half-way through the movie whom all the guys lust after. She is played by Rachael Leigh Cook, just so you know.

I suppose I should also mention Ashton Kutcher, who plays Dunnison’s buddy George Durham. Except I don’t know what to say about him, because I don’t know what purpose he serves in the movie. He just hangs around acting “Dude, Where’s My Car?”-ish, while James Van Der Beek stands around looking all Van Der Beeky. If you had a contest to name the two male celebrities least-suited to appearing in a Western, the only ones who would beat Van Der Beek and Kutcher would be Jim J. Bullock and Flipper.

Bad casting aside, there’s something strange about this film that wins you over after a while. The plot is steady without being overly predictable, and I confess to actually being surprised by it once or twice. It’s an unobtrusive movie, one that does its thing with enthusiasm and doesn’t annoy you too much in the process. It won’t win any prizes, but for fans of old-time Westerns, it may be a pleasant-enough diversion.

What You Missed

0

Soap opera update for the week of Nov. 26.

If you missed your stories this week, here’s what happened:

“THE MOIST AND THE SWEATY”: Clarissa’s birthday party was interrupted by guerrillas, and then gorillas. Monica agreed to marry her brother Jason, unaware he’s actually her sister, Jasonina. Stodge died again, for the last time. Jake looked pensive. COMING: The return of Stodge.

“DOIN’ THE NASTY”: The McClanahan family picnic led to the shocking revelation that they were out of mustard. Tabitha was confused when someone mentioned having to “be at work by 9,” and she didn’t know what “work” was. Chandler did laundry and Rebecca. The evil Stefano schemed and plotted, then warned his roommate, “Don’t go in there for a while, I’ve been scheming and plotting.” Mason jarred Art’s art. COMING: Chandler orders Rebecca around and pizza.

“RICH WHITE TRASH”: The town of Sprinfieldvilledale was overrun by foreigners. The evil twin convention was interrupted by Chloe, who claimed to have a bomb, which turned out to be nothing more than dynamite. Richard was murdered by Diana’s evil Siamese twin, Anaid. The evil Stefano realized he was in the wrong show. Courtney looked bemused. COMING: Arthur wonders who this strange new guy “Ruhtra” is, and why he looks exactly like him.

“PASSIONS OF LOVE”: On Monday, Taylor and Caleb decided it was time to have Dr. Ted pull the plug on Francesca, and that it should be done immediately. On Tuesday, Taylor and Caleb told Dr. Ted to pull the plug on Francesca. On Wednesday, Dr. Ted reached over to pull the plug on Francesca. On Thursday, Taylor and Caleb wept as they bid their mother (Francesca) goodbye, as Dr. Ted continued to pull the plug. On Friday, in a special two-hour episode, Dr. Ted pulled the plug some more. COMING: Francesca joins the Navy.

“MY HIGH SCHOOL DRAMA CLASS”: Marvin got mad at Richard for making out with Shelly when a bunch of them were on a camping trip, and Duke got blamed for letting it happen, even though it totally wasn’t his fault, and Marvin’s kind of a wuss anyway, even though he tried to hide it by getting in a fight with Richard. COMING: Shelly acts ditzy, but she’s not acting.

“DOCTORS OF LUST”: The hospital was hit by an earthquake, then a tornado, then another earthquake. Riley killed Brock, and video killed the radio star. Marcus married three women — to each other, and against their will. Tamara arrived to work only to find monkeys, everywhere monkeys. Stiv awoke from his coma with amnesia, so now he doesn’t know he’s a moron. The board of directors named Gerald as its new hospital administrator, and his chief rival, Mr. Tinkles the monkey, swore revenge. COMING: A primate’s fury.

“FURTIVE GLANCES”: At a party, Rachel glanced furtively at Kenneth, who was glancing furtively at the guy hogging all the bean dip. In the convent, Mary glanced furtively at a statue of St. Christopher, then at Father Tim, who glanced her furtively right out of the convent. COMING: A furtive glance from a stranger results in a concussion for Mabel.

“WHAT TROUBLES MAY COME”: A judge ordered Jessica and Bethany to settle their dispute via mud-wrestling. Clark shocked the McCoy family by dating an alligator. Senator Palindrome appointed Anna, Bob and Racecar to his staff. A fire destroyed the entire town and killed everyone in it, but it turns out everyone was faking his or her own death. COMING: Several thousand funerals are interrupted by startling revelations.

Stones

0

“Stones” uses carefully considered poetic license to flesh out the biblical cases of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son Isaac, and Jesus’ relationship with his mother Mary.

It is two plays, actually, “Altars” and “Tombs,” each using the same talented cast and basic black set. Both plays also use flashbacks to strengthen the emotions of the moment: What came before gives us insight into what’s happening now. Both were written and directed by J. Scott Bronson, who also acts in them.

“Altars” takes place on Mt. Moriah, where Abraham is supposed to kill his son as a sacrifice to God. The focus in the play is on theology more than psychology. The characters ask “Why?” a lot, and never say, “Are you SURE this is what we’re supposed to do?,” which probably would have been a more natural first question. There is the distinct feeling that a parable is being taught, that what’s happening here should make us consider our own feelings. It succeeds at this.

