Home Blog Page 62

A Knight’s Tale

0

“A Knight’s Tale” does waste time later, but not in its exposition. Within the first 20 minutes, a Middle Ages squire named William (Heath Ledger) has taken his dead master’s place on horseback to win a jousting tournament, then, after a flukish victory, gone into training to become a legitimate competitor.

No agonizing over his lowly station in life and a desire to rise above it. No secret longings to be a jouster. No ethical dilemma when his master keels over mid-tournament and he’s faced with the opportunity to put on the identity-masking armor and take over for him. The movie knows we’ve seen films about underdogs before, so we know the routine. Why waste time pretending the outcome is going to be something other than what it is?

It’s a swell attitude, and a swell movie, really, that combines modern sensibilities (and a little slang) with medievel sports and culture. In the first jousting sequence, Queen’s “We Will Rock You” is heard, just as in 20th-century sports arenas. It’s not just on the soundtrack, though: The spectators are singing along with it. No explanation is given as to how the audience knows a song that won’t be recorded for another 600 years, or how they’re hearing it with no P.A. system available. Nor should movie-goers care. A historical yarn spun with now-current ideas is gimmicky, yes, but “A Knight’s Tale” doesn’t seem like a gimmick movie. You just go with it, and you have fun.

William’s obstacle in jousting is the fact that only nobles are allowed to compete, and he’s a low-life. So he adopts the name Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein and fools everyone with a fake pedigree drawn up by none other than writer Geoffrey Chaucer (Paul Bettany), a gambling addict whom we first meet as he walks buck-naked down a country road, having lost all his clothes to his creditors.

William’s co-conspirators are his old pals Wat (Alan Tudyk) and Roland (Mark Addy). They’re all in this for the money, while William apparently has loftier goals that we don’t learn about until quite late in the film: He wants to find his father and embrace his ghetto roots and Just Be Himself.

There is the requisite noble maid, Jocelyn (Shannyn Sossamon), whom William seeks to woo despite her having the most ridiculous hair of the Middle Ages. There is also the requisite French git, Count Adhemar (Rufus Sewell), who also seeks to woo Jocelyn and who naturally is also the reigning jousting champion, which means William has to defeat him both at love and in athletic competition. There’s also the requisite spat William and Jocelyn have, which literally comes unprovoked and goes away just as easily; it really seems to be in the movie just to make sure all the standard bases are covered.

But predictability is not a liability here. Re-using old sports-movie cliches in an ancient setting was done with a straight face in “Gladiator,” but with tongue in cheek here. (It cannot be unintentional that Rufus Sewell looks and acts a great deal like Joaquin Phoenix, and that his character serves the same function here as did Phoenix’s in “Gladiator.”) Director/writer Brian Helgeland knows we’ve seen all this stuff before, and that just makes it more enjoyable. Criticizing the film for being predictable would be missing the point.

(In one nice moment, Jocelyn observes William’s exploits on the jousting field and notices all his fine attributes — mercy, strength, bravery, etc. — and sums them up immediately. No danger of the audience missing the subtle characterizations when they’re being spelled out for us.)

The film has a great soundtrack (by definition, any film featuring War’s “Low Rider” is automatically a great soundtrack), which helps a lot. There are fine performances from the male leads; the women, such as they are, do not do much. I like Geoffrey Chaucer’s character especially, acting as William’s mouthy promoter (“We walk in the garden of his turbulence!” he boasts to an eager audience, with no explanation what the hell that means.)

I mentioned earlier that the film does waste time eventually. It does that with the father subplot, which is rather unnecessary and especially unconvincing. There’s also a lengthy flashback to William’s childhood, which serve the same dubious purpose of establishing Williams’ low-born heritage and proud dreams. When it keeps to the point, however, the film is quite fun indeed — a classic example of being mindlessly entertaining without being stupid.

Startup.com (documentary)

0

“Startup.com” is an extraordinarily insightful documentary, chronicling not just the rise and fall of dot-com companies in the late 20th century, but also the perils of mixing business and personal relationships in any era.

At the center is a grand idea for a Web site: a portal that would allow you to pay parking tickets and handle other municipal government business over the Internet. Long-time friends Kaleil Tuzman and Tom Herman are the brains behind GovWorks.com, and the film takes them from the beginning, with eight employees, up to 233 employees, and back down again.

Kaleil is the more charismatic, forceful and mercurial of the two; Tom is quieter, less social and more brooding. Both show signs of a Machiavellian nature, though Kaleil would call it being aggressive in business, and Tom would call it getting what’s rightfully his.

Directors Chris Hegedus and Jehane Noujaim were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time: They set out to document a rising Internet business, not knowing where it would ultimately lead. But credit them for rising to the occasion. “Startup.com” tells the story fairly and without reenactments or movie gimmickry. Hegedus’ long experience with documentary work is brought to bear, as is Noujaim’s work as a producer for MTV. (Yes, some moments here are a bit like “The Real World,” only more real.)

The details of the business are not discussed; there are rooms full of people doing something, but I have no idea what it is. It’s not relevant, anyway. Kaleil and Tom’s friendship, and the strains placed thereon, is ultimately the point. And along the way, it’s a fascinating view of Internet business in the 2000s.

Hello, Dalai

0

The Dalai Lama is in Utah County this weekend, speaking at, of all places, Utah Valley State College. (What, was Provo High School booked?) Earlier this week, the Daily Herald’s Eric D. Snider was granted an exclusive interview with Mr. Lama, held at T.G.I. Friday’s. Here is a transcript of that historic meeting.

ERIC: Your Holiness, it’s an honor to have you here at T.G.I. Friday’s.

DALAI LAMA: Thank you. I am glad to be here.

ERIC: What’s the deal with Friday’s, anyway? Do they think all the weird stuff hanging on the walls somehow makes the food taste better? Are their chefs inspired to greater culinary heights because there’s a washboard from the 1920s that says “Coca-Cola” on it nailed to the wall behind them?

DALAI LAMA: That is a good question.

ERIC: Anyway, I wanted to ask you — oh, here’s the waitress.

(Eric and the Dalai Lama place their orders. Waitress leaves.)

ERIC: Did you notice she did that server squat at our table?

DALAI LAMA: The server squat…?

ERIC: You know the one, where they crouch down next to you instead of standing up like a Homo sapiens? I don’t like it. It seems too informal to me.

DALAI LAMA: (nodding thoughtfully) A restaurant should maintain an air of formality….

ERIC: Also, I don’t like people squatting next to me. Nothing good ever happens when people squat.

DALAI LAMA: Perhaps you are interested to know the subject of my address this weekend.

ERIC: Ah! Yes. Please tell me.

DALAI LAMA: I will speak on the obligation each of us has to make the world a better place.

ERIC: Did you notice she also didn’t write down our order? She just memorized it.

DALAI LAMA: Yes, well, her memory must be good.

ERIC: That always makes me nervous. I don’t go to a restaurant to be entertained by feats of memory. Is she a waitress or is she The Amazing Kreskin? “Here’s your sandwich … AND WITH PICKLES!”

DALAI LAMA: The Amazing Who?

ERIC: Kreskin. I think he might be Buddhist. Do you know him?

DALAI LAMA: I don’t believe so.

(Waitress brings appetizers.)

ERIC: Oh, good. Have you had these mozzarella sticks before? Man, they’re tasty.

DALAI LAMA: To the naked eye, they seem to be nothing more than fried cheese.

ERIC: Yeah, but somehow they turn out really good.

DALAI LAMA: As I was saying, about my speech….

ERIC: What’s the deal with appetizers, though? They’re called “appetizers,” so I assume the purpose is to get our appetites going for the main course. But if you’re trying to make someone hungry, wouldn’t giving them food be counterproductive? Seems like that would make you LESS hungry. I mean, if they really want to whet my appetite, the thing to do would be to bring out the appetizers, wave them in front of my face, and then take them away again.

DALAI LAMA: That is an interesting idea.

ERIC: But for that matter, do I need them to MAKE me hungry? I walked into the restaurant; I must be hungry already.

DALAI LAMA: I believe the appetizers are meant as a light way of beginning a heavy meal. You must crawl before you can walk.

ERIC: No, because most appetizers are really heavy. For crying out loud, these cheese sticks are nothing but grease and fat, and plus, they cost almost as much as an entree. And besides, I don’t think I need the restaurant’s help preparing myself for a meal. I don’t need to coat my stomach with a layer of onion rings before introducing the main course. I’ve eaten before. This is not my first meal.

DALAI LAMA: I would not accuse you of such.

ERIC: Why are you defending the appetizers, anyway? Are you getting a kick-back from Friday’s?

DALAI LAMA: I assure you, I am not.

ERIC: I’m still worried about that squatting waitress not writing down our order. If my sandwich shows up with a tomato after I specifically said “no tomato,” I’m not tipping her.

DALAI LAMA: I’m with you there, man. No service, no tip.

ERIC: Amen, brother. Hey, it’s been good chatting with you.

DALAI LAMA: Will you be at my speech Saturday?

ERIC: Can you give me a shout-out?

DALAI LAMA: You know it.

ERIC: Right on.

DALAI LAMA: Word.

I Gots a Qwestion

0

So the phone company came out to hook up my new phone line, but ‘cept after they did it, it didn’t actually work. Evidently, one needs to specify that one would like a WORKING phone line, as opposed to just a telephone number and a bill.

So they came out again a couple days later and went around to each phone jack individually to re-wire them. They fixed them all, except for the one in the master bedroom, which they only pretended to fix, perhaps as a fraternity initiation.

So they came out a third time. Since I hadn’t known that the phone jack in my bedroom still didn’t work, I had shoved a desk up against the wall where it was located. You could still get to the phone jack, except you had to lie on the floor and reach behind the desk. The surly phone guy said I would need to move the desk. I thought, “If you don’t do any actual work, like lying down on the carpet to fix a phone line, then why are you dressed like an auto mechanic? You could wear a suit and tie for this job, apparently.” However, being passive-aggressive, I said nothing.

So I moved the desk, and His Majesty crouched down on his dainty knees and fixed the phone jack. Then, without so much as a “goodbye” or a “thanks for using Qwest,” much less an offer to help me push the desk back against the wall, he left.

So I tried pushing the desk back myself, and in so doing broke off a piece of the hutch that sits atop the desk. Granted, it was no antique; it was just a $130 desk from Wal-Mart. But I expected it to last more than two days, especially after I had worked so hard on it, staying up until 3 a.m. watching my friend Jared put it together.

So I called Qwest. I pointed out that their guys had already been to my house twice and failed to hook up the phone properly. I had put the desk against the wall because I assumed they’d succeeded in making the phone work. Their last guy, Prince Surly, could have done his job without moving the desk at all — but at the very least, he could have offered to help me move it back again. Qwest’s reply was, more or less, “Yeah, so?”

So I hung up and realized I was foolish to have ever thought they might make reparations. After all, this is a company that makes you buy “Line-Backer(TM)” at $4.50 a month so that if something goes wrong with your phone line, they’ll come out and fix it for free. Otherwise, they’ll charge you for it, even if the problem was their fault. What they’re saying is, “You know that service you’re paying for, i.e., the phone line and the phone number? Yeah, well, if we fail to provide you with adequate service, we’re going to charge you for fixing it unless you’ve paid your monthly ‘protection.'” I’m not saying Qwest hires goons to sabotage the phone lines of people who don’t buy “Line-Backer(TM)” just so they can charge them later for fixing it, but I am saying the phone company reminds me of the Mafia, except less compassionate.

So now I have a working phone jack, but a broken desk. Too bad I didn’t pay for “Desk-Backer(TM)” from Wal-Mart. And what’s with Qwest, anyway? Don’t they know a “q” should always be followed by a “u”? How qweer.

Blessed Art Thou

0

If you’re the head of a California monastery and one of your priests suddenly turns into not just a woman, but an inexplicably pregnant woman, you’re bound to do a little soul-searching.

That’s what “Blessed Art Thou” — also released as “A Question of Faith” — is about, and while the film has its humorous moments (how could it not, given the premise?), it’s a great deal more contemplative than the flippant summary just given might suggest.

Brother Anselm (M.E. Hackett) is the priest in question. Following a visitation from the angel Gabriel — which his superiors already doubt — Anselm miraculously turns into a full-blown woman, fetus included.

Different members of the monastery have different reactions. The younger priests — all of whom had life-changing experiences that caused them to seek out God — are more open-minded; in particular there’s Brother William (Naveen Andrews), who wants to be the baby’s adoptive father.

At the other extreme is Father Adrian (Daniel Von Bargen), a man so firm in his convictions that when something happens contrary to the status quo, he can’t accept it. There’s hatred in him, and the fact that hatred can dwell so close to the surface without coming out is one of the film’s themes.

The monastery’s doctor, Duncan (Joe Spano), tries to find scientific explanations for the whole thing; Abbott Frederick (Bernard Hill) says it can’t be accepted by the church “because it doesn’t fit in with any … precedent.” (That’s what they said when Mary got pregnant, too, Abselm responds — although Mary’s miracle didn’t involve a transgender mutation.)

“Blessed Art Thou” is satisfying, but not life-altering. The absurdity of the situation makes getting into our hearts an uphill battle from the get-go, and director/writer Tim Disney never really overcomes that obstacle. In the end, it has the feel of a fable: One is amused by it, and perhaps driven to some thought, but there’s little emotional connection to the story or characters.

The Mummy Returns

0

The first scene of “The Mummy Returns” typifies the movies as a whole. In it, the Scorpion King (professional wrestler The Rock) is leading his forces to battle in 3000-something B.C. There is a terrifically loud clanging of swords, lots of stabbing, and literally hundreds of bodies falling — and yet there is not one drop of blood.

This makes the film easier to watch, of course, and I admire any film’s efforts to maintain a degree of palatability in this era of wanton cinematic blood-letting. But it also makes the battle scene ineffectual. If no one appears to have been hurt or killed, what was the point of it? Why should we care about the outcome?

And that’s “The Mummy Returns” in general. There is almost unceasing loudness, numerous explosions, a lot of action and mayhem. But it all seems strangely soulless and hollow. We might just as well be watching a “best-of” reel of various films’ action sequences, for all the cohesiveness they have here.

Taking place several years after the 1999 blockbuster, this sequel has American Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser) married to English hottie Evelyn (Rachel Weisz). They have a young son, Alex (Freddie Boath), who accompanies them as they root through tombs in search of whatever it is people are searching for when they root through tombs.

In their travels, they get a hold of a special gold bracelet that awakens their old mummy foe Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) and his girlfriend, Anck-Su-Namun (Patricia Velasquez), who hopefully had a nickname she could go by.

This special bracelet, if used properly, can also revive the aforementioned Scorpion King. Imhotep wants to wake him up, kill him, then take control of his armies and rule the world; the O’Connells, one assumes, just want peace and quiet. Imhotep takes Alex hostage, since he’s got the bracelet attached to his arm, and so this time, it’s personal.

The O’Connells are aided/hindered by Evelyn’s greedy brother Jonathan (John Hannah) and swarthy Middle-Eastern guy Ardeth Bay (Oded Fehr). Jonathan is the kind of character who usually gets killed right away in these movies, so congratulate him for making it this far.

There’s also some hooey about Evelyn being the reincarnated spirit of an old rival of Anck-Su-Namun’s, and about Rick being a “chosen one” in regards to the bracelet. If anything was ever tacked on to a movie, it’s this subplot.

“The Mummy Returns” is essentially a bad photocopy of an Indiana Jones movie. The action is there, but not quite as crisp. The characters are there, but not quite as interesting. The villains are there, but they’re all computer-animated.

My already-waning interest began to fade fast when a squadron of mummy gremlins emerged from the underbrush. By the time a million computer-generated beasts were stampeding through the desert, it was clear the movie was only getting sillier.

As mindless action flicks go, this one’s not awfully bad. Its lack of originality is bound to be a problem, though, as viewers wonder why, after two hours, they’re still watching it.

Under the Sand (French)

0

We all know the human psyche has defense mechanisms set up to prevent overwhelming pain and grief. But just how much reality will those defenses ignore in the name of protecting us?

In “Under the Sand,” a literature professor named Marie Drillon (Charlotte Rampling) suffers a huge blow when her faithful and beloved husband Jean (Bruno Cremer) disappears while swimming at the beach. Or she SHOULD suffer a huge blow, that is: As it happens, she refuses to acknowledge the incident, continuing to speak of her husband in the present tense, buy him gifts, and tell friends that he travels on business a lot.

Her friends are sympathetic, but have no idea how to deal with her delusions. Her best friend Amanda (Alexandra Stewart) sets her up with friend Vincent (Jacques Nolot), with him Marie starts a relationship — one she considers adulterous, of course, and in one very creepy moment, husband Jean is seen lurking at the door as she and Vincent get it on.

It’s a melancholy film, to be sure, with few light moments. Some intrigue comes about when Marie’s mother-in-law, who is just as delusional, offers a theory of her own about what happened to Jean (no body was ever found). This gives the movie a spark, and the movie quickly douses it so it can go back to being moody and depressing. The ambiguous finale, while heartbreaking, is more vague than thought-provoking, as is the entire thing, really. The acting is tremendous, but so little insight is given into anything that it amounts to an emotional roller-coaster with no payoff.

The Heppiest Place on Earth

0

After spending three days at Disneyland, I am pleased to report that the best ride is Pinocchio’s Daring Journey. At least, I assume it is, since we rode it five times.

The “we” in question was me, my research assistant/consultant Josh, and our friends Becky and Chanel, with whom we maintain relatively platonic relationships despite constant pressure from our other friends. We went to the Magic Kingdom as a respite from the drudgery of day-to-day life, and also to see if Josh could break the land speed record for consuming 1,000 churros.