Bronson’s script does a good job bringing to the surface the feelings inherent in this situation. Already one of the most searingly human stories in the Bible, it is made all the more real here.

“Tombs” is set after the death of Joseph, with Mary grieving for her husband and Jesus comforting his mother. This is the more fictionalized of the two stories, as details about Jesus’ pre-ministry life are scarce. But nothing here runs contrary to what is known, and the affectionate relationship between Jesus and Mary rings gloriously true. “You are the greatest miracle in my life,” he tells her, and I believe it.

The performances are spectacular throughout. Bronson plays Abraham with gentle but realistic frustration, and also appears as Joseph in a “Tombs” flashback, vividly portraying the difficulty in being foster father to the Son of God. (He has to reprimand Jesus for ditching the family at the temple when he was 12, even while acknowledging that by definition, if Jesus did it, it must be OK.)

Kathryn Laycock Little cameos as Sarah in an “Altars” flashback, but it is her performance as Mary that is breathtaking. Mary is sensitive, dignified, lovely and humble, and one’s heart immediately goes out to her. “Tombs” is as appropriate for Mother’s Day as it is for Christmas and Easter.

Finally, Elwon Bakly pulls double duty as Isaac and Jesus, and excels in both roles. Jesus is a terribly difficult character to play — you want him to be human, but not TOO human, or it seems blaphemous — but Bakly rises to the challenge. Where most portrayals of Jesus make him impossibly cryptic, Bakly — and Bronson’s script — makes him emotionally accessible and sympathetic.

I have only two issues with the scripts. First, “Altars” needs more closure. We know what happens, of course, but the play needs to tell us in order to be complete in its storytelling. The audience waits for a release that doesn’t come.

Second, “Tombs” has a flashback to Jesus’ childhood in which he accidentally runs a nail through his palm — the only time in either play in which the symbolism is so smack-in-the-forehead obvious. (I also feel a flashforward vision to the actual moment of Jesus’ Atonement may be asking too much of any actor, and I question its necessity in the play.)

Neither story is as universal as was probably intended. Even though the script studiously avoids using any character names, these are still clearly the stories of Abraham and Isaac, and Mary and Jesus, and no one else.

This is not a shortcoming, however; a thoughtful play about biblical figures is as desirable as one about Every Family. The emotional intensity is palpable, and “Stones” is a cathartic, enriching experience.

Should you go? Yes. Such fine acting and insightful writing are rare, as is a show as uplifting as this one.

Grinch

0

The Desert Star Playhouse’s new show — called “How the Grinch Saved Christmas” and “The Grinch Who Saved Christmas” on the press release, and simply “Grinch: A Parody” on the program — has just the right blend of yuletide sentiment and plain ol’ wackiness.

It is more a retelling (with some alterations) than a parody of Dr. Seuss’ “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.” The hirsute title character (played by Paul Thomas Murphy) lives on a mountain above Whoville, hates Christmas, tries to steal it, etc. He is accompanied by his faithful talking dog Max (Scott Holman, who also directed), who serves as his conscience and straightman.

There are three kids who try to thwart the Grinch: adorable Cindy Lou Who (Kerstin Anderson), know-it-all Becky Sue Who (Holly Braithwaite) and bratty brother Sam Who (Steven Fehr). Their widowed mother (Kathleen Richardson; double-cast with Arika Schockmel), who doesn’t believe the Grinch exists, is being hit on by the creepy mayor of Whoville (Spencer Ashby) and Hunter Who (Jack Drayton), the dashing stranger who offers to rid the town of its Grinch problem.

The first scene is grossly over-full with sub-sitcom jokes, mostly from the kids. (Example: “Mother said there’s no such thing as a Grinch.” “Yeah, but she also said it won’t hurt to go to the dentist.”) The show should be parodying the too-cute kids you see in Christmas specials, not including them.

The humor improves after that, thanks largely to the Grinch and Max. I was particularly fond of the Grinch as an incompetent Santa Claus (“He, he, he!” he laughs), and of Max’s accidentally disguising himself as Adolf (as in Hitler) instead of Rudolph (as in the red-nosed reindeer). Spencer Ashby also earns some laughs as the fatuous mayor.

The show has the Desert Star’s usual assortment of random showtunes. This time, songs from “Mame,” “Oklahoma!,” “Gypsy” and “Man of La Mancha” are among those appropriated and rewritten. A Grinch breaking into song is almost automatically funny; his dog doing it, too, and pulling a microphone out of the wall to boot, is ever better.

Should you go? Though the writing’s a bit sloppy here and there, it is holiday cheer the whole family can enjoy.

Communicating Doors

0

Alan Ayckbourn’s “Communicating Doors,” now at Pioneer Theatre Company, is a science-fiction time-travel comedy-thriller that recalls the spirit of another great British author, Douglas Adams (“Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”). It is a droll, whip-smart adventure set in 2014, where a hotel closet door takes people through time.

The first traveller is Phoebe (Cheryl Gaysunas), a dominatrix prostitute — sorry, “specialist sexual consultant” — who learns from aging corrupt businessman Reece (Traber Burns) that his first and second wives were killed by Reece’s business partner, Julian (Keith Jochim).

When Phoebe nearly becomes a third victim, she flees to the closet, which leads her to the exact same hotel suite, 20 years earlier — the night the second wife, Ruella (Kit Flanagan), was thrown off the balcony. Phoebe warns her, and the two of them endeavor to go back 20 years more to warn the first wife, Jessica (Deanne Lorette) — all while fleeing Julian, the 1994 version of whom is after Ruella and the 2014 version of whom is chasing Phoebe.

Got that?

It’s a clever premise, and there are some supremely suspenseful scenes, including one “jump” moment that elicited a scream from the opening-night audience, followed by giddy laughter.

The female characters drive the show, and Phoebe and Ruella in particular. They’re a Thelma and Louise sort of duo — resiliant, smart and occasionally terrified — and Cheryl Gaysunas and Kit Flanagan play them with great chemistry and aplomb. They are fantastic characters, portrayed in a way that makes you want to meet them and hang out with them.

Keith Jochim is quite menacing as the evil Julian, and Traber Burns plays three different versions of Reece with impressive skill. PTC regular Max Robinson is also superb as an officious hotel detective.

The finale has more resolution than it needs, and two other scenes — one where the ladies have to convince the detective to get rid of a body, and one where someone winds up hanging from a balcony — go on too long. But these are relatively minor complaints about a show that is otherwise thoroughly delightful.

Should you go? Suspense, laughter and mind-bending time-travel are a recipe for great entertainment.

Airport Insecurity

0

I rode on an airplane last week for the first time in several months. Everyone is nervous these days, but the only terrorist act I witnessed was how much they charged me for the ticket. (Am I right, folks?!)

The most startling change in airport security is the guys in camouflage who hold big, scary guns and stand near the metal detectors. These boys are apparently part of the National Guard Li’l Tykes Brigade. They look no older than 17, and yet they are more heavily armed than a redneck at a rodeo. They make me feel safer, I think, in the sense that in any given situation, the more guns present, the better — something I used to say sarcastically, but that I think I’m starting to mean.

We live in interesting times.

The airlines had warned travelers to arrive early and have a lot of patience. This worried me, because patience is not my strong suit. But checking in and proving to the security people that I was not a threat to anyone — anyone, that is, besides Tom Shane, SuperDell, Gayle Ruzicka, the old ladies who sit behind me at shows and talk the whole time, Freddie Prinze Jr., Keanu Reeves, people who say “acrost” when they mean “across,” Jay Leno, Howard Stern, Angelina Jolie, people who think “Phantom of the Opera” is an opera, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Courtney Love, people who assume I care about football just because I have an Adam’s apple, Bill Clinton, Strom Thurmond, both Tom Greens and Carrot Top — only took a few minutes.

So I had nearly an hour to loiter. I used that time to do my civic duty and compile a list of everyone I saw who looked suspicious. This was just in case something went wrong and the feds needed suspects.

I saw:

— Two guys with shaved heads who I didn’t like the looks of.
— A woman in a short skirt and sexy black stockings, accompanied by a grubby man in a sweatshirt and sweatpants, who I assume was her kidnapper.
— A minority.
— A guy drinking coffee.
— A 7-foot-tall guy.
— A girl with pink hair.
— A toddler in pink pajamas with the feet on them; she didn’t look suspicious, but she sure was cute!
— A guy making a list (wait, that was me).
— A girl in checkered pants. (Seriously, what gets INTO people?)

On the way back, I flew on a tiny plane with only 50 seats. It was designed by elves, for elves; unfortunately, the passengers were all non-elfin. I used the bathroom on this plane, and I believe it was not only the smallest bathroom I’ve ever been in, but the smallest space I’ve ever been in, period, including the womb.

Still, I was better off than the band of travelers I passed at the airport, whose flight had been canceled and who were trying, all of them, to get onto MY flight. People whose flights have been canceled are the grouchiest people in the world, except maybe for people whose flights have been canceled who are now trying to cram themselves into a plane the size of a lunchbox that will actually only seat a few of them. Needless to say, my ticket on that plane was a hot commodity. I haven’t had that many strangers eyeing my seat since I visited West Hollywood.

But it’s worth a few mild discomforts for the privilege of traveling such great distances in such little time. Our pioneer ancestors would surely marvel, all wide-eyed and drooly, at the modern conveniences we have in the 20-somethingth century. I think they would marvel at checkered pants, too, but that’s another matter.

In the Bedroom

0

Sensitive, penetrating performances elevate “In the Bedroom” from melodrama to high art. Todd Field’s script is good, if over-long; his directing style is intuitive, if unspectacular; his actors, though, are masters of their craft.

This is a story of seething anger and long-standing bitterness. The only character to act out rashly is the stupid villain. Everyone else takes his time, simmers, stews and finally acts. It’s a movie that refuses to give cheap, fast thrills, but instead provides satisfaction only after taking us on a long, arduous journey.

Dr. Matt Fowler (Tom Wilkinson) and his wife Ruth (Sissy Spacek) live a well-to-do life in a quiet Maine town with their son Frank (Nick Stahl), who is home from college for the summer. Frank has taken up with Natalie Strout (Marisa Tomei), a working mother who is separated but not yet divorced from the bullyish Richard (William Mapother).