The first night we were there, Chanel had to leave the park for a while to have dinner with some group of relatives, or something (we weren’t that interested, frankly). Not wanting Chanel to miss out on anything, Josh, Becky and I decided to go on rides that weren’t very much fun. Naturally, we headed straight to Fantasyland.

Now, I don’t mean to say Fantasyland rides aren’t fun at all. They are apparently quite entertaining to young children, who don’t realize, for example, that Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride ends with everyone going to hell (it really does!), or that the Alice in Wonderland ride was obviously designed with the aid of marijuana. Actually, these things kind of entertain me, too, now that I think of it. It must be the rides’ slow, repetitive nature that I get tired of, just like I got bored with Al Gore last fall.

Anyway, we went on the Pinocchio ride. As with the others, you drive through the story, and characters yell things at you, and a whale tries to eat you. At the end of the ride, when Pinocchio has been returned to the bosom of his family (instead of going to hell like Mr. Toad did), Gepetto says, “I’m so happy!” But he says it in a thick, old-man Italian accent, so it comes out “I’m so heppy!”

To the three of us, this was the funniest thing that had ever been said by anyone, ever, animated or not. It delighted us to no end. We walked around the rest of the night saying it. We wrote it down in Josh’s special book where you write down memorable things. We vowed to have it engraved on our tombstones.

Alas, Chanel had missed it. So when we got her back from her captors, we went on the ride again so she could hear it. We were positively giddy with anticipation and then … he didn’t say it. He said something else instead. Apparently, it’s one of those rides that has variations, which I’m sure the 4-year-olds really appreciate.

So we rode it again, and Gepetto uttered yet another variation. So we rode it again. We were going to MAKE Gepetto say “I’m so heppy!,” if it was the last thing we did. But he still did not say it. We began to fear the ride had an infinite number of variables, and that after it ran out of lines from “Pinocchio,” it would start quoting from other sources until it had exhausted every possible sentence combination in the English language. We envisioned Gepetto spouting random nouns and verbs in a nonsensical manner, like the people who post comments at HarkTheHerald.com, eventually saying everything EXCEPT “I’m so heppy!”

After sitting through this ride five times, and getting seriously weird looks from the lithe young man who operated it, we gave up and left it, swearing never to return again. Josh even put an Italian curse on it, between churros. So if you go to Disneyland and find the Pinocchio ride mysteriously burned to the ground, you’ll know why. As for us, we have moved on with our lives and hope one day to find true heppiness.

(Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that upon entering Disneyland, I was given, as were all the other guests, a full-color brochure describing the park’s rides and attractions. This brochure was provided free of charge. My subsequent coverage of brochures and brochure-making was produced independently of my receipt of this gift, however, and was in no way influenced by it. I thank Disneyland for its kindness in providing me with the brochure, but all reporting I have done on brochures since then has been with an impartial mind. Thank you.)

Freedomland

0

We have our problems, but at least we’re not THESE people.

That’s what I kept thinking about my own family while watching the one in “Freedomland” at Salt Lake Acting Company. The Underfingers are utterly and profoundly dysfunctional, which leads to a great deal of outrageous comedy, but which does not make one long to be part of their circle.

The patriarch is Noah (Bob Ormsby), a daft old professor more prone to philosophizing than disciplining. His wife’s departure years ago was the cause of all this angst, it turns out, and his new wife is Claude (Kathryn Atwood), a middle-aged New Age seductress.

They live in a quaint cabin in New England, away from their three children, all of whom converge on the place one weekend. Sig (Teri Cowan) is an imperious New York artist who may be a sell-out, but who at least makes a living. Her sister Polly (Marylynn Alldredge), on the other hand, can’t finish her doctoral dissertation, has no job, and goes to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings solely because the people are nice to her there.

Then there’s their brother, Seth (Paul Kiernan), who lives in the woods and is one step away from forming a militia. His pregnant girlfriend Lori (Gretchen Whalley) arrives with him, and a reporter (Francis Reyes) doing a story about Sig’s work shows up, too.

A reunion of people who don’t like each other much is classic comedy material, and “Freedomland” doesn’t exactly break any new ground. In fact, once the characters and their gripes with each other have been established, the play stalls and idles for a while before finding its focus again.

But when it’s moving, it is often gloriously funny. Sig constantly berates Polly’s shiftlessness, suggesting that when you find yourself still in your pajamas at 2 in the afternoon, you should ask yourself: “Am I sick? Am I 3? Am I in an institution of some kind?” Sig’s paintings, meanwhile, currently focus on clowns, including one of clowns attending the funeral of a parakeet (which the reporter believes the clowns may have killed). Someone channels Oedipus. A church gets blown up. You know, typical family reunion stuff.

The acting is characteristically solid all around, with Teri Cowan’s delightfully superior Sig standing out. Marylynn Alldredge’s waifish Polly is endearing, too, and Bob Ormsby’s intentionally clueless Noah is a joy to behold.

There’s a rather poignant finale, but it’s the snarky, mean-spirited back-biting that makes the play entertaining. These aren’t people you’d want to associate with, but it certainly is fun to watch them from a safe distance.

Shadowlands

0

Provo Theatre Company knows from experience that local audiences aren’t terribly keen on dramas. Notwithstanding, the theater has staged “Shadowlands,” a fact-based play on Christian author C.S. Lewis and the romantic love he found late in his life.

The risk involved makes the production worth noting. The high-quality result makes it worth watching.

C.S. “Jack” Lewis (Scott Wilkinson) was the author of children’s books like “The Chronicles of Narnia,” as well as Christian apologist writings like “Mere Christianity” and “The Screwtape Letters.” (Local readers may be interested to know that Lewis is often quoted by LDS speakers, as his views apparently mirrored the Latter-day Saints’, despite his having no affiliation with the church.)

The play begins with Lewis addressing a group in his characteristically persuasive but gentle style. Tribulation, he tells us, is God’s way of strengthening and fine-tuning us.

We soon learn, however, that this assertion is based more on theory than on fact: Jack himself has had precious little tribulation in his life. He lives with his bachelor brother Major Warnie Lewis (a wonderfully unflappable Reese Phillip Purser), spending quiet, well-mannered evenings having drinks with their associates in Oxford, England.

This pleasant existence is rattled when Jack meets Joy Gresham (Trish Reading), a New York poet who visits England with her young son Douglas (McKay Heaton) just at the time her husband is divorcing her. Jack, utterly inexperienced with women, is intrigued by her but their relationship remains platonic. Later, they get married only “technically” so she can stay in the country. This marriage of convenience leads to true love.

With Act 2, the trials emerge: Joy has bone cancer. It is spreading. She will likely die. Now all of Jack’s platitudes about enduring through pain are put to the test. Can he actually live all those nice-sounding things he’s taught all these years? Why, in fact, DOES God allow those he loves to suffer?

Jack is a beautiful character, not boisterous or extroverted, but a compelling figure nonetheless. He is played by Scott Wilkinson with as much humanity and skill as you’ll see on a local stage.

Trish Reading is endearing as Joy, though her comes-and-goes New York accent is distractingly strong at times. She and Wilkinson have a pleasant chemistry together — a good thing, since so many of the play’s scenes are just the two of them.

Along those lines, there is occasionally too much awkward silence as Jack and Joy get to know each other. The pace is generally lively enough, but it drags at times. Russ Richins’ scenic design — one of the lovelier sets PTC has had — helps the show’s many scene changes take place quickly and efficiently.

Director Loraine Edwards pulls what humor there is from the play, keeping it all from becoming terribly heavy. There are some achingly sad moments, and I suppose Edwards is right in calling the play “tragic.” But unlike, say “Romeo and Juliet,” which ends tragically with barely a trace of hope, “Shadowlands” ends after the sad events have come and gone and hope has had a chance to shine through the darkness. This is a meaningful, uplifting production.

Hotel Utah: Survival of the Funniest

0

While one expects the Desert Star Playhouse to be a little hit-and-miss in its wide-scoped parodies of pop culture and entertainment, “Hotel Utah: Survival of the Funniest” is more miss than hit.

This one is focused directly on Utah people and politics, with a “Celebrity Survivor” reality TV show setting up shop at the Hotel Utah. The celebrities involved are porn czar Paula Houston (Holly Braithwaite), Bill Clinton (Scott Holman, also writer and director), Jackie Leavitt (Kathleen Richardson), Britney Spears (Kerstin Anderson), Rick Majerus (Spencer Ashby) and Al Gore (Matt Kohler).

The group has to “survive” in Salt Lake City — Jell-O is reference a number of times — and perform physical challenges, including producing Relief Society-style arts and crafts.

Al Gore is voted out first, as you might expect, and yes, there is a “chad” joke. He then becomes the villain, planning revenge on the group for getting rid of him.

That’s about the extent of the story line, which already is a major difference between this show and the normal Desert Star offerings, which are generally more plot-heavy. It’s not necessarily a liability, but in this case, the thing seems more like an extended skit than a play — especially with the random commercial parodies that are spread throughout it.

The script, by Scott Holman, seems good enough, though it does resort too much to bits that are more references than jokes. Merely re-creating Jackie Leavitt’s TV public service announcements is not, in itself, a parody. And repeatedly shooting that Totally Awesome Computers guy with a shotgun is just enacting the fantasy of every Utahn — a fine thing, sure, but not really a joke, per se.

The script does have some great anarchic moments, such as Houston and Clinton singing a romantic duet, not to mention Clinton’s mistaking her for a “porn star” rather than a porn czar. It’s also nice to see the Paula Houston character in a fat suit: People have already made fun of her for a lot of reasons, but the weight thing has gone mostly untouched so far. It’s not very nice satire, but at least it’s new.

It’s the performances that hurt this show. Holman and Ashby have a handle on doing broad parody, and even going over the top with it, without getting hammy. Kathleen Richardson, Kerstin Anderson and Holly Braithwaite, on the other hand, display Road Show-style cheesiness that damages what could have been some funny scenes.

And Matt Kohler couldn’t look or sound less like Al Gore if he tried. Kohler’s been great in other shows, but he takes this character way too far, crossing the line from amusing into annoying.

I’m all for cutting the folks at Desert Star some slack, since they fill a special niche and have done some stellar work in the past. But this show is too unfocused and unreliable to be a hit.

Fault Disney

0

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.

I kid the multi-national conglomerate, but Disney really has changed. As a tyke, and even into my ragamuffin years, one of my favorite attractions was the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse. I liked that it was a thing you could actually stop and LOOK at, instead of rocketing past it at 100 mph. And it was built like the treehouse actually lived in by the Robinson family and that crazy transvestite they picked up. (Remember that? And remember how the older Robinson sons, the tough one and the gay one, both wanted him/her? That was one trippy movie.)

But now the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse is called Tarzan’s Treehouse. Why? Because kids don’t remember “The Swiss Family Robinson” (nor should they, really, especially with all those transvestites in it). Does it matter that Tarzan didn’t live in a treehouse in the 1999 Disney cartoon? Does it matter that the only time a treehouse is even shown is when Tarzan’s parents are killed in one by a jungle cat? Does it matter that, because of that tragedy, even SEEING a treehouse is probably very traumatic for Tarzan? No. The general theme of Tarzan’s Treehouse is: “Tarzan” is now available on video and DVD.

Just across from Tarzan’s Treehouse is the relatively new Indiana Jones ride. What connection Disney thinks it has to Indiana Jones is beyond me, but it’s a pretty fun ride, with an audio-animatronic Harrison Ford who speaks with more inflection than the real Harrison Ford.

One thing that has not changed about Disneyland is that it still leads the world in the production of comical robots who make bad puns. No matter how genuinely thrilling a ride may be, you can rest assured it will have at least one expressionless, wise-cracking android. If there were a Disneyland ride that actually made it possible to travel through time, winning the praise and accolades of scientists, theologians, and philosophers as the most daring invention in all of recorded history, it would have a talking monkey as a tour guide, and he would say things like, “We’re in the Paleolithic Era now — and boy, did someone ever make those dinos sore!” (The monkey’s voice would be provided by Nathan Lane.)

But back to my point: “The Swiss Family Robinson” had a cast full of transvestites. No, sorry, my point is that the changes at Disneyland reflect the changes in the Disney company in general. In the old days, you got the feeling Disney actually existed just to make kids happy. Even the Disney films that were awful at least were quiet about it. They weren’t over-hyped, big-budget monstrosities like today’s “102 Dalmatians,” “Dinosaur” and “Pocahontas.” They had stories — dumb stories, sometimes, based on absurd premises like donkeys kicking field goals or Kurt Russell being funny, but stories nonetheless. “102 Dalmatians,” in contrast, was just 90 minutes of dogs sniffing each other.

And so the park is different, too. The old rides, like Snow White’s Stupid Adventures and Mr. Toad’s Boring Ride, were centered around entertaining kids, without regard for craftsmanship or originality. But the new rides are so intent on competing with Six Flags and other vomit-oriented amusement parks that they’re too boisterous and crazy for kids to even go near. Surely the frozen corpse of Walt Disney is spinning in its cryogenics chamber. Which would be kind of a fun ride in itself.

Driven

0

One of a movie critic’s favorite things is when a film reviews itself. Sylvester Stallone’s new racecar flick “Driven” does that when a character instructs one of the drivers, “Talk less and drive more.”

Amen, brother.

The action scenes in “Driven” are full of adrenaline and excitement. Director Renny Harlin (“Die Hard 2,” “Cliffhanger”), whose style is one that says, “Don’t forget this movie has a director — and it’s ME!,” puts the viewer in the driver’s seat and, putting aside Harlin’s sledgehammer techniques, the action is extremely exciting.

The talky parts in between, by contrast, are dull and melodramatic, with soap-opera dialogue on the order of “What’s that supposed to mean?!” and “You never loved me!”

Stallone plays Joe Tanto, a formerly successful driver who retired a few years ago after nearly killing one of his colleagues in a wreck.

The film avoids the cliche of showing us that accident as a prologue (a la “Cliffhanger,” “Vertical Limit,” “Along Came a Spider,” etc., etc.). However, I believe that is the only cliche the film avoids. Shall we count the rest?

Tanto (1) comes out of retirement to help a rookie driver (Kip Pardue) defeat a cocky top racer (Til Schweiger). The new guy, Jimmy, is in the process of (2) stealing the other guy’s girlfriend, which (3) intensifies their rivalry.

Jimmy, meanwhile, is being manipulated by his brother/agent, who is vigorously dedicated to making Jimmy succeed to (4) make up for his own failures.

Speaking of failures, Jimmy’s owner Carl Henry (Burt Reynolds) is paralyzed, suggesting a dire accident from years ago that (5) left him unable to drive anymore.

Stallone wrote the script, apparently in one draft. There are a dozen or so characters, all with back stories, and Stallone conveys them all with unnatural-sounding dialogue. For example: “That ex-wife of yours is a piece of work,” someone tells Joe. “She divorces you and marries another driver!” Why not just put a subtitle on the screen saying, “Joe’s ex-wife divorced him and married another driver”? (The top racer, Beau, lets us know about his history with Joe with an equally obvious line: “You almost killed me.” Thanks for filling us in, Beau.)

There’s also the matter of the largely irrelevant sports announcers who tells us what’s happening in the races even when we can plainly see for ourselves. When one of them says, “Only inches separate these two cars,” guess what’s on the screen? That’s right: a shot of two cars separated only by inches.

As mentioned, the race scenes are exciting, and that includes the ludicrous one where Jimmy and Joe go racing through the streets of Chicago at 200 mph. But director Renny Harlin seems insecure otherwise. Why else would one feel the need to have music playing for 99 percent of the film, if not out of fear that the work won’t stand on its own? And why all the attention-grabbing gimmicks like slow-motion and choppy editing? If the story or characters were any good, you wouldn’t need these tricks.

In the acting category, only Gina Gershon as Joe’s catty ex-wife is very interesting, and that’s because she plays her role with the campiness the script practically begs for. Everyone else is so darned serious all the time.

In fact, that’s “Driven’s” biggest liability: It’s a standard story with stock characters and soapy dialogue, but it thinks it’s a legitimate action/drama. Enjoy those racing scenes, and take a nap the rest of the time.

The Forsaken

0

The vampires in “The Forsaken” can’t fly and they don’t have fangs. Instead, they drive a beat-up car and smush their faces against the window as menacingly as possible under the circumstances.

Hopefully, this gives you an idea of how scary the film is — i.e., not at all. Director/writer J.S. Cardone uses fast editing and crunchy heavy-metal music to trick us into thinking we’re watching something intense, when really we’re seeing a movie that seems to be making itself up as it goes along, inventing new vampire lore at will and ending in an utterly unsuspenseful climax.

While traveling cross-country, Sean (Kerr Smith) picks up a hitchhiker named Nick (Brendan Fehr), a mysterious, pessimistic fellow with no direction. They encounter a freaked-out girl (Izabella Miko) whom Nick seems to know how to help.

Come to find out, the girl was recently bitten by a vampire and will completely turn into one in a few days. Nick had the same thing happen to him and thus recognized the symptoms; he’s been postponing the inevitable through a cocktail of drugs that can stave off the vampire virus for a while. If he can find and kill the vampire who bit him, the virus will go away. He suspects he and the girl were bitten by the same vampire — no explanation is given for that conclusion — so killing that blood-sucker will cure them both. Oh, and Sean, too, who accidentally got bitten by the girl during one of her conniptions.

But apparently, you can only successfully kill these vampires on “hallowed ground,” and even then only by decapitation or sunlight. So they have to lure the main vampire (Johnathon Schaech) to an old Spanish mission in Texas. And so it goes.

This is an unpleasant movie of excesses. It’s not enough for the girl to be put in a bathtub to cool her fever; she has to be stripped naked, too, and the camera has to linger on her breasts as much as possible. It’s not enough for vampires to burn up in the sun; they have to literally explode. It’s not enough for a police officer to be blasted with a shotgun; the blow has to send him flying 15 feet to land on his squad car. And then he has to be set on fire.

Yet for all its abundant blood, “The Forsaken” is strangely unenergetic. It’s as if the actors realize how bad their dialogue is and refuse to commit too strongly to it. Not that I blame them. If I were stuck in this pedestrian “horror” film, I’d be lethargic, too.

One Night at McCool’s

0

“One Night at McCool’s” is a lot of things, but clever and funny are not two of them.

By all accounts, this is apparently a black comedy, telling of a hot woman named Jewel (Liv Tyler) and three men’s different experiences with her, and how they all intersect. You can tell it’s a black comedy because the characters are shallow, there’s a lot of violence at the end, and it ends unhappily — or “ironically,” we’re supposed to think as we laugh at how the movie totally screwed its characters over.

None of this is pulled off successfully, however. Most of what goes on is mildly interesting, owing largely to the combined charisma of the stars (Tyler, Matt Dillon, John Goodman and Paul Reiser — OK, not so much Paul Reiser). But it’s never compelling or especially funny. It’s just sort of, well, there, not really entertaining you, but not really bugging you, either.

The lead among the three men is Randy (Dillon), a bartender who rescues Jewel from an apparent attacker named Utah (Andrew Dice Clay). To thank Randy, she goes home and has sex with him, after which Utah shows up to rob Randy — it was all a con he and Jewel were working.

It goes awry, however, and Jewel shoots Utah. This brings the cops in, led by Detective Dehling (Goodman), who is as smitten with Jewel as all other men are. He thinks there was more to the shooting than self-defense, and he wants to protect Jewel from Randy, whom he doesn’t trust.

Meanwhile, Randy’s sleazy and conceited cousin Carl (Reiser), a lawyer, is also chasing Jewel, despite his being married. Jewel comes to control the lives of all three men; the question is just how calculated her power is.

All three men tell their stories in flashback as they explain them to different people: Randy to an elderly hit man (Michael Douglas), Carl to his shrink (Reba McEntire), and Dehling to a priest (Richard Jenkins). Three different sides to one story is certainly not a new idea for a film, and nothing particularly noteworthy occurs here. (The film toys with having characters seem different depending on who’s remembering the story — Randy being dumber when Dehling’s telling it, for example — but not much is done with that concept.)

And so you have to ask, Why are we watching this? All these characters struggling over what’s right and wrong, all this leering over Liv Tyler, all this nonsense and absurdity — what’s the point? To make us laugh, probably, but it’s not doing that. The film dutifully plugs away at telling its stories, apparently forgetting as it goes that it should have been funny, too.

Town & Country

0
Town & Country

Much has been written of the fact that “Town & County” began filming in 1998 and was not released until April 2001. Watching the movie, you realize someone didn’t go to all that work because they believed in the project, for surely it became clear long ago what a piece of crap it was going to turn out to be. No, this movie exists for one reason and one reason only: pride.

Director Peter Chelsom had serious trouble getting the film put together. It seemed like an insurmountable task. At some point, he must have decided he was going to release this movie IF IT WAS THE LAST THING HE DID. No matter how lousy, how boring, how pointless it was, he was NOT going to let Fate and movie studio executives keep him down.

You have to admire his tenacity, but by no means do you have to enjoy his movie, or even watch it. It’s not the worst movie ever made; it’s not even among the worst five movies of 2001. But it’s more bad than good, and some elements are quite disturbingly hackish.

Warren Beatty plays Porter Stoddard, a rich Manhattanite who, after 25 years of marriage to Ellie (Diane Keaton), suddenly begins an affair with a young cellist (Nastassja Kinski). Meanwhile, his platonic friend Mona (Goldie Hawn) discovers her husband Griffin (Garry Shandling) is having an affair, too — and then she starts one with Porter.

So now there are two married couples unhappy with each other, threatening divorce and throwing each other out of the house. Porter and Griffin go to a remote cabin in Sun Valley to find their manhood, or something, and Porter winds up in a bear suit. (I don’t feel like explaining it any better than that.)

Two pluses. First is the casting. Garry Shandling is genuinely funny, though not often enough, as the sexually befuddled Griffin. He makes me laugh. Also, I like the idea of casting Charlton Heston as a gun-toting maniac — the part he was born to play. Diane Keaton and Goldie Hawn are top-notch actresses, too, and quite likable even when they’re performing bad material.

The other high point is a scene near the end when all the women with any connection to Porter wind up in the same public restroom. The comedy there has great mayhem potential, and while it disappointingly stays too low-key, it is an entertaining moment.

Everything else about the movie is bad. It’s not funny, first of all, which is a major liability for a comedy. (It even has an old woman who swears a lot — a joke that was old even in 1998.) The thing is, it rarely even seems to be trying. It’s not being serious, either, but neither is it humorous. The movie begins, stuff happens, then stuff stops happening for a long time, then the movie ends.

My test question for a movie like this is: Why would you want to watch it? The answer is, you wouldn’t. It’s a terrific cast — Andie Macdowell is also included — and it’s utterly wasted. What a shame.

Grad Tidings

0

The reason you couldn’t drive anywhere yesterday is that BYU held its commencement exercises and everyone in Utah County drove to the Marriott Center. (You will notice they did this without using their turn signals.) More graduation stuff happens today, because we Mormons figure there’s no reason to have only one meeting when you can have two.

(Note to self: Remove that last joke before this column goes to print, unless you’re positive no one will remember you made the same one last year.)

Today’s ceremonies are for the individual colleges, with messages tailored to each department’s graduates. How do the speeches differ from one department to the next? Here are some excerpts.

FOR HISTORY MAJORS:
“When I look into this sea of faces about to leave this university forever, I am reminded of how the Romans must have felt when the Vandals sacked them in A.D. 455: disappointed, sure, but we can always rebuild. And just as George Washington’s surrender of Fort Necessity to the French in 1754 meant losing a battle while eventually winning a war, I am sure our ongoing efforts to cram useless data into students’ heads will ultimately prove fruitful. Remember, those who don’t pass their history classes are doomed to repeat them. (Silence from audience.) On Sept. 8, 2002. (Cheering and applause.)”

FOR CLOTHING AND TEXTILES MAJORS:
“You spent the past four years learning how to design clothes. And guess what? Right now you’re all wearing the same thing. Welcome to the bitter irony of life.”

FOR JOURNALISM MAJORS:
“Though your work at The Daily Universe may have taught you otherwise, journalism is more than quoting only one source, and misquoting him, for your semi-annual three-part series on eating disorders. It is more than writing obvious headlines such as ‘Internet Popular Among Students.’ It is more than misspelling the names of well-known religious leaders. In the real world, journalism also means swearing a lot and criticizing Republicans.”

FOR SPANISH MAJORS:
“So you went on a Spanish-speaking LDS mission … and then decided you should MAJOR in Spanish? What did you minor in, tracting? I spent two years in the Army before college, but I didn’t come home and get a degree in camouflage. So you can speak Spanish really fluently now. Well, olé for you. Good luck finding a job.”

FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS MAJORS:
“Thank you for coming to this innovative and exciting graduation ceremony. ‘It will be an event to remember,’ proclaims Department Chair Takki Gusher. ‘Such innovation and excitement will surely be enjoyed by all.'”

FOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT AND YOUTH LEADERSHIP MAJORS:
“I am sorry this ceremony was scheduled to be held in the library, which apparently confused those of you who had never entered the building before. But we — wait, is this even a major? ‘Recreation Management and Youth Leadership’? What do you do? Organize Little League teams? This must be a prank. Am I on ‘Candid Camera’…?”

FOR MATH MAJORS:
“We apologize that our keynote speaker has not arrived yet. He was on a train that left Chicago at 6 a.m., heading west at 150 miles per hour, while another train left San Francisco at the same time, heading east at 100 miles per hour, so … well, you do the math. (Graduates do the math.) You see our dilemma.”

Freddy’s Revenge

0

Centuries from now, when American civilization has completely collapsed, historians will look back and say: “What caused this great society to fall? How could a culture so rich in the arts, so advanced in government, so efficient in its distribution of Girl Scout cookies, have come to such utter ruin?”

The answer, they will determine, will be this: “Freddy Got Fingered.” On April 20, 2001, when that film was released in theaters, American civilization officially began its decline.

Oh, sure, our society had its occasional downturns before. We had Guns ‘n’ Roses, for example, not to mention “Full House” and the years 1970-1979 inclusive. But we always rose up again. With “Freddy Got Fingered,” we have reached the point of no return. We have leapt from the Empire State Building of culture and now await the inevitable splat on the Fifth Avenue of ignorance.

I don’t mean to say this is the worst movie ever made. I cannot make such a declaration, as I have not seen every movie ever made. But I have seen a couple thousand of them, and as sure as the sun hangs in the sky, as sure as no one has ever looked good in a mullet haircut, as sure as Drew Barrymore is a vapid trollop who deserves to be married to Tom Green, it is certainly the worst of those I have seen. There is no question.

Is “Freddy Got Fingered” worse than “Battlefield Earth”? Certainly: “Battlefield Earth” at least was amusing for its unintentional camp value. Is it worse than all the movies ever featured on “Mystery Science Theater 3000”? Exponentially: Those films were made by people who, while incompetent, at least seemed to be trying. Is “Freddy Got Fingered” worse than passing kidney stones made of barbed wire? Yes: At least that would kill you quickly. This movie lasts 90 minutes.

Tom Green is a Canadian immigrant who had a show on MTV for a while, as part of the once-relevant network’s ongoing mission to prove its own obsolescence. On the show, Tom would go out in public and do crazy things to annoy strangers, capturing their reactions on videotape. He would also do gross things like violate dead animals, earning cheap guffaws from … well, the kind of people who watch MTV and think violating dead animals is funny. It’s a show that takes zero creativity and zero talent, putting Tom Green in competition with a piece of bread in terms of who is best qualified to do it.

“Freddy Got Fingered” is sort of a big-screen version of Tom’s TV show. The difference here is that he’s “playing” a “character” named Gord Brody, a 20-something loser who wants to be a cartoonist. (Or a cartoonist who wants to be a loser. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.)

But the movie is really just a series of puerile skits featuring Tom Green committing a host of atrocities. He sexually harasses a horse and an elephant, for example, making you wonder why PETA wastes its time on people who eat animals. He whacks his paralyzed girlfriend in the legs with a stick. He falsely accuses his dad of molesting his younger brother. He delivers a baby against its mother’s will. He sacks Rome in A.D. 455. OK, that was the Vandals. But I’m not entirely convinced that all bad things that have ever happened should not be attributed to Tom Green.

As a movie critic and an American, I have no particular problem with filth and depravity as long as it’s entertaining. “Freddy Got Fingered” is boring, though, as were its recent gross-out cousins, “Say It Isn’t So,” “Tomcats” and “Joe Dirt.” What have we come to as a society when we make a TV star popular enough to get his own film despite his being utterly worthless? Why do we keep encouraging people to make movies that are both figuratively and literally covered in excrement?

Because we’re morons, that’s why. You and me, we’re all morons. We’ll watch anything, read anything, talk about anything, regardless of whether it’s entertaining, uplifting or even tolerable. I take some comfort in knowing “Freddy Got Fingered” made only $7 million its first weekend, but not much. That means 1 million people did see it, which means 1 million more people with whom I cannot be friends. (It was a lengthy list already.)

It’s the beginning of the end, I tell you. The sidewalk’s coming up fast, and the tourists are already gawking. “Freddy Got Fingered”? My friends, we’ve ALL been fingered.

Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles

0

Mick “Crocodile” Dundee is an Australian roughneck who is a total fish out of water when he gets to the United States. He literally doesn’t even know it’s the 21st century. Who could ever be so utterly clueless and out of touch with modern society?

I’ll tell you: the people who thought the world was clamoring for another “Crocodile Dundee” sequel.

A mere 13 years after the last one, the new film is slow-moving and dull-witted, but also gentle, friendly and good-natured. There’s nary a poop joke to be found, which is a refreshing change, especially considering how many animals are in the movie. And for as lame a character as he is — the man is baffled by remote controls but manages to drive in L.A. freeway traffic — Crocodile Dundee is eminently likable. Sure, there may be a touch of pity in your affection for him, but nice is nice.

In this movie, Mick and long-time gal pal Sue (Linda Kozlowski) move to Beverly Hills so Sue can take over as editor of a newspaper owned by her father, following the mysterious death of the former boss. (This is suspicious already, as I have worked in newspaper for 10 years and can tell you that editors are a dime a dozen. Most papers wouldn’t cross the street to find a replacement, much less fly one in from Australia. But I digress.)

Her predecessor was investigating unusual activities by Silvergate Pictures, a new production company whose only films so far have been flops. She and Mick both suspect something is fishy, and Mick goes undercover, first as an extra and then as a monkey wrangler, to investigate.

That’s the official plot. It actually gets ignored for a long time so that Mick, his son Mikey (Serge Cockburn), and buddy Jacko (Alec Wilson) can wander around L.A. and be amazed at all the wackiness before outsmarting it. Mick outsmarts a car full of muggers; Mick outsmarts a pickpocket; Mick outsmarts an animatronic snake on the Paramount studio tour; etc.

It’s all harmless, relatively entertaining stuff. There are several smiles, a few chuckles and a couple of laughs. It’s not unbearably stupid or absurd, nor is it annoying. That’s not a glowing recommendation, to be sure, but it puts it ahead of most recent family-oriented comedies.

Freddy Got Fingered

0

Is “Freddy Got Fingered” the worst movie ever made? I don’t know; I haven’t seen every movie ever made. But of the couple thousand or so I have seen, there’s no contest. This is the worst.

The film has a clear contempt for its audience. One can admire a certain disregard for political correctness, but here the idea seems to be to stretch the limits so far that even the sophomoric target audience cries, “Enough!”

Rather than manufacturing a plot, the film chooses instead to be an exercise in envelope-pushing featuring MTV’s latest monstrosity, Tom Green. On his TV show, Green runs around in public doing obnoxious and gross things, to the delighted squeals of his adolescent male audience. He does the same thing here, except now it’s for no reason. On MTV, he might interrupt work at a sandwich factory for the sake of garnering puzzled looks from employees and capturing on film the hilarity of real-life mayhem. But in a movie, he’s not Tom Green, and the employees in the factory are paid extras. Why would his character be doing this? Tom Green does it on MTV because he knows there are cameras rolling. But Gord Brody, the character he’s “playing,” doesn’t think there are cameras watching him. The only reason he would be acting this way would be if he were severely retarded.

What does Tom Green do in this movie? He causes an elephant to ejaculate all over his father. He causes his friend to shatter his leg, and then he licks the exposed bone. He whacks a paralyzed girl in the legs with a cane. He falsely accuses his father of molesting his brother, resulting in the brother being placed in an institution for molested children. He delivers a baby against the mother’s will, then — and this is where I very nearly walked out of the movie — swings the baby around by the umbilical cord.

I gave it another chance:

7/6/2011: Re-Views: ‘Freddy Got Fingered’ (2001)

Also in the movie is a running gag in which a young neighbor boy, about 10 years old, is constantly being bloodily injured, accompanied by his realistic screams of pain.

We’ve seen outrageousness and crassness be funny before. It is not funny here. There are no characters to identify with. There is no underlying sweetness. There is no subtle good-natured outlook. There is only caustic ugliness.

All of this is reason enough not to see it. But we’ll add a movie-critic reason: There’s no plot. Honest to goodness, there really isn’t one. Here’s what happens in the movie: Tom Green’s character, Gord Brody, leaves Portland for L.A., where he hopes to become an animator. After being rejected, he moves back in with his parents (Julie Hagerty and Rip Torn). He meets an oversexed paraplegic (Marisa Coughlan) who convinces him to pursue his dreams. He tries again, and gets a million dollars for his animation. He spends it all on getting back at his father, who kept nagging him to get a job and never believed in his art. The end.

Green co-wrote (with Derek Harvie, his “Tom Green Show” cohort) the film, and directed it, too. So all the blame goes to him.

Dull, insipid, horrific, uninspired, painful, ill-conceived, amateurish, embarrassing, foolish, moronic. These are the only printable words I can think of for “Freddy Got Fingered.”

No, wait, I thought of some more. Vapid, boring, stupefying, unoriginal, cynical, illogical, slow-moving, malodorous and putrid. Do not, under any circumstances, see this movie.

The Luzhin Defence

0

Chess players become champions by noticing patterns that emerge in the way people play. The moves may be different, but the patterns remain the same.

“The Luzhin Defence” is about a chess champion who notices the patterns of the game while falling victim to the patterns of life. Unfortunately, while the rules of chess are exact and precise, this movie only hints at its themes, leaving many elements frustratingly undeveloped.

The film takes place in Italy in the 1930s — a romantic setting indeed — at a world-class chess tournament. The man to beat is Alexandre Luzhin (John Turturro), an eccentric, slightly befuddled genius with a tortured past: His father committed adultery with his aunt, and his mother committed suicide.

Vacationing in Italy is Natalia Katkov (Emily Watson), a wealthy woman whose mother (Geraldine James) keeps trying to pimp her off on another wealthy layabout, Count Jean Stassard (Christopher Thompson). But Natalia is fascinated by the inscrutible chess player, and they fall into a muted, palatable kind of love.

Intrigue comes rather late in the film, with the arrival of Luzhin’s childhood chess instructor. Valentinov (Stuart Wilson), we come to learn, is intent on making Luzhin lose the current tournament, and it’s clear he has power to rattle the poor guy’s nerves.