Natalie has two young children and is apparently a few years older than Frank. Still, their unlikely romance blossoms, and they make plans for the future. What began as a summer-only thing starts to look more long-terms.

Matt has a laissez-faire attitude toward his son, whom he loves and trusts, while Ruth worries and pries. Her maternal concern takes form subtly, but she is a controller, no doubt about it.

Forty-five minutes into the film, something terrible happens, and Matt and Ruth are angry. Quietly, calmly angry, but angry nonetheless. What happens from there unfolds slowly and elegiacally. Field seems to mourn along with his characters, and while I can’t say all the lengthy shots of quietude pay off, most of them do. A few deft touches here and there separate this from more pedestrian films.

Sissy Spacek and Tom Wilkinson each deserve Oscar nominations for their work, which is nothing short of brilliant. Ruth’s controlling nature and Matt’s relaxed attitude both are heightened in times of crisis. Their anger doesn’t cause them to lash out and become new people, but rather to magnify the people they already were. And in that regard, Spacek and Wilkinson are dazzling, utterly convincing. You might as well be watching a documentary, for as real as the Fowlers seem.

Tux to Be You

0

Well, Jared and Nichole’s wedding turned out fine, despite Nichole having the flu, and despite a lot of people not showing up because it conflicted with the BYU/University of Utah football game, and despite my involvement as the best man.

My humility issues cause me to have a hard time with a title like “best man.” I don’t want to sound like I’m bragging. (“See all these other guys? Yeah, they’re only second-best.”) In any collection of men, it’s rare that I’m the best of them, except maybe at a carnival or at a movie theater that’s showing “Black Knight.” I’m usually one of your more average men: not much to look at, and certainly nothing to write home about. (“Dear Mom, There’s this guy, and he’s average. Love, Susie.”) (Because apparently, your name is Susie.)

I don’t even know what a best man is supposed to do. Can you just stand around being the best? Whatever it is, I’m pretty sure I didn’t do it. I would have thrown Jared a bachelor party, but I couldn’t imagine him wanting to spend an entire evening apart from Nichole, and goodness knows she wouldn’t have been invited, what with all the debauchery. (Nichole is staunchly anti-debauch.) So that didn’t happen.

At any rate, the wedding day came and I put on a tuxedo, in which I looked like I should be playing piano in an Old West saloon. I mostly followed Jared around the reception hall, asking if I could do anything. This was when guests were milling around waiting for the ring ceremony to begin and Nichole was collapsed in a heap upstairs trying not to vomit anymore. Jared kept telling me there was nothing in particular I could do, and so I did nothing in particular. I sat and did some people-watching.

What I learned from this is that before going out in public, some people need more help than they’re currently getting. There were two different men wearing white socks with their dark pants and black shoes, for example. One member of the wedding party had been unable to show up in person for the tuxedo fitting, so he sent in his measurements. The trouble is, he used a tape measure — you know, the thin metal strip-in-a-box that construction workers use, the kind that doesn’t really bend to the contours of the body. As a result, his pants and coat were four inches too short for him.

I was not beyond reproach myself, though. I bit into an eclair and sent cream shooting out the back end (of the eclair). Soon I began doing this on purpose, for entertainment.

Nichole, bless her heart, was finally able to get upright and non-hallucinatory enough to stand in the receiving line. As best man, I was in that line, too, putting a serious strain on my small-talk abilities. I didn’t know a single person who came through. So as I shook each person’s hand, we’d do the thing where I explain I’m a friend of Jared’s and the person explains his or her connection to the happy couple. One man said, “I’m the husband of So-and-So, who used to be Nichole’s roommate.” And I said, “So you and I have absolutely no connection whatsoever, except that we’re both humans.” And he said yes. And then we had to keep talking, because he was still standing in front of me, because the line moves so slow.

It was a fun experience. I usually avoid wedding receptions, plague-like, but I was honored to be tangentially involved with this one. Not that they’re reading this, but I hope Jared and Nichole are having a nice honeymoon, and I hope I remember to return my tuxedo to the place they rented it from one of these days.

Black Knight

0

You’re gonna LOVE this! In “Black Knight,” Martin Lawrence works at a castle-themed amusement park, and he falls into the moat, and when he comes up out of the water, he’s back in medieval times! And it’s all wild and crazy because, you know, he’s this modern guy — and he’s black! — and he’s back in the time of knights and stuff! And of course, you know Martin Lawrence: He’s so crazy all the time! And so of course the medieval people are, like, “Who’s this guy? Why is he dressed so funny?” But then the amazing twist is that he uses his modern knowledge, like of football and stuff, to help his medieval friends win a battle. Can you believe it? And it’s all so funny ’cause, you know, Martin Lawrence is —

Oh, who am I kidding? It’s spectacularly unfunny, badly acted, and filled with so many contrivances and plot holes, you’d think the three screenwriters each wrote their chunk of the movie without looking at what the others had written.

“Black Knight” is that rare film whose trailer and commercials are perfectly accurate: It is no more or less funny than those previews. If you thought it looked funny in the ads, you’ll think the movie is funny. If you didn’t, you won’t. I didn’t, and I don’t.