The question, of course, is why Valentinov wants to ruin Luzhin after all these years. A reason is given — jealousy over his chess skills — but it’s a weak one, and it’s not issued with enough certainty to warrant all the effort Valentinov goes to. Luzhin’s chess epiphany, which should also have been a major revelation, turns out to be another dud. How about some real conflict between Natalia and her repressive mother? Or maybe some tension between Luzhin and his competitor? The film is a letdown, alas, almost squandering all the fine acting and lovely scenery.

The Center of the World

0

Were it not for the controversy surrounding the explicit sexuality of Wayne Wang’s “Center of the World,” the film would merit little attention, turgid and dim as it is.

Some excellent themes are introduced, dealing with sex and loneliness and how they relate (or don’t relate) to love. Young Internet millionaire Richard Longman (Peter Sarsgaard) hires a stripper named Florence (Molly Parker) to go to Las Vegas with him for three days. Her conditions are that she is only his from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. each night, and that there be no intercourse or on-the-mouth kissing between them.

They begin to fall in love with each other, thanks in particular to Florence’s friend Jerri (Carla Gugino), whose tragic situation of drugs and sex brings them together. Florence will have none of that, though, and she takes measures to avoid developing true feelings for her john. Richard, wealthy but naive, has sought sex as a cure for his loneliness, and then foolishly believes sex can become true love. Florence is more wise than that.

The sex scenes are rather explicit, though curiously without much nudity. The film is shot on digital video which gives it a more immediate feel — ironic, considering how lifeless the story is. Only Carla Gugino shows much passion or enthusiasm; Peter Sarsgaard and Molly Parker practically sleepwalk through their roles, dulling what impact this unimportant film might have had otherwise.

With a Friend Like Harry (French)

0

“With a Friend Like Harry” is a low-boiling suspense film that is made all the more creepy by masquerading as an “unwelcome guest” comedy for an hour or so.

The disguise works. If we believed right up front what Harry was capable of, his actions later would not startle us the way they do when we’ve come to accept him as nothing more than a pesky visitor.

The film begins with the family vacation from hell: a long car trip in the summer with no air-conditioning and three whiny kids in the backseat.

At a rest stop, the father, Michel (Laurent Lucas) runs into Harry (Sergi Lopez), an old classmate he hasn’t seen in 20 years and in fact has little memory of. Harry remembers him, though, and can even quote the poem Michel wrote for the school magazine — a poem Harry himself had virtually forgotten.

Michel and his wife, Claire (Mathilde Seigner), and their three young girls are headed for their vacation home in the country. Harry, meanwhile, is headed to Switzerland with Plum (Sophie Guillemin), his well-meaning but dimly lit fiancee. With a few subtle gestures, Harry and Plum have been invited to the cottage for drinks. Next thing you know, they’re staying over.

Soon Harry is ingratiating himself into the family, going so far as to buy Michel and Claire a new car (money is no object to Harry). But his non-sexual fondness and protective instincts toward Michel become disturbing, brought to a head when he encounters Michel’s overbearing parents.

It’s similar to “What About Bob?,” for example, with one clever difference: Instead of Michel being annoyed by Harry and everyone else loving him, pretty much EVERYONE is annoyed by him here. Claire, in particular, notices something is wrong with the situation, which puts her at odds with this increasingly dangerous man.

I said the movie is low-boiling; perhaps it is too much so. When suspense is not being built, the proceedings are generally amusing, but there is also a constant longing for something more. An hour into it, I wondered if we were still seeing the exposition, with the real action still to come.

Going Up

0

My friend Jared and I went rock climbing. It made sense that we would go together, because the last time I climbed was in 1992, and the last time he climbed, he fell and knocked himself unconscious.

Since Jared is a theater student, hitting his head did not do any serious damage. Still, there was a general outpouring of concern and a strong feeling among many of his friends that he should not go rock climbing again. They wanted him to take up something safer, like knitting.

In particular, since the doctor had told him not to drive for a while — seems he’d had a bit of a seizure just after the bonking, though never again after — it made sense that he not climb any rocks, either.

To me, it was apples and oranges. Specifically, I had some apple pie and a glass of orange juice at lunch today. My point? It was delicious.

My other point? It was an unsound comparison. The reason he wasn’t supposed to drive was that if by some freak of nature he should have another seizure, he would wreck the car and everyone in the world would die. If he had a seizure while rock climbing, though, whoever was on the other end of the rope would belay him, and nothing would happen.

So that’s why Jared hadn’t been climbing for a few weeks. For me, it had been several years, and my reason had less to do with head injuries and more to do with laziness and a general distrust of nature. After all, nature is where the bears are.

Also, I’ve never been a particularly athletic person. My forays into sports have brought nothing but shame to myself and others. Even before I knew I was no good, though, I had little interest in sports; being berated by teammates when I screwed up didn’t help any. (That’s the fun thing about being a boy. You get abused if you don’t like sports, and then, if you break down and play anyway, you get abused for playing badly. It’s a good thing life is free, because you could never charge for this crap.)

I went rock climbing a few times in high school and I was OK at it. Not good enough to go pro or anything, but decent. I wasn’t falling and cracking my head open, anyway, which is more than I can say for some people.

High school was a long time ago, though, and I’ve had plenty of new reasons to doubt my physical prowess since then. Whatever skill at rock climbing I’d had, I’d long since forgotten it and replaced it with the same awkwardness I felt for other sports. But Jared wanted to go climbing again, and I’m a good friend who wanted an excuse to leave work early.

Jared had actually tried climbing once since the accident, with his girlfriend, bless her heart, who had been with him when it happened. But going together re-created the accident scenario, and it was psychologically difficult for everyone involved, including the rocks, and the attempt was aborted.

So I offered to go with him. Maybe a different climbing partner and a different attitude — one of “Let’s go climbing!” instead of “YOU’RE GOING TO DIE!!!!!!” — would help things.

We went to Rock Canyon, which is a very appropriate name, as it actually is a canyon. We climbed using the “top rope” method, which is where you first find an easy way to the top of the rock, secure a line, then go back down and — this is the crazy part — climb up again the hard way. The top rope prevents you from plunging to your death if you fall, and under the circumstances (i.e., not wanting to plunge to our deaths if we fell), we figured it best to use it.

I quickly remembered one good reason why I hadn’t climbed in a while: The rocks are inconveniently located. None of them are in town, like maybe at the mall or somewhere. They’re all out in the canyon, where you have to walk to them.

So by the time we actually reached our first rock, I was tired. By the time we climbed up the back way to the top of it, I was planning to fling myself off. By the time we got home three hours later, I had been dead for two years.

After securing the top rope, we went down and started climbing up again. (This still does not make sense to me.) With Jared belaying the rope from the ground, I began my slow ascent up the rock. Though I’m 20 pounds overweight and literally have no muscles in my body — seriously, where my muscles should be, there are French fries instead — I managed to climb. I stood on the tiniest of ledges and clung to the smallest of crevices. Soon I was the sweatiest of rock climbers. But I was also making steady progress, climbing higher and higher with no serious difficulties. Jared hollered encouragement from down below, which was more helpful than I would have thought. (“Eric, would hollering be of any use to you?” “No,” I’d probably say, “I can’t imagine it would be.”)

When I reached the top, I looked out over the Utah Valley and marveled at the majestic beauty of my eyeglasses, which were plummeting to the earth because they had slipped off my face.

After I rappelled down so I could belay him, Jared started his climb. He made it up the rock faster than I had — you know, like he was an experienced climber or something, which he was. Neither of us fell. Neither of us freaked out. Neither of us even dropped our glasses, except me.

I hate to be philosophical, but you have to face your fears in life. One bad experience climbing, or a million bad experiences with sports in general, doesn’t mean you have to quit trying. Like the old saying goes, when you fall off the rock, you have to get back on and keep riding. Or something. At any rate, we conquered a little corner of Rock Canyon, and next I’m going to try catching a fly ball.

Condomaximum

0

When the time came for me to be a grown-up and buy a condo, I insisted on buying one that had just been built. With no previous occupants, I figured the place was less likely to be haunted, although it did still run the risk of having been built on an ancient Indian burial ground. These are the chances one takes when purchasing a home.

It was the right time to buy a condo, though, because of the current state of the nation’s economy. It’s taken a downturn lately, and if I recall my high school economics class correctly, a downturn means that two of the atoms are sharing electrons. So someone named Alan Greenspan, who I guess is like the Wizard of Oz or something, magically decided one day to lower the interest rates. This was good news for people wanting to buy homes, as it meant the total amount they would wind up paying on their 30-year mortgages would only be in the millions instead of the billions.

I already knew where I wanted to live. It’s a brand-new condo complex in Orem where some friends of mine, Chris&Lisa, already live with their two kids, whose names I have forgotten again. From Chris&Lisa I knew what the area was like, what the neighbors were like, where the nearest Wendy’s was, and whether it was haunted (no). So when it came time to buy the place, all I had to do was walk into the model unit and declare: “I’d like to buy one condo, please.” This availed me nothing, so I came back again later, when the model unit was open and someone was there to hear me.

The person there was a chic gal named Lakshmi. (This is a Hindu name; Lakshmi is the Hindu goddess of buying a condo.) Lakshmi quickly became my best friend, insofar as I talked to her more times per day than I talk to people I actually know. She would stop by my office frequently to give me another pile of papers to sign. Among them was one indicating that even after I’d bought the place, it was still part of the condo complex, so I couldn’t go knocking out walls or painting the exterior of the building. (Actually, what Lakshmi said was, “Don’t go painting your unit purple,” which seemed like pretty good advice anyway.)

Once I had signed enough documents, I was allowed to sign some more documents, and then I was allowed to move in. Since I’ve lived in apartments all my adult life, though, I’ve accumulated no furniture. Lisa was delighted at the prospect of helping me “decorate” my condo, and she asked what kind of decor I wanted. I told her I was thinking of an Early Deseret Industries motif. That’s when Lisa’s head exploded. Her philosophy was that for my first home, I should buy some fairly nice things that will last me a while. My philosophy was that all I needed was a bed and a desk and something to put the TV on, like a floor. That’s when Lisa’s head exploded for the second time.

So I wiped down Lisa’s neck and headed to RC Willey, lured by the attractive notion of “90 days same as cash,” because some part of my brain thought that in 90 days, I’ll have a lot of cash. My intention was to buy the cheapest furniture I could find; unfortunately, I made the mistake of bringing along my research assistant/consultant Josh, who thwarted me at every turn. Why buy a full-size bed when I can buy a queen-size? he reasoned. Even though I sleep alone and don’t move around much, apparently I need 700 square feet of sleeping area. Maybe the ghosts need a place to sleep.

Bridget Jones’s Diary

0

What a difference a script makes!

“Bridget Jones’s Diary” has essentially the same plot as Ashley Judd’s recent “Someone Like You” — and, for that matter, as dozens of other movies. Women’s boyfriend turns out to be a louse, she starts to love a different guy she’d never thought of romantically before, the louse tries to win her back but by now she has chosen the second guy, cheesy love song on the soundtrack, roll credits.

What makes “Bridget Jones” inifintely better than “Someone Like You” is that the script, written by Helen Fielding and Richard Curtis (based on Fielding’s novel), is full of glib characters and dry British wit. And director Sharon Maguire demonstrates a knack for keeping things lively without using obtrusive gimmicks — a little visual nudge here and there is all it takes to let us know she’s there.

Renee Zellweger plays the title character, a 30-ish Londoner who starts a diary as a New Year’s resolution. Among her other resolutions is one to meet a “nice, sensible boyfriend.” She would seem to have done this with Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant), her smug, smart-aleck boss at the publishing firm she works for. The sex is great, and Daniel is intelligent but down to earth. (While discussing poetry, Daniel shouts, “F*** me, I love Keats!”)

The two of them keep bumping into Mark Darcy (Colin Firth), a childhood acquaintance whom Bridget’s dotty mum (Gemma Jones) is trying to set her up with. Mark is dour and seems to find Bridget stupid; Bridget, for her part, can’t put together a coherent sentence in his presence. Plus, she learns, Mark stole away Daniel’s old fiancee, the jerk.

When the time comes for Bridget for ditch Daniel and begin to notice Mark (we won’t spoil why that happens), it is worth noting that Mark does not seem like much of an alternative. Slowly, though, and thanks to some subtle character work from Colin Firth, he comes into focus as a viable option.

Zellweger nails the British accent perfectly and is a wonderful Bridget Jones: vulnerable and innocent, but strong when she needs to be. (“Respect” and “I’m Every Woman” are two songs that appear on the soundtrack at very appropriate moments.)

The movie does fall into sitcom cliche world with a botched dinner party that Mark rescues in the nick of time, only to have Daniel show up — but that stock situation turns into a hilarious fistfight between the two men, both of whom have clearly never fought before.

There’s also a very protracted conclusion, where we know exactly what’s going to happen but are forced to sit through five more minutes of resolution.

But in all, this is a funny, breezy film with likable characters (even Daniel the louse is nice, in his way) and a sympathetic heroine. Acting, directing, yeah, it’s all great. But here, the screenplay is where it’s at.

The Circle (Farsi)

0

Over the opening credits of the Iranian film “The Circle,” a woman is heard screaming bloody murder. Turns out she’s just giving birth, not being attacked, but in Iran, we’re soon to learn, it’s almost the same thing. Being a woman in Iran means enduring a lot of pain. Childbirth is just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s easy to see why the Iranian government banned the film. It’s bold and unsentimental in its depiction of the plight of that country’s women. One gets the strong impression this sort of thing doesn’t get discussed in public very much.

“The Circle” gets its title from its unusual narrative structure. First we see a woman deeply disappointed to learn her daughter has just given birth to a girl instead of a boy; surely the new mom’s husband will want a divorce now. As grandma leaves the hospital, attention is shifted to a trio of women she passes on the street. These three, we eventually discover, have just gotten out of prison — broken out, perhaps. Now they live in double-fear: First because they are semi-fugitives, and second because they are women. Women can’t even smoke in public or travel unaccompanied, let alone hide from the cops.

We follow two of those women for a while as they search for another prison buddy of theirs, who has also just escaped. In the meantime, we notice one of the women is bruised. We don’t know why. She wants to get home, but her friend can’t afford to go with her. There is great sadness and frustration, most of it unspoken, in these characters.

Eventually, they narrowly miss finding their elusive friend, whom we do find. She is on the run, too, thrown out of her house not just for going to prison (we never learn for what), but for escaping. She winds up at the hospital (completing the “circle”) and has dilemmas of her own.

I wonder what the reaction to this film would be in its home country. In the United States, the reaction is one of indignation. How dare a society be so unabashedly cruel to its women? This is the reaction intended by the filmmakers, no doubt, but I wonder if Iranians would react that way, since this is their culture we’re talking about. Iranians probably aren’t any better at dealing with self-criticism than Americans are.

Despite the film’s focus on Iranian society, the elements of it that may be unfamiliar to Western viewers are explained. It’s as if the director knew his countrymen had little chance of seeing his work, so he made sure it was relevant to non-Iranians, too. That said, there are some long moments in which the lack of a direct connection to what’s going on is a hindrance. Which is a polite way of saying it gets dull in spots. Nonetheless, it is thought-provoking stuff.

Special Report: Straight at BYU

0

BYU student Nick Soto knew there was going to be trouble as soon as football season started.

“Every time there was a game on, I couldn’t help but watch it,” said the 21-year-old engineering major. “It was only a matter of time before my roommates caught me.”

His roommates did catch him, and Soto was subsequently suspended from school because of something he says he cannot change: He is a heterosexual.

“This is who I am,” he said. “I’ve always liked women and watched sports. If I weren’t LDS, I would drink beer and read Playboy. I am who I am.”

His roommates, however, could not accept Soto’s lifestyle.

“We’d come home and find him watching ‘SportsCenter,'” said Chad Christensen, one of Soto’s roommates. “We tried to look the other way, but you can only take so much heterosexuality. It makes you sick after a while.”

The last straw, said Christensen, came when he arrived home one evening to find Soto on the couch, making out with a woman. A videotape of “Die Hard” was nearby. Christensen called the Honor Code Office the next day.

“I hated being a snitch, but it was for his own good,” Christensen said. “Besides, we couldn’t live with a hetero in the apartment, exposing us to all his hetero diseases like mono.”

Christensen stressed that he has nothing against straight people. “I’m not a bigot,” he said, adding that one of his roommates is Caucasian and he’s fine with that, too.

Soto is angry at his roommates for turning him in, but angrier at BYU for suspending him for simply being himself.

“I know a lot of straight people here, and they’re all afraid to talk about it openly. As soon as anyone knows they’re straight, girls start trying to marry them immediately. It’s a nightmare.”

“It’s very hard when you see a cherry-red Corvette convertible drive down the street, and you have to be careful not to let anyone see you looking,” he said.

BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said the Honor Code does not make heterosexuality against the rules, only heterosexual behavior.

“If someone has opposite-sex attraction, we sympathize with that,” Jenkins said. “And as long as he doesn’t act on it, he can stay at BYU.”

But what constitutes heterosexual behavior? Soto denies making out with a woman, saying he only held hands with her. And while he admits to playing on the intramural basketball team, he claims he was never very good.

“I went through the motions, really, because that’s what some of my straight friends were doing,” he said. “But I never went all the way — you know, slam-dunks and that stuff. A couple of lay-ups, that’s it.”

Jenkins said BYU does not plan to make the Honor Code any more specific. “We feel students know where the line is,” she said. “We’re not going to make a list saying that Schwarzenegger movies are OK but not Jackie Chan, for example.”

Soto said he plans to move to an area where heterosexuality is more widely accepted. “I’ll probably go to Cleveland,” he said. “They watch a lot of NASCAR there. It’s mecca for straight people.”

Chopper

0

Andrew Dominik’s not-a-biography of legendary Australian criminal Mark “Chopper” Read is an unnecessarily violent film about a man who makes an interesting footnote in Down Under history, but who can hardly command attention for an entire film.

“Chopper,” we are told, is “a dramatisation in which creative liberties have been taken.” This is a paradox, as the film’s protagonist himself is famous for lying and exaggerating. What we’re watching, then, is a fictionalized account of a man whose own autobiography is already fictionalized.

The film opens in 1978, when Chopper (Australian comedian Eric Bana) is in prison for kidnapping. In an attempt to gain power over H Division, he knifes a guy quite bloodily; in retaliation, Chopper’s one-time friend Jimmy (Simon Lyndon) stabs him up real good.

Everyone hates Chopper now (especially when Jimmy tells everyone his stabbing of him was self-defense), and to effect a transfer, Chopper has a fellow inmate slice his ears off for him. This is shown in considerable gory detail, by the way — just one of several instances in which the film’s violence is given the royal treatment.

In 1986, Chopper gets out of prison and reunites with his girlfriend, Tanya (Kate Beahan), whom he sees fit to beat up at some point. He’s also searching for Jimmy, as he wants revenge; Jimmy, meanwhile, is under contract to kill Chopper. Chopper eventually lands in prison again and writes a best-selling book, becoming a cult hero.

There’s not nearly enough actual intrigue or suspense to maintain a feature film. Bana is obviously trying to play Chopper like a cruel, wise-cracking bully, but he comes off as cretinous more than anything. It’s one thing to have a protagonist who is unsympathetic; it’s another thing to have one whom audiences are inclined to hate passionately. I believe it was when he beat up Tanya that I realized, “OK, I can’t like this guy anymore, even as an anti-hero.” Even Darth Vader never hit a woman.

Joe Dirt

0

Up to now, whether on TV or in movies, David Spade has always played approximately the same character: a smug little punk. We would give him points for doing something different as a white-trash mullett-wearer in “Joe Dirt,” except for one thing: It’s really still the same smug little punk.

I don’t mean that Joe Dirt is a smug character. On the contrary, having been abandoned by his parents as a child and becoming a loser and a loner since then, Joe is the epitome of contrition and humility. He talks a good game when it comes to picking fights, but he knows he has nothing to back it up.

This would be rather sweet were it not for the way Spade plays him, which is all condescension and snottiness. When Joe Dirt speaks earnestly of loving AC/DC and souped-up cars, we can tell David Spade wants us to laugh AT this idiot, not with him. It is obvious that Spade himself has disdain for the very character he is playing, giving him no more depth or reality than is required for a “Saturday Night Live” sketch. And if Spade has no affection for Joe Dirt, why should we?

If you think this movie-critic babble about “characterization” has little to do with a broad gross-out comedy like “Joe Dirt,” think again. No story can succeed without characters who are likable in some sense, if not because we actually think they’re good people, then at least because we admire their strength, ferocity, cleverness or whatever. And comedy is best when we sympathize with the people involved enough to care what happens next, be it good or bad. Without that, it’s nothing but a string of slapstick mishaps that gets old fast.

And “Joe Dirt” gets old fast.

The plot has Joe finding his way onto a Los Angeles DJ’s talk show and telling the story of his parents ditching him at the Grand Canyon, and his subsequent search for them. His great loves in life have been his mullett haircut (actually a wig that got stuck to his head, he says) and a dog that a drunk redneck killed.

The listeners all realize that his platonic friend Brandy (Brittany Daniel) loves him deeply, but he was too naive to see it. Besides, he was focused on finding his family.

It’s all very tedious, except for a few gross-out gags that break up the monotony by irritating the audience. (A dog’s testicles — shown in vivid detail — get frozen to a porch, and perhaps it goes without saying that at one point in the movie, Joe Dirt gets covered in excrement. Why must someone always be covered in excrement?)

The film was written by Spade and Fred Wolf. Wolf also penned “Black Sheep” and “Dirty Work” and was head writer at “Saturday Night Live” from 1993-1996 — one of the worst eras in the show’s history, perhaps you’ll recall. It shows.

High points: Dennis Miller is amusing as the DJ, and Christopher Walken is inspired as an unhinged school janitor who helps Joe.

Low points: Using sweet little Erik Per Sullivan — Dewey on “Malcolm in the Middle” — as the young version of repulsive Joe, shown in flashbacks. Come on, movie. Have a little class.

Josie and the Pussycats

0

To the people who keep making movies based on cheesy old TV shows: If you’re going to persist in this, despite the fact that 95 percent of them are box-office failures, could you at least come up with a good script? Is that too much to ask?

Someone wants to make a movie out of the old comic book and cartoon series “Josie and the Pussycats”? Fine. I mean, no one remembers it, and if they do it’s not with any great degree of fondness. But still, a good movie is a good movie, regardless of its source material.

But “Josie and the Pussycats” is not a good movie. Writer/directors Deborah Kaplan and Harry Elfont apparently realized they couldn’t get by on nostalgia alone (since there’s not any) and that the film would need a satiric plot and self-aware attitude. So they put in some jokes like that and diddled around like imbeciles the rest of the time.

It begins quite well, actually, with a new boy band called DuJour (featuring an uncredited Seth Green) at the top of the pop charts. When they begin to realize there’s something fishy about their fey British manager Wyatt Frame (Alan Cumming), he causes their plane to crash. (“Take the Chevy to the levy,” he tells the pilot, in one of the film’s few smart references.) Frame promises Mega Records C.E.O. Fiona (Parker Posey, in full Glenn-Close-as-Cruella-DeVil campiness) that he’ll have a new No. 1 band for her by morning.

He finds himself in Riverdale, home to would-be rock girls The Pussycats: lead singer Josie (Rachael Leigh Cook), skeptical bass player Valerie (Rosario Dawson) and dumb blond drummer Melody (Tara Reid). Without even hearing them, Frame signs them to a recording contract and within a week — before they’ve even played a real gig — they’re the new sensation.

It’s all part of a master plan that Fiona has concocted with help from the U.S. government. In order to subdue and manipulate teens, subliminal messages are put on CDs. The messages not only guarantee the band’s success, but also dictate what trends, fashions and slang terms will be popular.

The musicians, of course, are mere pawns in the operation. The Pussycats have no idea what’s going on. All they know is that Wyatt is trying to shift the focus to Josie specifically and bump the other two band members out of the picture.

The boy-band satire is fairly sharp (Du Jour’s hit song is called “Back-Door Lover”), but sadly short-lived. Some of the teen-culture parody is nice, too — a girl shrieks, “If I don’t buy this CD, everyone’s going to hate me!” — but again, not enough of it. The product-placement is so rampant and obvious it must be a joke, but no punch line is given.

Instead, a lot of time is spent on Josie’s irrelevant almost-romance with local boy Alan M. (Gabriel Mann). Her sleazy manager Alexander (Paulo Costanzo) and his sister Alexandra (Missi Pyle) also hang around, only because they were in the original comic book and TV cartoon, too.

With no nostalgia to draw people in, and no compelling humor, characters or situations to keep them there, how can the film succeed? Only via marketing, which may actually be a force to be reckoned with here. The MTV crowd is being targeted directly, and that network’s lead goon Carson Daly has an amusing cameo. So just like the fictitious bands featured in the movie, the movie itself might become a success because of hype and commercialism, and not because of quality. It’s the kind of irony the movie could have used more of.

Kingdom Come

0

Shouldn’t a film about the funeral for someone no one liked be a lot funnier?

“Kingdom Come” lobs amiably at such gallows humor, but focuses most of its energy on the ranklings of the tightly knit — but not terribly friendly — family left behind.

Raynelle Slocumb (Whoopi Goldberg) is the non-grieving widow. Her two sons, at each other’s throats constantly, are the successful RayBud (LL Cool J) and the starry-eyed Junior (Anthony Anderson). Raynelle’s evangelical Christian sister-in-law Marguerite (Loretta Devine) and her slacker son Royce (Darius McCrary) are on hand, too, as are RayBud and Junior’s wives (Vivica A. Fox and Jada Pinkett, respectively).

All of these (and more; the cast list is impressively large) converge on the tiny Southern town where Raynelle and Bud Slocumb lived for funeral and controversy. Junior had an affair, RayBud’s trying to quit drinking, Lucille wants to have a baby, and so on. The kitchen-sink melodramas are nothing new, though they, like most of the film, are depicted with earnest good humor.

Loretta Devine is sassy and delightful, as usual; her nagging Christian mom character is quite funny, and a good foil for the religious-but-lazy figures who surround her. There are some pleasantly funny moments throughout the film, adding up to an unspectacular, unmoving and unobtrusive movie — the kind of thing you like well enough, but would hardly go back and see again. Like a funeral, sort of, but with more adultery jokes.

I Think I Need a Loan Now

0

After years of renting an apartment, I have finally purchased a condominium. I got tired of giving money away to a landlord every month and have decided to give it to a mortgage company instead.

Everyone kept telling me I should buy instead of rent so that I could build up “equity.” I have no idea what this alleged “equity” is, but if one acquires it by signing a lot of forms, it must be coming out my ears by now. (Something’s coming out my ears, anyway. I hope it’s equity.) By the end, I think they were inventing new forms just so I could sign them. It would be easier to buy $106,000 worth of crack than it was to buy $106,000 worth of condo, and it would require less paperwork.

The most entertaining part of the mortgage process is the comical array of documents the mortgage people want. Now, I will confess that I didn’t even have the basic things, like recent check stubs and bank statements. When I told Debbie the Loan Lady that I didn’t hold on to things like that, she looked at me like I had equity coming out my ears. I explained that she was the first person who had ever asked me for recent check stubs or bank statements, and so I’d never seen a reason to keep them. But apparently, grown-ups are supposed to keep every document they ever encounter, just in case some day they buy a condo.

They also wanted my W-2 from 2000, which I had, since it was tax season. Then, the day we were supposed to close on the deal, in a special surprise announcement, they revealed that they’d also be needing my W-2 from 1999. This seemed strange to me, because no one had ever questioned before whether I had a job in 1999. Everyone had always taken my word for it.

But the assortment of documents and blood samples required was a Sunday matinee at the Roxy compared to the co-signer issue. According to the mortgage people, I would ordinarily qualify for a loan, no questions asked, because I get paid thousands and thousands of dollars every week for writing this column. However, I also have so much outstanding debt — and it truly is outstanding; I mean, this is some really nice debt here — that if I were to pay it all at once, it would cripple the economy. To counteract my high “debt ratio,” as they call it, I had to find a co-signer.

I first thought of my parents, of course; I believe this is who one is expected to first think of when one needs to get bailed out of something. My parents could not co-sign, though, because they just bought a new house their own selves, and mortgage companies don’t like people buying two houses in the same month any more than you like people saying “their own selves.”

After my parents, I didn’t have a lot of options. Most of my friends are young and single and don’t have established credit or a job. And besides, co-signing a loan is a big deal. You can’t just say, “Hey, remember how I bought you lunch last week? Yeah, I need to call in that favor….”

But I found a co-signer the mortgage company approved of, and last week we went into an office in Orem that was filled from floor to ceiling with documents. Each of these, needless to say, needed to be signed or initialed. Some needed to be signed AND initialed. Some needed to be baked in a white-wine sauce at 350 degrees. This avalanche of documents included a Federal Truth in Lending Disclosure, a Deed of Trust, a Statement of Not Liking Jimmy Buffett, the Magna Carta, and someone’s birthday card.

As we would get to each document, Tammy the Document Lady would explain what the documents said. My co-signer and I listened politely, said “Mm-hmm,” and had not the faintest clue what she was EVER talking about. All I know is, I left the office with keys to a condo and a heaping handful of equity. I think I’ll have it bronzed.

Beautiful Creatures

0

The nihilistic influence of Quentin Tarantino, whose “Reservoir Dogs” was a Sundance hit almost a decade ago, still pops up from time to time, even though Tarantino himself has scampered back into the oblivion whence he came.

The latest film to recall his shoot-’em-all-let-God-sort-’em-out attitude is “Beautiful Creatures,” a sinister British flick that is dark both literally and thematically.

There’s some “Thelma and Louise” here, too, as gorgeous Petula (Rachel Weisz) and smart Dorothy (Susan Lynch) go on the lam after Dorothy rescues Petula from her abusive boyfriend via hitting him in the head with a pipe. The louse, Brian (Tom Mannion), stays alive for a while, unconscious in Dorothy’s bathtub. When he dies, the gals plan to stash him in his boat and let authorities think he slipped and died accidentally. Unfortunately, Dorothy’s dog Pluto chews off Brian’s fingers before they can do anything with him, and it seems unlikely anyone would believe Brian not only accidentally hit his head, but also accidentally sawed off a digit.

So they have a new plan: Use the severed finger as proof that “kidnappers” are holding Brian for ransom. Brian’s brother Ronnie (Maurice Roeves), a dangerous underworld thug, has loads of money, making him a prime target for extortion.

Following the case of Brian’s disappearance is a detective named George (Robin Laing), who finds himself far more attracted to Petula than he ought to be. Once he begins to suspect something is amiss in the kidnapping, he comes up with schemes of his own.

And don’t count out Dorothy’s boyfriend Tony (Iain Glen), a junkie who alternates between affectionate and monstrous, and who also would like a piece of the action.

The story moves along at a brisk clip and has a morbid sense of humor throughout. Dorothy and Petula aren’t exactly deep characters, but they’re not Laverne and Shirley, either. Their rapport is amusing, as are some of the more fantastic plot twists. The film, which is empowering to women in its odd way, has a violent, wacko energy that keeps it alive — more than can be said, alas, for most of the characters, who are pretty much stacked in a pile by the time it’s over.

Along Came a Spider

0

“Along Came a Spider” is based on the first book in James Patterson’s Alex Cross series. “Kiss the Girls,” which came out four years ago, was based on the second book. I don’t know why the second book was made into a movie first, except that it’s a better story than its predecessor.

The new movie, which stars Morgan Freeman again as police detective Alex Cross, borrows liberally from “Dirty Harry,” “Ransom,” and every police drama ever made. In fact, there is little in the first 75 minutes that would distinguish it from being a regular weekly episode of some TV cop show.

It begins auspiciously enough, with Cross’s partner helping to trap a killer by going undercover. The plan goes awry, ending in a terrifically exciting car crash that kills both the murderer and the cop.

The film heads downward there and never really comes up again, as Cross is saddled with guilt for letting his partner die. If there’s a more shop-worn movie cliche than that, it would have to be the one where the cops look at an old piece of evidence they’ve already looked at a thousand times and finally notice the tiny clue that brings it all together for them — and that’s in here, too.

It’s worth noting that neither of these cliches is even done very well. Cross feels guilty and is comforted by his wife in one scene — and then we literally never see her again, and his guilt is hardly addressed. And the evidence they look at is one we’re TOLD they’ve looked at a lot before, but it’s the first time WE’VE seen it. It’s like they were rushing through the cliches so they could get to some more cliches.

Cross is brought out of his self-imposed exile when a senator’s daughter, Megan Rose (Mika Boorem), is kidnapped from her School for Diplomats’ Kids, right under the noses of the Secret Service. Agent Jezzie Flannigan (Monica Potter) was on duty, and she feels just awful about it, which makes her and Cross kindred spirits. They work together when the kidnapper (Michael Wincott) leaves a piece of evidence in Cross’s mailbox.

Why does he want Cross on the case? Because movie bad guys always have personal agendas like that. Also, he knows Cross is a well-respected criminal profiler. This guy wants his 15 minutes of fame, and he hopes Cross will be his biographer in the annals of crime history.

The plot twists come in the final 30 minutes, and while they are entertaining, they’re also ludicrous. One begins to wish the movie had stuck with its original plan of just being a mediocre cop thriller, rather than changing into something quasi-clever.

Morgan Freeman is a classy actor, and his presence alone saves “Along Came a Spider” from being utterly worthless. He works a lot, and no matter how many medium-grade movies the guy is in, he never comes off as a hack who will appear in anything. He’s always cool and always above whatever nonsense is going on around him. I like him.

Monica Potter, on the other hand, is stone-faced and one-note. Her last two vehicles were a Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie and “Patch Adams.” At least she’s in good company this time around, even if the movie is unimaginative and makes only cursory attempts at characterization or motives.

Blow

0

For a gritty film about the drug trade to succeed in this post-“Traffic” world, it will need what “Traffic” lacked: heart and humanity.

“Blow” has it, taking us through the dizzying life of real-life trafficker George Jung and telling the drug story through the eyes of a man who lived it. The effect is visceral and engaging, and the film is often wryly, ironically funny as well as achingly tragic.

Johnny Depp plays George, a working-class kid from a Boston suburb who heads to California’s Manhattan Beach in 1968 at the age of 18. He and his fat friend Tuna (Ethan Suplee) discover marijuana, and the enterprising George starts selling it, with help from a gay supplier named Derek (Paul Reubens).

Soon he’s using his stewardess girlfriend Barbie (Franka Potente) to funnel the stuff back to Massachusetts, where his friends have set up a franchise operation for him.

Time passes. George goes to jail — “crime school,” he calls it: “I went in with a bachelor’s in marijuana and came out with a doctorate in cocaine.” His cellmate is Diego (Jordi Molla), who has ties to a Colombian cocaine operation. Once they’re both set free, they get right to work establishing an extremely lucrative operation. George also gets to work wooing and marrying Colombian hottie Mirtha (Penelope Cruz).