Spy Game

0

It is strange that “Spy Game” should be as thrilling as it is, considering most of its action takes place in flashbacks and memories. Even the stuff that happens “now” is set 10 years ago.

And yet, there it is, a satisfying and entertaining spy movie where the good guys are the men out in the trenches and the bad guys are the Ivory Tower bureaucrats.

The story at hand is that somewhat-rogue CIA agent Tom Bishop (Brad Pitt) has been captured in China and will be executed tomorrow at 8 a.m. unless the U.S. gets him out. The U.S., however, is in the midst of major trade negotiations with China and doesn’t want to rock the boat; besides, Tom was acting on his own when he was arrested, without orders from the CIA.

“The CIA is looking for a reason to let the Chinese kill Tom Bishop.” So says Tom’s mentor, trainer and father figure, about-to-retire Nathan Muir (Robert Redford). He’s called in to a meeting with top CIA officials to give background on Tom, and that’s when we start flashing back.

Nathan is an old-school spy who says all you really need for any case is a “stick of gum, a pocketknife and a suitcase,” who knows to never get close to an informant, who has learned through his years at the CIA how to outsmart the CIA.

Tom is headstrong and emotional, and it was his attachment to an informant (Catherine McCormack) that got him in trouble in the first place.

Nathan wants Tom to follow in his footsteps, while at the same time keeping him from becoming the no-face secret agent he has become. For the mentor/protege dynamic, the casting couldn’t be better: Watch “The Sting” and you’ll see how much your young Robert Redford looks like your current Brad Pitt. How better to symbolize Tom’s slowly “becoming” Nathan than by choosing actors who look like opposite-aged versions of each other?

Redford is intense and fascinating as a man slowly realizing his own employer is the one not to be trusted. Pitt doesn’t have as much to do as the deeply conflicted Tom, but Tom and Nathan’s relationship is strongly established and Pitt proves he can hold his own against Hollywood legends.

The fast-cut editing and technological gadgetry recall director Tony Scott’s previous film, “Enemy of the State,” which also cast a dim view on government. (A pack of Morley cigarettes here is a sly reference to another anti-government bastion, “The X-Files,” where Morley was the Cigarette Smoking Man’s brand of choice.)

No new ground is broken in the genre of espionage films, but Nathan Muir would probably agree that sometimes the old ways are the best ways.

Out Cold

0

Here are the relevant facts about “Out Cold”: It has a lot of awesome snowboarding sequences, it has some hot babes who take off their tops, the guys in it love to “party” (read: they drink a lot), and there are some cool modern-punk songs on the soundtrack.

If any of those facts make it sound less than appealing, then you’re well within your rights to just skip it. If the fact that it is only occasionally funny and very frequently stupid turns you off, no one will fault you for not seeing it.

But for heaven’s sake, if you’re just dying to see a movie about snowboarding, and you think a guy getting his member stuck in a hot tub jet is hysterically funny, then RUN, DON’T WALK, TO SEE “OUT COLD”!

If you’ve made a movie in which former TV star Lee Majors (“The Six Million Dollar Man,” “The Fall Guy”) is the funniest person present, then you have surely made a movie that sucks a lot.

Majors plays a guy named John Majors, a Colorado tycoon who plans to buy an Alaska ski resort called Bull Mountain. It is at Bull Mountain that our heroes reside and work, sort of running the place but sort of drinking a lot and playing practical jokes on each other, too. Majors isn’t going to put up with the crap they’re always pulling, though, so there’s going to be trouble.

Our main character is Rick (Jason London), and he has a soul patch on his bottom lip. He’s one of THOSE guys — you know, the guys with soul patches on their bottom lips. Also, he’s pining for this girl he met in Cancun who then disappeared. The pining is preventing him from seeing his true love right in front of him, the one-of-the-boys girl Jenny (A.J. Cook). And it turns out the lost love, Anna (Caroline Dhavernas), is Majors’ stepdaughter!

But put your brain back in your head and pay attention, Hector; there’s more plot to discuss. No, wait, there’s not. That’s pretty much it.

Rick’s circle of friends — in which he is the responsible, grown-up one — includes horny Luke (Zach Galifianakis) and his stupid brother Pigpen (Derek Hamilton), and probably some other people I’m forgetting.

Lee Majors actually is kind of funny. He’s given some amusing lines and a character that’s actually workable as a supporting character in a comedy. Everyone else is given one emotion to play — “horny” or “stupid” come to mind — and then told to overact until the cows come home.

David Koechner is also here, as a crazy middle-aged guy who says weird things. Remember how he wasn’t funny on “Saturday Night Live”? Yeah, he’s still not funny.

There are a lot of butt cracks in this movie. More than in, say, “Sense and Sensibility.”

First-time directors Brendan and Emmett Malloy (they’re brothers) and first-time writer Jon Zack are basically updating the 1984 ski-and-slacker lowbrow comedy “Hot Dog … The Movie.” One could argue that they should set their sights higher, but that would be missing the point. If they wanted to make a movie that will appeal to 16-year-old boys who like boobs and snowboarding, they’ve probably done it. If they wanted to make a good movie, well, that’s another matter.