The film’s sprawling narrative never settles down. It’s hard to tell when, if ever, we’re going to stay in one locale or with one group of supporting characters for the long haul. That time never does come, in fact, which adds to the movie’s melancholy tone: Just like George, we shouldn’t get too attached to anyone, because they’re not going to be around forever.

Ray Liotta (making his third film appearance this year) and Rachel Griffiths play George’s parents. Griffiths’s accent sounds like a left-over from “Thirteen Days,” but Liotta is fantastic as George’s dad. He always told his son that money isn’t everything — but now that George is financially well-off, he has a certain pride in knowing the boy made it better than his old man did. Depp and Liotta have an unexpected chemistry as father and son.

Johnny Depp, who actually is as brooding and soulful as some people think Leonardo DiCaprio is, gives one of his best performances yet as George. He’s an intriguing anti-hero, earning sympathy and never coming across as the major criminal he is.

I have issues with the final third of the movie, which gets to be a fairly standard family melodrama with George’s demanding wife and precious young daughter. That said, I found it rather touching, too. I’m a sucker for a flawed man trying to do right by his little girl. I guess we all have our vices.

Brigham City

0

Richard Dutcher’s much-anticipated follow-up to “God’s Army” is two things: a very bad murder mystery and a wonderfully moving spiritual drama.

“Brigham City” is set in the fictional Utah town of Brigham (not Brigham City, which is a real place), a small suburb with tree-lined streets where nearly everyone is Mormon and absolutely everyone knows everyone else.

Wes Clayton (Richard Dutcher, also director, writer and producer) is the local sheriff, as well as one of the town’s LDS bishops. Most folks just call him “bishop,” though, suggesting the degree to which Brigham’s ecclesiastical and secular societies intertwine.

Wes is eager, at times bull-headedly so, to preserve Brigham’s quaint, unsullied lifestyle. He’s suspicious of the new construction going on, and won’t even listen to news on the radio. The outside world is full of rapes and murders, he reasons. Brigham is nothing like that, and he plans to keep it that way.

His deputy is Terry Woodruff (Matthew A. Brown, who co-starred with Dutcher in “God’s Army”), an enthusiastic young guy who keeps telling Wes that he can’t hold the world at bay forever. That point is driven home when the two find a car with California plates abandoned in a field. Its owner lies nearby, murdered.

Wes insists it’s an isolated incident — and, since the victim was not from Brigham, the murderer was probably just passing through and is not anyone they know. Then a Brigham resident is found dead in the park, and FBI agent Meredith Cole (Tayva Patch), already investigating the first murder, gets more deeply involved. “Congratulations,” she tells Wes grimly. “You’ve got yourself a serial killer.”

Assisting Wes and Terry is their secretary, Peg (Carrie Morgan), a wonderful character with dry wit and great charisma. (Carrie Morgan is a Utah actress, as are most others, but she has the same great screen presence as the best Hollywood big-shots.) Her fiance, the newly converted Ed (Jon Enos) helps out, too, as does Brigham’s retired sheriff Stu (Wilford Brimley), who is itching to be a lawman again. A local photographer (Richard Clifford) develops the first crime-scene shots for Wes, keeping everything under wraps for as long as possible.

A bunch of yokels having to face a problem they’re so ill-equipped to deal with is a thrilling idea. Or are they ill-equipped? Their insulated existence, which leads to an “it can’t happen here” mentality, also has its advantages: When a local girl is kidnapped, apparently by the same person behind the murders, Wes can easily mobilize every man in town into a regiment of two-man search parties. The fact that most are returned missionaries makes them all the more adept at going door-to-door (and already acquainted with having doors slammed in their faces by uncooperative townsfolk).

The murder-mystery aspect of the film is largely unoriginal. Dutcher’s skill as a writer and director lies more in characters and moral dilemmas than in whodunits, and the scene in which the killer is revealed is the worst-written moment in the movie. (When Wes points out that, in a deviation from the killer’s apparent pattern, one of the victims’ hair was not red, the killer replies: “It was by the time I got through with it.” Cringe.)

In terms of figuring out who the killer is, the distractions Dutcher gives us are second-rate. A good red herring, as it’s called, makes us gasp and say, “THAT person did it?! Wow, what a great ending!” Then, when we find out we were wrong, we gasp again and say, “Wow! What an even BETTER ending!” The curveballs thrown in “Brigham City” are never convincing. And even if we do believe the person now being suspected is the murderer, the ensuing feeling is one of disappointment (“HE’S the killer? How lame”), not excitement.

But certain aspects of the mystery are well-done, particularly as they relate to the film’s stronger theme, summed up by a Sunday School teacher: “Do we have to lose our innocence to gain wisdom?” When a small town is thrust into reality like this, whose fault is it? Could it have been prevented? SHOULD it have been prevented?

Characters’ reactions to the various tragedies that befall Brigham over the course of the movie are both surprising and refreshing: In most movies, people get killed all the time with little emotional fanfare. The fact that a death elicits such concern here is, of course, exactly the point. This is a town — and a movie — where murders actually mean something.

Dutcher does fantastic work as the beleaguered Wes. (You’d look beleaguered, too, if you had to write, direct and star in the same movie.) He wisely ends the movie not with solving the murders, but with an emotionally powerful scene set in a sacrament meeting. It brings the film back around to its REAL point, with a spiritually profound resolution that features an achingly poignant performance from Dutcher.

“Brigham City” has its flaws. I’d like to have seen more examples of the townspeople’s growing mistrust of each other, for example, and a few of the smaller speaking parts are amateurishly acted. But when it is good, it is very good. It depicts the people of Brigham as religious but not fanatical, and it’s never preachy or heavy-handed: Small-town culture is the focus, not LDS doctrine. The tone is bittersweet and often somber — an about-face from the generally sunny “God’s Army.” But the result is more insightful, more impacting and more emotionally charged than “God’s Army,” too. Richard Dutcher’s winning streak is now at two, and counting.

[Upon the DVD release of “Brigham City” in April 2002, I wrote the following article, which puts the film in a somewhat different light.]

“Brigham City” tells us, among other things, that we all make mistakes. What matters is how we deal with them.

Taking this lesson to heart, I want to use this week’s video and DVD release of “Brigham City” as an occasion to say that I erred in my original assessment of the film — or, rather, in the way I presented that assessment.

I said it was a great spiritual drama surrounded by a bad murder mystery. Having watched the film a second time, I still feel that way. However, the second viewing drove home a point I had not considered, which is that the quality of the murder mystery is almost irrelevant. It is not the point of the movie.

Let me compare it to another movie I admire very much, the Italian film “Life Is Beautiful.” In it, a Jewish man interred with his little boy in a Nazi concentration camp goes to extreme lengths to keep the lad from knowing what’s really going on. He pretends it’s an elaborate game, thus shielding his son from the horror.

When “Life Is Beautiful” was released in the United States in 1998, some critics attacked it for making light of the Holocaust. It was unconscionable, they said, to use a concentration camp as a setting for light-heartedness. How could the film take place during World War II and not graphically depict what went on?

These critics missed the point. You can’t criticize a movie for not accomplishing what it wasn’t trying to do in the first place, and “Life Is Beautiful” wasn’t trying to be a faithful depiction of the horrors of the Holocaust. It was a fable about a man’s love for his family. It wanted to show that love and humor can triumph even under the most dire circumstances; it used a concentration camp as the backdrop because that was the most dire circumstance imaginable. It is no more “about” the Holocaust than a joke beginning “A man walks into a bar…” is necessarily “about” bars. It is merely the setting.

“Brigham City” uses a murder mystery as the setting for a story about faith, redemption and loss of innocence. It follows a man in a small Utah town who is the sheriff and also a local LDS bishop, who must contend with a serial killer. There are surprises I don’t want to spoil, but suffice it to say the sheriff (played by writer/director Richard Dutcher) feels he could have done a better job of protecting the people in his town and in his ward.

The thriller angle of the film, I maintain, is not very well done. As a thriller alone, it would never stand up against other films of that genre that are more suspenseful, more surprising and more logical.

But my point is, that’s not the point. “Brigham City,” more than any movie I have ever seen, offers penetrating insight into the nature of repentance and redemption. It speaks directly to people of faith and offers hope in a very personal, spiritual, Christian way. Its framing story could have been better told, but its core message is beautiful and sublime.

Now that it’s readily available, I recommend this film to all people with even the slightest belief in God. The final scene alone, set in an LDS sacrament meeting, is more gently instructive than a thousand sermons. Hopefully, one forgives the movie’s lesser mistakes in exchange for its masterful successes.

Pokemon 3 The Movie

0

The third installment in the once-popular “Pokemon” series of movies is better than the last two. This is faint praise, of course, since the last two were insipid piles of trash built only to bilk more money out of undiscriminating kids. The third movie is still very bad, make no mistake, but yes, it is a little better than the last two.

Even the animation is better, which makes me hold out some hope for anime in general, which usually features nicely drawn pictures that hardly move at all, thus stretching the definition of the term “animation.” (The previous statement was made solely to upset anime fans. It’s become tradition around here.)

“Pokemon 3 The Movie,” which is punctuated exactly the way I just punctuated it, begins with a short called “Pikachu and Pichu.” In it, the two popular Pokemon go into the big city and have a lot of hijinks. Their movements are supplemented with video-game sound effects, which is a hint at what this is really all about: selling more games.

Then the real movie begins. It is called “Spell of the Unown.” (Perhaps “Misspell of the Unknown” would be more accurate.) In it, noted Pokemon researcher Spencer Hale disappears while researching the Unown, which are a bunch of crazy letters that can make your imagination come to life, or something.

Hale either reappears as a new lion-esque Pokemon called Entei, or else he doesn’t; the movie is not clear on this point. At any rate, Entei appears (and either is or isn’t the reincarnation of Hale) and visits Hale’s now-orphaned daughter, Molly, whose imagination combines with the Unown to turn her house into a crystal fortress, which draws the attention of the news media and a bunch of Pokemon-collecting kids.

Among the kids is Ash Ketchum, noted Pokemon “trainer” (though I see little training going on) and owner of the aforementioned Pikachu. They’re all standing around gawking at the crystal fortress when Entei emerges and runs off with Ash’s mom. Seems Molly had declared she wanted a Mommy, so Entei went out to fetch one, much like Adam Pontipee in “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.” Ms. Ketchum happened to be the first woman he saw, so bless her beautiful hide, she’s the lucky wife of the monstrous Entei. Be sure to send a gift; they’re registered at the San Diego Zoo;

So now Ash wants his mom back, the big baby, and heads into the fortress with his buddies and all their Pokemon. Then a lot of the Pokemon fight each other, and no one dies, and there’s a winner, and I have a headache.

From a narrative standpoint, the film’s biggest problem is that it doesn’t make any sense. Its second biggest problem is that there is no villain. Entei, while he is the one who holds Molly and Ms. Ketchum hostage, is not a bad guy. He’s merely doing his duty as a minister of the Unown, and making Molly’s wishes come true. There’s Team Rocket, a duo of alleged criminals who never commit any crimes, but they’re around for comic relief, and in fact they help the heroes win. So, no villain. Oh, well.

The kids at the screening I attended seemed to enjoy themselves very much, especially the ones who were fans of the “Pokemon” TV show. To some extent, if the kids were entertained, the movie was a good one. But on the other hand, as I’ve said before, you could give a kid a pair of tube socks and he’d find a way to amuse himself. That doesn’t mean tube socks are a brilliant work of art, or worth spending $7 on.

“Pokemon 3 The Movie” is rather worthless, teaching only the vaguest of messages and containing no coherent plot lines. It’s probably not harmful, either … but neither is “Spy Kids,” which is a very good movie, on several levels. Take the tots to see that one instead.

Just Visiting

0

In 1993, there was a French movie called “Les Visiteurs” in which a 12th-century knight and his servant get transported to modern times. It did reasonably well, grossing $100 million world-wide.

Less than $1 million of that was in the United States, though, indicating to the filmmakers that Americans wouldn’t mind a remake of it. The result? “Just Visiting,” directed by the same man (Jean-Marie Poire), written by the same men (Poire and Christian Clavier), and starring the same men (Clavier and Jean Reno).

Why a movie that only made $600,000 in the United States warrants an English-language remake is beyond me, but here it is, trying not-too-hard to be funny and good-naturedly asking you to be entertained by it, if it’s not too much trouble. The word “innocuous” was created for movies like this, both in the sense of being harmless, and in the sense of being unlikely to inspire any strong feelings.

In the 1100s, French Count Thibault Malfete (Reno) is about to marry the fetching English lady Rosaline (Christina Applegate, looking quite Jennifer Anistonian). Another nobleman wants him dead, though, so he has a witch put a potion in Rosaline’s drink that will make her want to kill Thibault. Alas, Thibault and Rosaline switch goblets, and after he drinks, hallucinations make him run her through with a sword.

While awaiting his execution, Thibault sends his faithful peasant Andre (Clavier) to find him a wizard. This he does, and the wizard plans to send them both back in time to before the banquet, so he can avoid killing his fiancee this time. (How come the wizard can send people through time but he can’t simply raise the dead? Seems like that would be easier.) Wizard screws up; Thibault and Andre go forward instead of backward in time; hilarity ensues.

The wind up in a museum in Chicago. It just so happens that the curator is Julia Malfete — one of Thibault and Rosaline’s descendants. And it just so happens that she comes to believe Thibault’s story, because he has the family crest and knows the family motto and stuff.

Julia is married to Hunter (Matt Ross), who is after her family’s money. Since Julia is clearly supposed to wind up falling for Thibault instead, the movie finds it necessary to make Hunter an adulterer. It’s not enough he’s mean and greedy; he has to be cheating on Julia, too, just so there’s no gray area when she leaves him. The movie is in color, but it’s really in black-and-white, when you get right down to it.

And so there are all the usual jokes about people from the past being confused by cars, telephones and toilets. One potentially amusing joke has Thibault and Andre getting motion sickness because the car drives too fast, even when it’s only going 22 mph; that joke is ruined when, a few scenes later, both are shown to be perfectly used to it already.

It’s a rather sloppy film, shot two years ago (a movie marquee mentions “Go” and “The Out of Towners,” both from Summer 1999) and without much attention to detail. Some of the special effects are nifty, but the plot is neglected.

I laughed a few times. Never very hard, but good, honest laughs nonetheless. And despite its general lack of high hilarity, the film doesn’t drag, go off on unnecessary tangents, or annoy anybody. It’s a vanilla ice-cream movie, which might be what you’re in the mood for. Probably not, but maybe.

Shadow Magic (Chinese)

0

“Shadow Magic” takes an interesting subject — the introduction of motion-picture technology into a reluctant China at the turn of the 20th century — and makes it into a good-enough movie with good-enough acting and good-enough characters. It’s not great but it’s, well, good enough.

It is 1902 and Englishman Raymond Wallace (Jared Harris) has come to Peking with his new device that makes pictures move. The dynastic Chinese, however, are still coming to terms with photographs that DON’T move, and many of the elders aren’t fond of anything from the West, no matter how nifty it may seem.

So Raymond’s attempts at entertaining (and making money from) the Chinese are foiled by traditionalism, until he meets Lui (Yu Xiz), a curious, clever young man who speaks some English (itself a sign of his unorthodoxy) and who is interested in anything and everything new. With his endorsement, the townspeople start entering Raymond’s tent by the droves, eager to see these movies, which are nothing more than shots of people walking around, swimming or riding trains. (What they lack in plot, however, they make up for by not having Freddie Prinze Jr. in them.)

The Chinese are fascinated and delighted by the new medium, particularly as it offers them a new view of Westerners. “They appear to have feelings,” one of the viewers says. “And even a sense of humor.”

Competing for the locals’ attention is Lord Tan (Yusheng Li), a popular singer who performs Chinese opera in the town. That the people would start to prefer the movies over his singing is pure effrontery, and he’ll have none of it. As you might expect, his daughter (Yufei Xing) and Liu start to fall into forbidden love with each other.

Raymond, we learn, is trying to make money to win back his wife, who has left with his children because of his poverty. Liu represents to him the hope of bringing China into the ever-changing present.

Several underdeveloped themes are introduced, not the least of which is the moral question of who, if anyone, has the right to force a people to “catch up.” That question is virtually ignored, in fact, with China’s introduction to the Modern Age presented almost as a foregone conclusion. (Lord Tan’s falsetto opera singing and heavily stylized performance may cause American audiences to snicker, rather than be awed at how grand traditional Chinese art is, and how it is valid and should be left alone. I wonder if this was the intent.)

Jared Harris and young Yu Xiz make an interesting duo, given that Harris’ character speaks little Chinese and Yu’s speaks little English. The grown-up/teen-ager dynamic is nothing new, but it is adequately portayed here; I wish I’d found more to care about with either character, though. The whole thing is adequate. Suitable. Moderately interesting. Altogether just average.

Ask Eric Stuff 2

0

It’s time once again for “Ask Eric Stuff,” an occasional feature in which people ask Eric stuff and he answers them. You can submit your own questions at [old Daily Herald link no longer active], and then hope and pray the gods smile upon you and Eric replies in the column. He is unable to reply to each letter personally due to laziness.

Dear Eric: Do you remember when Rage Against the Machine held a concert in Spanish Fork? People actually feared for their lives. What was up with that? — Fearless in Fork
Dear Metal-head: Yeah, but people in Spanish Fork fear for their lives when it rains, because they think the sky is melting. Panic over a rock concert shouldn’t surprise us.

Dear Eric: Why did God tell the Mormons to go to Utah? — Michael in Tulsa
b>Dear Michael: Because a big part of Mormon theology is the importance of sacrifice and suffering. (Actual letter I will now receive from someone: “If you don’t like Utah, WHY DON’T YOU LEAVE?!!!!!!!”)