The Devil’s Backbone (Spanish)

0

No matter what your native tongue, the Spanish-language “Devil’s Backbone” is sure to give you a serious case of the creeps. The title is nearly irrelevant; one imagines it was chosen just so critics would say, “‘The Devil’s Backbone‘ will send shivers up your spine!” Which is accurate, if trite.

It is written and directed by Guillermo del Toro, and produced by Pedro Almodóvar, who wrote and directed “All About My Mother.” But it recalls the work of another Spanish director, Alejandro Amenábar, who gave us “The Others.” This film doesn’t adhere to that one’s policy of no onscreen violence, but it does make the same excellent use of ominous sound mixing and a really creepy ghost. (It invites comparison to “The Sixth Sense,” too, particularly with the notion that when ghosts come back, it’s because they want something.)

The setting is the Spanish Civil War, where a boarding school is now a de facto orphanage for the children of Republicans who have died in battle. We meet young Carlos (Fernando Tielve), a well-behaved, curious newcomer who immediately runs afoul of the school bully Jaime (Íñigo Garcés), while being protected by the kindly Dr. Cesares (Federico Luppi) and wooden-legged headmistress Carmen (Marisa Paredes). There’s also a maintenance man to worry about, the amoral Jacinto (Eduardo Noriega), whose first scene with Carmen may indeed shock you.

There is much intrigue to be had at the school. Not long ago, a bomb was dropped in the courtyard, but it failed to explode. It has since been defused, and now it sits as a monument to the good fortune of those who live there. However, the night it landed, a boy disappeared.

I am reminded again of “The Others” in the careful way “The Devil’s Backbone” reveals information. For the first half of the film, nearly every scene adds some new detail that makes the situation more fraught with gleeful horror than you had previously supposed. The school is a day’s walk from town. Carlos sleeps in the bed formerly inhabited by someone called “Santi.” Students make hushed references to “one who sighs.” Creepiest of all, a ghostly voice tells Carlos: “Many of you will die.”

Del Toro makes his allegories subtly; you could watch the film as nothing more than a ghost story that turns into a macabre vengeance tale and not miss anything. But surely there is meaning in the boys’ banding together, bolstered by the knowledge that though their enemy may be strong, “there are more of us” than there are of him. The politics of the film’s adult characters figure into things, too.

First and foremost, however, this is a ghost story, and a top-notch scary one, too. It ends a bit too easily and some of the conventions of movie-making bother me — how come the only people who ever fall in the water are people who can’t swim? — but these are minor complaints surrounded by a host of compliments for this dread-filled, eerie campfire story.

Thanksgiving Predictions

0

Though Miss Cleo and I are on a first-name basis (we dated in high school), I personally have no psychic ability. And yet, I will herein predict exactly what will happen at my parents’ house on Thanksgiving. Prepare to be startled and amazed, and possibly bored.

1:00 a.m. — Mom and Dad go down to the church to borrow some folding chairs so all the relatives have a place to sit.

1:04 a.m. — Mom and Dad encounter seven other couples doing the same thing, each pretending they have some other reason for being at the church at 1 a.m.

3:42 a.m. — The leader of the turkey nation awakes with a start, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

7:15 a.m. — Dad participates in the ward “Turkey Bowl” football game, despite having sworn each of the past 15 years that he’s getting too old for this.

7:20 a.m. — Dad officially gets too old for this.

10:13 a.m. — Someone jokingly tells Mom she’s ruined Thanksgiving.

12:49 p.m. — Relatives begin arriving by the vanful. There are guarded hugs and polite kisses all around. All secretly marvel at how much fatter and older everyone has gotten.

12:58 p.m. — The wives of my cousins pretend to know who I am.

1:02 p.m. — First sighting of Uncle Kenny’s butt crack.

1:22 p.m. — I make awkward conversation with my 18-year-old cousin Hollie, with whom I have never successfully conversed for more than 11 seconds.

1:31 p.m. — My cousin Ethan says something vile.

1:45 p.m. — I stare blankly at a TV from which a football game is emanating. I’m so bored by it, I feel like a damn woman.

1:51 p.m. — Someone tells Mom she’s ruined Thanksgiving, but they mean it.

2:05 p.m. — Before anyone can eat, we have to go around the table and each name something we are thankful for. Someone says, “That we’re finally about to eat,” which gets a laugh EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Meanwhile, my brother Jeff and my cousin Nathan are already eating.

2:09 p.m. — Grandpa offers a prayer, during which my brother Chris keeps his eyes open to make faces at whoever else has their eyes open, and during which Jeff and Nathan continue eating, though somewhat more quietly.

2:10 p.m. — First belch (male).

2:15 p.m. — Mashed potato supply depleted. Blame is placed on Jeff and Nathan, but the truth is, there weren’t enough mashed potatoes to begin with. I loudly complain about this fact, and about how this is the case every year, but the only response given is that if I want there to be more mashed potatoes, I ought to make some more myself. I find this extraordinarily unhelpful.

2:19 p.m. — First belch (female).

2:29 p.m — Grandpa’s new wife Margrit is informed that she’s not really our grandma, so we don’t have to listen to her.