Dear Eric: Since Mormons don’t have to pay for lavish weddings, why don’t they at least feed their guests a meal? — < Always the Bridesmaid Dear You’ll Never Get Married: Those little mints and nuts aren’t enough for you, Tubbo?

Dear Eric: Why does the Utah legislature only meet for a couple months when my state legislature meets for a year? — Non-Utah Native
Dear Outsider: Because Gayle Ruzicka only bakes enough marijuana-laced brownies to last seven weeks.

Dear Eric: How do you tell a girl you don’t really want to go out with her again, ever, without hurting her feelings? — Perplexed in Provo
Dear Perple: The best way is to shout it as you slow down near her house and push her out the car door.

Dear Eric: My boyfriend recently moved to Ohio. What’s your opinion on long-distance relationships? — Stuck in Provo
Dear Stuck: They can work out very well. What are you doing Friday?

Dear Eric: What is the governmental procedure to be followed if the vice president dies? — DownWithGOP
Dear DWGOP: Widespread panic.

Dear Eric: What signals should I look for to tell if a guy likes me? — BYU Coed
Dear Fat Girl: Does he seem to ignore you? Does he date other girls? Does he avoid complimenting you? Is it difficult to maintain a meaningful conversation with him? If the answer to most of these is “yes,” then he either doesn’t like you or else he does.

Dear Eric: Why is my little brother so hyper? — Bewildered in Bountiful
Dear Bounty: Last year, Utahns in some counties voted to allow fluoride to be put in the public water supply. So much attention was focused on that bill, though, that no one noticed another one: the decision to put crack in the public water supply. (It should also be noted that the people of Utah County were opposed to fluoride. Please see the above item above Rage Against the Machine.)

Dear Eric: Someone once told me that one of the stated purposes of BYU is to provide a place for young men and women of the Mormon faith to meet and mingle so that they will get married. Is this true? Has that policy actually been put on paper somewhere? — A Little Skeptical
Dear Little: The only policies that have actually been put on paper at BYU are that the Honor Code Office treats the accused as guilty until proven innocent, and that mustaches are a sign of apostasy. Everything else, like having to stand motionless if you hear the national anthem, is unofficial.

Dear Eric: Why does Secretary of State Colin Powell pronounce his first name “CO-lun?” The spelling indicates “CAH-lin.” Why on earth would he prefer that pronunciation? — Organized in Orem
Dear Organ: To find out the answer to this question, I wrote to Mr. Powell’s parents, Rectum and Intestina Powell. They did not reply.

Dear Eric: How can you tell if a guy likes you? Should a girl play hard to get, or does that turn a guy off? — Looking for Love
Dear Looking: How can I tell if a guy likes me? I don’t know. Maybe he offers to buy me a drink or something. Oh, that was a generic “you”? Thank goodness. A girl who plays “hard to get” usually winds up “not gotten.” Men are fickle, with very short attention spans. Perhaps you — ooh, a quarter!

Charley’s Aunt

0

Playwright Brandon Thomas knew one of the basics of farce: A man in a dress equals comedy.

His play “Charley’s Aunt” has that, plus schemes, contrivances, mistaken identities and upper-class British people, all making for an entertaining show sharply performed by Hale Centre Theatre West Valley.

Set in 1905 at Oxford University, the play has layabouts Jack Chesney (Jacob Johnson; double-cast with John Sweeney) and Charley Wykeham (Michael Holmes) head over heels for Kitty Verdun (Eden Benson) and Amy Spettigue (Chelsea Ayn Stevens), respectively.

This is a very proper environment, though, so they can’t invite the girls over for lunch unless there’s a chaperone. Fortunately, Charley’s aunt Donna Lucia (Nancy Parsons; double-cast with Vicki Pugmire) is expected to arrive from Brazil at any moment. But the girls arrive before she does, and the only way to keep them there is to have their would-be actor friend Lord Fancourt Babberly (Curt Doussett) dress up as an old widow and pretend to be Charley’s aunt.

The girls fall for it. Complications arise when Jack’s father (Alan Mangum; double-cast with Andrew R. Looney) tries to woo the “aunt,” as does Stephen Spettigue (G. Ray Jensen; double-cast with David Mitchell), who is Amy’s father and Kitty’s guardian. Oh, and the real Charley’s aunt shows up, too.

The cast (which also includes Stuart Lewis as Jack’s alcoholic butler and Candace Christensen as a woman from Fancourt’s past) works well together and presents a polished performance. Some of the blocking could be reworked, though, as there are several moments when conspiratorial whispers and glances go unnoticed by other characters despite happening right in front of them. (You expect a little of that in a farce, but this production seems to have a lot of selective blindness and deafness among its characters.)

One other liability is that the show’s only laughs occur when Fancourt is onstage, and even then, only when he’s in a dress. The exposition leading to it is not uninteresting, but it’s not terribly funny, either. And once things get going, it’s noticeable that the entertainment factor decreases considerably when he’s not around.

Fortunately, he’s around quite a bit. Doussett, who works with the Provo ComedySportz improv group, displays remarkable comic ability, both verbal and physical. He had a moment or two of improvisation opening night, too, which can breathe new life into a familiar show like this one.

The Diary of Anne Frank

0

“The Diary of Anne Frank” is a bold choice for the Little Brown Theatre, that little blackbox theater the Villa Playhouse’s Bill and Marilyn Brown opened last year.

It’s a drama, first of all, and dramas don’t do nearly as well in this valley as comedies and musicals, financially speaking.

Furthermore, it’s a drama that takes place during the Holocaust. In one cramped attic. With no wacky neighbor.

So it’s a bold choice — and one the Little Brown Theatre pulls off remarkably well.

Directed by Bill Brown, the show features a realistically dismal set and a sturdy ensemble cast.

Based on the actual diaries of the 13-year-old girl who hid from the Nazis with her family for two years, the characters are: Anne herself (Erica Glenn; double-cast with Jessica Woahn), an imaginative and precocious child; her kind father (Mel Taylor) and mother (Wendy Asay); her older sister Margot (Genna Gardner; double-cast with Margret Milius); the perpetually wound-up Van Daans (Scott Tarbet and Marie Knowlton); and their son Peter (Jeff Carter; double-cast with Michael Crockett). A persnickety dentist named Mr. Dussell (James Gritton) joins them later, and they are assisted by Miep (Tisha Thornhill) and Mr. Kraler (James Glenn).

The eight hiders, all Jews, are stuffed away in a loft starting in 1942. The play dwells mainly on the problems one would expect to arise under such circumstances: a lack of food, constant fear, personal disagreements, and Anne and Peter’s growing fondness for one another.

Another bold decision was in casting teen-age girls as Anne, rather than young-looking older actresses. It was smart, though: Youthful honesty is liable to come only from actual youth.

Wendy Asay gives a believable motherly concern to the role of Mrs. Frank. Jeff Carter is also good as the low-key and nervous Peter Van Daan. His scenes with Erica Glenn as Anne are among the best.

This is a show that needs to be seen by everyone at least once, if just for its inspiring power. If you’ve seen it before, have another look at it here.

Girls on Film

0

Seeing a movie is the most popular thing to do on a date. This is probably because it allows you to sit in the dark with someone of the opposite sex without actually having to talk to them. At least, you shouldn’t be talking to them. If you are talking, then, you know, shut up.

Because of this, we have a genre of movies called “date movies.” Now, when we say “date movie,” of course we mean “a movie women like.” Most date activities are centered around whether the woman will enjoy herself, with little regard for whether the man has any fun. I would like to think this is out of chivalry, but I suspect it’s more because men don’t care what happens on the date, as long as there’s some action at the end of it. A man would gladly endure a date that consisted of going to flower shows and reading magazines in a gynecologist’s waiting room if he thought there were a chance of even a peck on the cheek at the end of it.

Date movies are films that have very little profanity or nudity, no strong violence, and not a single original thought in them. They are made from templates by factory workers.

A date movie is usually about a smart, pretty career woman with short hair who is successful in life but unlucky in love. She really wants a man — but not in a pathetic, “I need to be validated” kind of way. She could totally do without a man altogether because she is self-sufficient, but she happens to WANT one, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Then, there’s a guy who is kind of a womanizing jerk, but in a cute way. The woman hates him because he’s a womanizing jerk, but then she starts to see his tender side because he’s cute. By the end of the movie, they are together. It doesn’t matter what happens in the middle, as long as they have sex (discreet, nudity-free sex) and as long as one or both of them walks in the rain at some point. A soundtrack featuring a love ballad by a popular rock band wouldn’t hurt, either.

Date movies cannot contain any violence. The only exception is if the cute womanizing jerk has to punch a non-cute womanizing jerk in the face in defense of the career woman with short hair.

So what separates date movies, which couples allegedly enjoy together but which are actually only enjoyed by women, from full-blown “chick flicks,” which men actively despise? Here’s what:

• In a date movie, the couple winds up together at the end. In a chick flick, one of them dies.

• A date-movie protagonist should have one wacky friend who offers sardonic advice and is not prettier than the protagonist. (This friend may be a gay man instead.) The male lead may also have friends, but they should not be better-looking than the lead (though they may be funnier) (but not more charming). A chick-flick protagonist can have an entire beauty parlor full of advice-giving friends.

• Date-movie protagonists may be male or female, but there must be at least one (1) of each in order to make the requisite couple. A chick flick, on the other hand, might have no more testosterone than what’s in Bette Midler.

• In a date movie, both the male and female leads must be attractive (e.g., Tom Cruise movies). In a chick flick, everyone can be ugly (e.g., Richard Gere movies).

• The worst thing that happens to a date-movie character is that he or she might get an adorable cold or have a cute allergy. In a chick flick, someone will have cancer.

Until next time, I’ll see you at the movies! I’ll be the one cuddling with a woman during the brain-eating scene in “Hannibal.”

Someone Like You

0

The message of “Someone Like You” is that all men are pigs, except for the few who aren’t.

That’s the overt message. The more subtle message is that this is a “date movie.” It doesn’t have too much sex or profanity or violence, so it’s tame enough for mixed company. And it’s all about romance, which is allegedly enjoyed by women (“enjoyable to women” being the current definition of “date movie”).

This particular date movie is about a Manhattan gal named Jane (Ashley Judd) who works for a tabloid talk show and is, you guessed it, unlucky at love. She takes up with new coworker Ray (Greg Kinnear) and is about to move in with him when he suddenly dumps her.

Then she hits on a theory, which she calls the New Cow Theory, and which she has been explaining to us in voice-over narration the whole time. The idea is that once a bull has done the deed with a cow, he doesn’t want that cow anymore. Even if he’s not gettin’ it from someone else, he’d rather have no nookie at all than nookie from an “old cow.”

Men, Jane decides, are like bulls. They get bored easily, and they want to find new cows.

Marvelous! The women are really enjoying the movie now, and the men they’re with are still concentrating on how to get some action afterward.

Jane tries to make Ray jealous by moving in, platonically, with another coworker. This one is Eddie (Hugh Jackman), a notorious womanizer and sleazeball. But wouldn’t you know it? He has a sensitive side, evidenced by his bringing Jane some booze to ease the pain when she’s crying over her lost Ray.

Ray also once had a serious live-in girlfriend, whom he encounters and gets all awkward with in one very brief scene. The movie does several shorthand tricks like that, hoping to convince us of things with as little effort as possible, leaving more time to deal with Jane’s saucy friend Liz (Marisa Tomei), who works at a women’s magazine and has Jane start writing pseudonymous columns about this New Cow Theory.

The four main stars perform as these particular ones always do: fairly good, fairly charming, fairly enjoyable. Nothing more, nothing less. Jackman occasionally has an Australian accent, but I guess that’s the dialogue coach’s fault, not his.

The movie’s main problem is that for a long time, it’s unclear which couple we’re supposed to be rooting for: Judd and Kinnear, or Judd and Jackman. So much time was spent developing Judd and Kinnear that when he dumps her, for a while we think we really do want them to get back together. But then Jackman comes on the scene, and it’s obvious the movie, if it was made anywhere near Hollywood, is going to have the compassionate, platonic friend come to the rescue, as always.

There’s also the issue of not being very funny, and the whole anonymous-columnist thing getting quite ridiculous. But those are beside the point. It’s a date movie; what do you want?

Spy Kids

0

“Spy Kids” is a wildly inventive kids’ movie that doesn’t pander to its audience, isn’t full of potty humor, and teaches a good message. In other words, it’s a freak of nature.

Written and directed by Robert Rodriguez, whose previous work includes the bloody and very-adult “From Dusk Till Dawn” and “The Faculty,” “Spy Kids” tells of a successful secret-agent duo who retired from active duty in order to get married and have kids.

They are the Cortez family: Gregorio (Antonio Banderas) and Ingrid (Carla Gugino), whom we meet years later, when their kids are in grade school. Bossy sister Carmen (Alexa Vega) and hapless little brother Juni (Daryl Sabara) have no idea of their parents’ secret lives, for one simple reason that every kid will understand: “They can’t be spies,” Carmen says upon learning the truth. “They’re not cool enough!”

Gregorio and Ingrid are called out of retirement when it’s discovered that a kids’ TV show host named Fegan Floop (Alan Cumming) is kidnapping spies and turning them into the lovable mutants featured on his program. Floop’s plan is to assemble an army of robot kids to do his bidding, but he needs a synthetic brain to make them function properly — a brain that the agents he’s been kidnapping once worked on.

Gregorio was on the project, too, which is why Floop lures him and Ingrid into active duty. They are promptly kidnapped, leading to Carmen and Juni’s discovery of their parents’ history, as well as the necessity that they rescue Mom and Dad before it’s too late.

A second look:

8/17/2011: Re-Views: ‘Spy Kids’ (2001)

The film is a child’s fantasy. Carmen and Juni get to fly around with jet packs, pilot a super-fast airplane, and stay up past their bedtime. They prove themselves more adept at spy work than their suave but rusty parents.

As characters, Carmen and Juni are a breath of fresh air. They’re savvy and smart, but not obnoxious or precocious. Their interaction is full of sibling rivalry that is often very pointed, but it’s all resolved nicely in the end.

There is violence, but it’s mostly non-graphic slapstick stuff. And when it’s all said and done, it is intelligence and wit that help the good guys win, not weapons and muscles. Family unity and trust are also played up.

All that wholesomeness (there’s a poop joke or two, but nothing serious), and it’s funny, clever and exciting, too. It’s the rare film that is both “good” (i.e., inoffensive and uplifting), and “good” (i.e., well-made). Take the kids and enjoy.

Tomcats

0

In “Tomcats,” a man has a cancerous testicle removed and wants to keep it as a souvenir. He sends his buddy into the hospital lab to retrieve it, but the thing is slippery, and after a series of mishaps it winds up in an open box of chocolates, at which point someone eats it.

If you still want to see this movie, let me point something out: No, you don’t. This is a dreadfully unfunny sex comedy without a legitimate laugh in it. The plot is incoherent. The characters are unlikable. The acting is atrocious.

I can say without reservation that it is the worst movie of the year so far.

Still with me? As I heave a mighty sigh, I continue. The film begins “seven years ago,” with a group of bachelors weeping over the marriage of one of their fellows. They resolve never to get married — in fact, they start a betting pool, and the last guy left single gets all the dough.

Now, in the present, there are two remaining “tomcats”: cartoonist Michael (Jerry O’Connell) and wealthy something-or-other Kyle (Jake Busey). Thanks to wise investing, the pool is up to $500,000, with both men still having sex with as many women as they possibly can, and no marriage in sight for either one. Then Michael racks up a $51,000 gambling debt (Bill Maher plays the casino owner) and has no way to come up with the loot. His solution? Win the bet by getting Kyle married off.

(Why doesn’t Michael just go to his friends, explain his predicament, and ask to borrow $51,000 from the half-million pot? Or why not just borrow it straight from Kyle, who is somehow very rich? Do not ask the movie questions, as you will only provoke it.)

Fortunately, Kyle mentions having almost fallen for a gal he met at a wedding years earlier. Michael finds this woman, Natalie (Shannon Elizabeth), who is now a cop. She’s eager to help Michael get the money — with her getting half, of course — because she wants revenge on Kyle for the way he played her.

Mixed in with all the vulgar sex jokes is a basic romantic-comedy plot, as Michael begins to fall in love with Natalie even while helping her trick Kyle into marrying her. Then that plot is literally abandoned for a 20-minute diversion that includes Michael romancing a dominatrix librarian, the aforementioned testicular cancer, and a visit to a sperm bank. None of these tangents has ANYTHING to do with the rest of the movie. They could literally be edited out altogether without affecting the story.

Not that tangents are inherently bad, of course; Monty Python movies are full of mini-sketches that add little to the plot but are still enjoyable. But that’s the thing: They’re enjoyable. None of the digressions in “Tomcats” is enjoyable. Neither is the main story, for that matter. Whatever potential humor there is gets ruined by overplaying it. Most of the jokes, though, rely on the audience being as dumb as the movie is.

The Tailor of Panama

0

“The Tailor of Panama” is the first film to be shot on location in that country, and what a grand portrait it paints! Lush landscapes, charming locals, and corruption as far as the eye can see.

The post-Noriega Panama is, in this droll spy film, a place of crumbling morals and even worse social strata: Everyone is either dirt poor or filthy rich. It’s “Casablanca, without heroes,” says the title character, Harry Pendel (Geoffrey Rush), whose client list includes every wealthy man in Panama City.