3:32 p.m. — Someone intentionally does something that was predicted in this column, just because it was predicted in this column.

3:50 p.m. — Grandpa dozes off, his mouth wide open like he’s some kind of catfish or something. A picture is taken for posterity.

4:10 p.m. — Relatives begin to stagger bloatedly out the door.

5:32 p.m. — As my brother Jeff dishes up a plate of leftovers, Mom says, “Jeff, we JUST ATE!”

5:45 p.m. — Quiet settles on the house. My immediate family and I sit around the living room and crack each other up, largely through making fun of everyone we know. For a little while, everything in the world seems OK. Then Mom starts getting weepy-eyed about how everything in the world seems OK, and we have to turn on her.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

0

Here’s the long and short of it: “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is good, but not great.

Director Chris Columbus had the unenviable task of trying to make a blockbuster movie while simultaneously pleasing fans who will be angry if ANYTHING is changed or — heaven forbid — deleted. Many readers were saying, “We want it to be EXACTLY like the book, AND we want it to be a great movie.”

Well, sorry, but that’s impossible. Movies and books are different things. To be successfully adapted, books must be altered, streamlined and sometimes refocused, or else the transfer to the big screen won’t work.

Columbus erred on the wrong side: The film is so meticulously faithful to the book that it almost doesn’t work as a movie.

So intent was he on getting all the book’s physical elements in that he neglected the intangibles. Hogwarts is Gothically gorgeous, the characters look the way we always pictured them and Fluffy the three-headed dog is scary. But the major themes of friendship and courage, not to mention the book’s wicked sense of humor, are given only cursory attention. There’s no time to establish nebulous things like “loyalty”; we’ve got to throw together a Quidditch match!

There’s also this problem: The book is mostly exposition. It is a long time before the real story, about the plot to steal the sorcerer’s stone, kicks into high gear. The movie is the same way. In a book, that works fine. In a movie, it’s considered poor pacing. If I hadn’t read (and loved) the book, about an hour into the movie I’d have been saying, “OK, this stuff is neat and everything, but where’s it heading?”

The actors who play Harry, Ron and Hermione — Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson — are charming kids and reasonably good actors. Very few of the other characters get the screen time they deserve — Snape (Alan Rickman) and Quirrell (Ian Hart) are most badly robbed — but Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris and Maggie Smith make the most of it as Hagrid, Dumbledore and McGonagall. (And poor Neville Longbottom: We hardly knew ye.)

The Quidditch match is spectacularly exciting, as are all the special effects. The troll, the goblins, the ghosts — they’re here, and they’re fantastic. It’s amazing how things look just the way the readers imagined them; I literally gasped when I saw the Gryffindor common room — a rather ordinary locale — looking exactly the way I’d pictured it in my head.

The movie is essentially a procession of people and things that have previously lived only in our imaginations. The extent to which you are eager to see such a parade, regardless of how detached the floats are from each other, is the extent to which you will enjoy the movie.

What’s missing is the feeling of magic and wonderment the book gave us. It’s like a cloning experiment gone awry. It appears to be an exact duplicate of the book, and in many ways it is. But somehow, it’s just not the same.

Novocaine

0

The thing about being attracted to someone, Dr. Frank Sangster tells us, is that “you find yourself doing things and you have no idea why.”

“Novocaine” is all about those things, and the insanity they can lead to. In this rather Hitchcockian dark comedy/suspense drama from writer/director David Atkins, a middle-of-the-road dentist is driven to extremes by the woman he has the hots for, and he’s the subject of a murder investigation, too.

The dentist is the aforementioned Frank, played with quiet befuddlement by the incomparable Steve Martin, who proves himself more invaluable to our collective consciousness each time he appears on the scene. Frank has a successful practice and is engaged to his blond hygienist, Jean (Laura Dern), who is a lovely, all-American gal. Still, he longs for something more — something exciting or different.

Proving the adage that you should be careful what you wish for, Frank is visited by a new patient, Susan Ivey (Helena Bonham Carter), who tricks him into prescribing drugs for her in addition to stealing all the narcotics he has in the office. The problem would be easily solved with a quick phone call to the police, but Frank has unfortunately been mesmerized by the mysterious femme fatale.

We should also mention the worthless brothers: Frank’s (played by Elias Koteas), and Susan’s (Scott Caan), both of whom figure into things later.

That’s how things go in these movies: A normal guy gets drawn into non-normal situations, usually due to a mistake he made that was serious enough to demand attention, but not serious enough to deserve all this.

It’s a modern example of film noir, in many ways, aided by Danny Elfman’s loudly ominous score and the presence of dangerous women and an innocent man whom no one believes. If you can accept the unlikely way Frank gets into the mess — by not turning Susan in to the cops early on — it’s an exciting adventure with more than a few good laughs along the way. (Kevin Bacon is very funny as a self-serious Hollywood actor who “interrogates” Frank while doing research for an upcoming cop movie.)

Bonham Carter and Dern are solid in their very different roles, and Caan is as obstreperous as one expects him to be. Elias Koteas is perhaps under-used as Frank’s brother.

In the end, some of the revelations come a bit too easily, but it leads to a resolution that is delightfully, painfully original. “Novocaine” is unusual, but in an accessible, crowd-pleasing way. And you may never look at your dentist the same way again.

The Requisite Rivalry Column

0

BYU football is the reason the Daily Herald goes on living, and the University of Utah game is the reason the Daily Herald goes on living with a smile on its face. It is our raisin detour (or “raison d’etre,” as the French say).

We look forward to football season all year long here at the paper. In February, sports writers can be seen slumping around the newsroom, their knuckles dragging on the ground more than usual, visibly depressed by the lack of football to write about, reduced to covering such trivial matters as basketball and the Olympics. Many of these writers are so somber, they speak only in monosyllabic grunts, as opposed to the rest of the time, when they speak in monosyllabic exclamations.

And then football season begins, approximately three years before the first game. Joy oozes throughout the office, seeping into the crevices and festering behind the filing cabinets. Sports writers come out of their hibernation and dance about gaily. (When I say “gaily,” you should understand I mean “like a bunch of fairies.”) Football has begun!

Football is important in American society because it gives big, fat, sweaty guys something to do. If it weren’t for football, these men would be out on the street, holding signs that say, “Will be big, fat and sweaty for food.” (That’s how my brother Jeff put himself through college, actually.)

So we honor and revere football. We schedule our weekends around it. We attempt to explain its intricate rules to our less-informed friends, many of whom feign interest in the sport only when they have to write a column about it.

Which brings us to my point, which is to make a lot of jokes about the rivalry between BYU and the University of Utah. For those unfamiliar with each school, here are some comparisons that make the U of U look bad.

BYU: Requires its students to refrain from sex outside of marriage.
U OF U: Requires its students to refrain from sex outside the species (may be waived).

BYU: Used to be a high school called Brigham Young Academy.
U OF U: Used to be a high school called University of Utah.

BYU: Students like to tell “BYU co-ed” jokes.
U OF U: Students like to tell “BYU co-ed” jokes.

BYU: Endured national humiliation when it ill-advisedly censored a Rodin exhibit.
U OF U: Endures national humiliation when people in other states hear its name and say, “Utah has a university?”

And, in the interest of fair play….

U OF U: Performs theatrical works with themes of adultery, alcoholism and other controversial topics.
BYU: Does the same plays, but cuts out the swear words.

U OF U: Promotes academic freedom and open-mindedness among its diverse faculty.
BYU: Promotes academic freedom and open-mindedness among its white male upper-middle-class Mormon faculty.

U OF U: Goes out of its way not to mention Mormonism in the classroom, even though most of its students have an LDS background.
BYU: Had a professor who once went an entire day without mentioning Mormonism in the classroom, at which point he was fired.

U OF U: Football team has a record of 7 wins, 2 losses.
BYU: Football team has a record of 6 arrests, 3 convictions.

She Loves Me

0

Cute, cute, cute. That’s what BYU’s production of “She Loves Me” is. Cute story, cute songs, cute cast, cute sets, cute everything. It’s so cute, and I’ve said “cute” so many times, that now “cute” doesn’t sound like a real word anymore. Cute, cute, cute.

“She Loves Me” aspires to no greater height than to provide light-hearted entertainment and escapism. It is frothy and bubbly and pleasant. Its one instant of unpleasantness — an offstage gunshot — is immediately covered by one of the silliest scenes in the show, as if to make us forget.

The musical is based on the Hungarian play that was also the basis for films like “You’ve Got Mail,” in which a man and woman hate each other while unwittingly falling in love as anonymous pen pals.

The setting is a Parisian perfume shop. The feuding couple includes salesman Georg Nowack (Paul Johnson) and the new salesgirl Amalia Balash (Heather Ferguson), who got off on the wrong foot with each other and never recovered.

Paul Johnson is charming as Georg, an occasionally befuddled Ordinary Guy with a bit of Jimmy Stewart in him. (In fact, Stewart played this character in the first film version, “The Shop Around the Corner.”) Johnson earns laughs without milking them, which is an admirable quality in a lead actor.

Heather Ferguson is also winning as Amalia. She is lovely as she prepares to meet her anonymous friend, then whimsically pathetic the next morning, after he never showed up. Her sparring with Johnson is often laugh-out-loud funny.

The supporting cast is equally enjoyable; there is not a weak link in the show. Veteran local director Jerry Elison plays store owner Mr. Maraczek so sweetly, he couldn’t win the audience’s affection more readily if he passed out $100 bills. Joe Mason is amusing as the meek salesman Sipos, Rob Moffat is appropriately oily as the skirt-chasing Kodaly, and Curt R. Jensen makes for an endearing delivery boy, Arpad.

We will also mention Suzie Jacobsen Balser as cashier Ilona Ritter, an unlucky-at-love single girl who eventually finds true romance at the public library, in one of the show’s many subplots. Balser plays her as a completely wonderful character, funny and real at the same time; if Balser has never played Adelaide in “Guys and Dolls,” she should.

Director David Tinney keeps pace brisk and the tone light, and his choreography is often entertaining in itself. The show is not mindless or stupid; it’s actually rather clever at times. It is sunny and joyous and delightful and, yes, cute.

Should you go? Hey, weren’t you paying attention? YES, you should go.