He is approached by Andy Osnard (Pierce Brosnan), a British spy seeking personal gain. There’s little real trouble at this point, with Noriega out of the picture, so Andy creates some with Harry’s help. He figures to make everyone fear Panama’s about to sell the canal out from under the United States (which still controls it at this point), and pocket whatever millions he can get out of the trouble he starts.

Harry is coerced into helping because he has a checkered past he’d rather his American wife Louisa (Jamie Lee Curtis) not know about. As tailor to the stars, he hears a lot of secrets, and in exchange for having his considerable debts paid off, he tells Andy more than he actually knows. His drunken friend Mickie (Brendan Gleeson), he says, is still part of a “silent resistance,” as is his secretary, Marta (Leonor Varela). With a little greasing of the palms, they could be rallied to action.

Part of the fun of this film is not knowing exactly how much Harry is making up, and how much is real. At the same time, we’re never entirely sure what to make of Andy. We know he’s a scoundrel — sort of a James Bond type, but more vulgar — but what depths his dishonesty goes to we don’t fully grasp until the end.

It’s a good old-fashioned espionage caper film, with one significant difference: Where the thrill usually comes from seeing everything unravel at the end, here we witnessed the, uh, raveling in the first place. The intrigue is created right before our eyes. We see the webs weaved, and then we see their undoing. Very slick, very fun.

Andrew Davies, adapting John Le Carre’s novel, writes whip-smart characters and dialogue. I love Harry’s succinct, perfect description of the corruption that remains after Noriega: “They got Ali Baba, but they missed his 40 thieves.” And is anyone else as impressed as I am by Geoffrey Rush drawing chalk lines for a new suit like he’s been doing it all his life? What a thoroughly enjoyable little film.

Amores Perros (Spanish)

0

The first moments of “Amores Perros” are frantic and chaotic as two men drive wildly through heavy traffic with a bleeding dog in their backseat and a pickup truck carrying a man with a gun pursuing them.

The scene ends with a bone-crunching car wreck, and then the movie REALLY begins, showing us the lives of several different people who all have a connection to that accident.

“Octavio y Susana” is the on-screen title of the first segment, which shows us what led to the high-speed chase. Octavio (Gael Garcia Bernal), the car’s driver, is a sweet, directionless young man living with his brother Ramiro (Marco Perez) and Ramiro’s wife, the fetching Susana (Vanessa Bauche). Ramiro is violent and unpleasant, working part-time at a grocery store and spending his evenings robbing convenience stores. There is no love lost between the brothers, and the tension in that small apartment is palpable.

Octavio is not-too-secretly in love with his sister-in-law, and certainly treats Susana better than Ramiro does. When she gets pregnant, she realizes she doesn’t want to be stuck with Ramiro anymore, and she finally consents to run off with Octavio.

But how to get out of town? They’ll need money. Ramiro and Octavio have a brutish dog called Cofi who turns out to be a champion at ripping other canines’ throats out, and Octavio makes money on the underground dog-fighting circuit.

He also runs afoul of a dog owner whose animals keep getting destroyed by Cofi, which is what leads to the car chase.

But who was in the car that Octavio wound up running into? That’s the subject of the next segment, “Daniel y Valeria,” which, instead of showing us what led to the accident, gives us only a brief backstory and then focuses on the aftermath.

Valeria (Goya Toledo) is a successful model carrying on a secret affair with a married man named Daniel (Alvaro Guerrero). He leaves his wife and they get an apartment together, just in time for the accident, which leaves her right leg shattered. Their romantic, exciting life together is slapped into reality as Daniel is faced with the daily chores of helping Valeria get around, and as Valeria herself must deal with being scarred and unable to work anymore.

The last chunk is called “El Chivo y Maru,” and it focuses on a disheveled old man who can be seen in the periphery in the other stories. El Chivo (Emilio Echevarria) was once a guerilla who now occasionally does murder-for-hire work. He lives with his dogs in an old shack and secretly pines for his estranged daughter, who doesn’t know he’s alive.

The title of the film is translated as “Love’s a Bitch,” though “perros” also has the innocuous meaning of “dogs,” which also works. Every story has dogs acting as catalysts for the major action: Octavio’s dog helps him raise money to run off with Susana; Valeria and Daniel fight over her yappy terrier that gets stuck under the floorboards of the house; El Chivo’s dogs suffer at the hand — er, paw — of another.

It’s ultimately rather hopeful, but the film is drenched in cynicism, as you might expect with a title like “Love’s a Bitch.” As El Chivo puts it, “To make God laugh, tell him your plans.” Everything goes wrong, and nothing turns out the way we expected. It’s enough to make you laugh — which the film often does. Ironic twists and painful discoveries are usually laughably heartbreaking.

First-time director Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu has an astonishing visceral sensibility; the word “gritty” was invented for this film, particularly in Octavio’s story, where you can practically feel the grime and filth wash over everything. (The second story focuses on people of a higher social class, where it’s their souls that are dirty, not their surroundings.) Hand-held cameras and bleached-out colors remind one of that other recent Mexico-based gritty film, “Traffic.”

Kudos also to screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga, who has developed a crackerjack tale full of good old-fashioned storytelling. It’s rare to see a movie so unabashedly plot-heavy and intricate, and the narrative style is fantastic. The non-linear storytelling and intersecting plots are nice, but I’m more impressed with the way characters creep in unexpectedly and in a way that makes you wait patiently to find out how they fit.

The first story, for example, while focusing on Octavio and Susana, also shows intriguing glimpses of El Chivo and Daniel — without explaining who they are or why we should pay attention to them. But the sheer force of the characters is so strong that we pay attention anyway.

Strong, dignified acting is the rule here. One feels respect for these people regardless of whether they deserve it, because even the scoundrels are portrayed with humanity. For as cynical as “Amores Perros” can be, it has an underlying warmth that elevates it to greatness.

Olympics Olympics Olympics Olympics Olympics

0

Following is The Daily Herald’s at-a-glance roundup of today’s front page stories relating to the 2002 Winter Olympics.

OLYMPICS = DEATH: With less than a year to go before the 2002 Winter Olympics, state officials are recommending Utah residents get out now, while they still can. “There is no way the freeway construction will ever be finished in time,” said a spokesman from Gov. Leavitt’s office. “All these people pouring in at once, inundating the state, and some of them wanting to drink beer — it’s going to be awful. Thousands will certainly be killed. For the love of all that’s holy, flee for your lives now. NOW!!”

OLYMPIC ATHLETES DOING OLYMPIC THINGS: A timed trial held Monday in a sport no one cares about — indeed, a sport no one even considered a sport until the Olympics decided it was one — resulted in several athletes breaking records, while other athletes did not break any records. Some of those athletes will become Olympians, and after March 2002, you will never hear of them again.

OUT TO LUNCH, OLYMPIC-STYLE: SLOC President Mitt Romney announced today that he would have lunch at Chili’s. It was anticipated he would have the baby-back ribs, though the possibility of a taco salad was not ruled out.

OLYMPICS AND RELIGION: The LDS Church has denied attempting to turn the 2002 Olympics into “The Mormon Olympics.” “We prefer to call them ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Olympics,'” said a church spokesman, noting that the “The” should be capitalized.

PLEASE DON’T TALK ANY MORE ABOUT THE @#*$ OLYMPICS: Several Olympic-related stories in yesterday’s Daily Olympic Herald went unread, presumably due to lack of interest. To increase reader interest in what is surely the most important event in the history of the frickin’ universe, the Herald will print twice as many Olympic stories in tomorrow’s paper.

PARKING, OLYMPIC-STYLE: The city of Provo is urging residents to fly flags during the Olympics. “We want the world to feel welcome here,” said Mayor Lewis Billings. “We don’t know where the world is going to park, but they’re certainly welcome once they get here.” As an afterthought, he said, “Maybe the world should just walk. I mean, traffic is bad enough in this town without throwing a bunch of foreigners into the mix.”

AN OLYMPIC PERSPECTIVE: A large chunk of the moon broke off today and subsequently crashed in Africa, killing millions and sinking most of the continent into the sea. Olympic officials promised, however, that the 2002 Winter Olympic will continue as scheduled. “When was the last time Africa hosted the Olympics, anyway?” a spokesman said. “I mean, really. Let’s put this thing in perspective.”

OLYMPICS, OLYMPICS, OLYMPICS, OLYMPICS, OLYMPICS: The Olympics Olympicked today, resulting in Olympic Olympics. “Olympics Olympics Olympics,” said an Olympic. “Olympics Olympics Olympics.” The Olympic was expected to Olympic.

ACADEMY OLYMPICS: More than 800 million people worldwide viewed at least part of the 73rd Annual Academy Awards on Sunday. Tragically, none of the films nominated were about the Olympics, making the whole thing irrelevant. In other news, someone mentioned the 2002 Winter Olympics on Sunday. Story and photos are on page A1.

(Legal disclaimer that shouldn’t even be necessary but trust me, it is: All quotes in this article are fictitious.)

Camelot

0

Award-winning films aren’t the only place to see clanking swords these days: Hale Center Theater’s production of “Camelot” has plenty of them, along with some dry wit and a heartbreaking romance.

The story takes place during the mythical era of Camelot, a “fleeting whisp of glory” during which King Arthur (Cody Hale) brings about peace and unity after years of death and squallor.

Arthur is idealistic and innocent, terrified of his impending marriage to Lady Guenevere (Heather Ferguson) and a little lost without his mentor, the wizard Merlin (Ken Hillam).

He and Guenevere fall in love, though, and after five years he develops the idea of the Round Table. All knights are invited to join the guild, which would promote justice and use strength for purposes of good (i.e., no more whacking the heads off peasants just for the fun of it). The plan is a success.

Among the knights who answer Arthur’s call is Lancelot (Brad Montgomery), a pompous and boastful Frenchman who, it happens, actually is all the things he says he is. His loyalty to Arthur is absolute, and he seems to be perfect. Guenevere is annoyed by his egotism, but Lancelot grows on her, and soon they are in love.

The love triangle here is a beautifully complicated one. Arthur the human being is jealous and hurt that his best friend and his wife have feelings for each other, but Arthur the king can’t let his passions ruin the relative tranquility he has established in the kingdom.

Guenevere and Lancelot, meanwhile, both love Arthur and would do nothing to hurt him. But they love each other, too.

Evil Scotsman Mordred (Nathan Wright) represents the world in this scenario, ultimately bringing Camelot out of its fairy-tale existence and causing everyone’s weaknesses to catch up with them. Nathan Wright is supremely weaselly in the role.

Cody Hale makes a fine Arthur, earning audience sympathy for the king’s good intentions despite the fact that Arthur consistently makes poor decisions. Heather Ferguson and Brad Montgomery both have beautiful singing voices, and their scenes together as Guenevere and Lancelot are charming.

Mike Gray is also excellent as the comic relief, a charismatic king named Pelinore. Rather than overplaying the role’s buffoonery, which would be easy to do, Gray plays it straight and gets more laughs in the process.

While lighting and costumes are always good at the Hale Center Theater, they are particularly noteworthy here. Arthur’s imprisonment within invisible walls is awesomely conveyed with some nifty lighting tricks, and everyone’s gowns and chain mail are authentic-looking.

Several of the show’s songs are soliloquies, leaving the singer with nothing to do but pace around the stage. Though it would make more sense to stand still, some movement is probably necessary in a theater-in-the-round setting, so it’s forgivable — especially considering most other aspects of the show are enjoyably well-played and realistic.

March Madness

0

Like all red-blooded American men who pay their taxes and love their wives, I have March Madness. I get it every year. I feel fatigued and nauseated, and it burns when I urinate. It’s either March Madness or syphilis, one.

At any rate, I am a pretty big basketball fan, particularly in the sense of “fan” that means I don’t pay any attention to it. It’s lately been hard not to follow it, though, as our newsroom TV has been showing the NCAA playoffs 24 hours a day, and everyone connected with the paper, including people who just use it as bedding when they sleep in the park, has been hanging around, whooping and cheering while people like me slave away at our desks and try to decide where to go to lunch.

Speaking of big losers, the other kind of March Madness that afflicts many people is the kind where you get upset about the Academy Awards. This year’s case was mild, as most of the bothersome things happened not in the awards but in the nominations. (“Chocolat” gets nominated for Best Picture, while “Angel Food Cak” and “Hot Fudg Sunda” languish in obscurity?!) And while there were a few surprises among the winners, there were no absolute travesties like there were last year, when that sleep-walking fossil Michael Caine beat the kid from “The Sixth Sense” for Best Supporting Actor.

So this year’s March Madness came not from the winners but from the telecast itself. Creepy Icelandic singer Bjork looked like a fjreak with that dead swan wrapped around her neck, and it was interesting that John Travolta introduced the “People Who are Dead Now” montage, since his career could have been included in it.

But the most alarming thing? That new Pepsi commercial starring a scantily clad, rump-shaking Britney Spears. It was effective, though: It really made me want to go out and buy a six-pack of cleavage.

Speaking of people whose 15 minutes of fame are about up, another kind of March Madness is the one where people get mad at you because you made fun of former pop star Tiffany in your March 7 column. On March 8, I received a phone call from a female with a trailer-parkish voice who began the conversation thus:

“I just wanted to call and tell you what a [richard] you are.”

Many people would have hung up on her right there, being offended by her use of brackets. But since nothing turns me on more than a woman with a potty mouth (I imagined she was beating her kids and smoking, too), I said, “OK.” She went on to say, “What gives you the right to make fun of Tiffany?” I explained that what gave me the right was the First Amendment, the same thing that gave her the right to call me a [richard]. I also explained, as I had explained in the column, that I wound up respecting Tiffany for staging a comeback, despite my initial skepticism. The woman was not to be pacified, however, possibly because of my use of the words “skepticism” and “pacified.” She continued to rant and rave and watch Jerry Springer, so I hung up the phone. For all I know, she’s still talking. March Madness can have strange effects on people. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go.

Heartbreakers

0

The characters in “Heartbreakers,” like the movie itself, are broadly farcical for a while, then supposedly sympathetic, then somewhere in the middle. Actually, they’re always somewhere in the middle as far as viewers are concerned, because they’re never quite likable, but neither are they ever all-out wacky.

It’s yet another film that tries to have its cake and eat it, too, squandering a talented cast and screwing up a perfectly good premise in its attempts to be both loony and emotional.

Max (Sigourney Weaver) is a gorgeous con artist whose outfits are so nice and numerous that Ms. Weaver’s costume designer gets a special mention in the opening credits. Max’s scam is to find wealthy men and marry them as quickly as possible. Then, shortly after the wedding, her daughter Page (Jennifer Love Hewitt) — having gotten a job as the guy’s secretary or maid in preparation for the event — seduces the guy, Max catches them, and there’s a healthy divorce settlement.

The film begins with the latest victim, stolen-car dealer Dean Cumanno (Ray Liotta, apparently still missing some of his brain after “Hannibal”). He and the other targets, of course, never know that Max and Page (who work under aliases) have any connection to each other, and mother and daughter are free to move somewhere else with the loot and try another scheme.

Page wants to set out on her own, but Max doesn’t think she’s ready for it. After Dean gets screwed, they’re forced to do one last gig together because the IRS has caught up to them and they owe hundred of thousands of dollars in interest and penalties.

They want to make it a doozy, so they head to Palm Beach, home of rich men who aren’t too swift (see the Florida presidential election for evidence of that). Max adopts a Russian accent and cozies up to tobacco billionaire William Tensy (a smoker’s-hacking Gene Hackman). She conspires to get rid of his suspicious maid (Nora Dunn), which is a double blessing, because it opens up a household position for Page, thus setting the scene for the wedding and subsequent divorce-by-entrapment.

While waiting for mom to win Tensy’s love, Page hits it off with a local bartender (Jason Lee) who himself may be worth some money. Max keeps warning her about actually falling in love with a victim: That’s what happened to her, back in the day, and it resulted in an unwanted pregnancy who turned out to be named Page.

As mentioned, it’s the film’s uneven tone that does it in. Max and Tensy tend to stay goofy, what with her fake Russian accent (in one scene, she encounters a waiter who actually speaks Russian — with predictable results). Page and Jack the bartender, meanwhile, are the more romantic couple, with Page’s duplicity causing her much conflict.

This arrangement is fine, especially since Sigourney Weaver and Gene Hackman can both pull off comedy when they want to, and Jennifer Love Hewitt is more suited to doe-eyed pining.

It’s when the two tones mix that things get ugly. Max suddenly has to think of what’s best for her daughter and whether she’s ruining her life by keeping her involved in fraud, and Page has to help Max dispose of a body after an ill-timed death by natural causes. Oh, and Dean shows up again. It’s all too wacky and serious and romantic and stupid, all at once.

Weaver and Hackman, as mentioned, do fine work. Jason Lee’s wimpy-wisecracky delivery serves him well, and he acts circles around the moony Ms. Love Hewitt, who is clearly outranked by everyone in the cast.

(There’s also the matter of how the film presents men: as shallow creatures who can easily be persuaded to do anything if you promise them sex. This is a fine stereotype, as far as stereotypes go — but so is the one that women only like to gab on the phone and go shopping, and whenever a movie presents women that way, everyone decries it as “sexist.”)

There are scattered laughs amidst the predictable predicaments, but they’re scattered over the film’s two-hour running time (which is about 30 minutes too much). I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. So I did neither.

Say It Isn’t So

0

Have we reached the point in civilization where jokes about incest, handicaps and bodily fluids not just aren’t shocking anymore, but also aren’t even funny? Yes. Yes, we have.

“Say It Isn’t So,” which was produced by the notorious Farrelly Brothers who wrote and directed “There’s Something About Mary” and “Dumb & Dumber,” manages several moments so shocking they may inspire laughter. But only a few of them. And it’s not enough, because the film certainly doesn’t warrant much attention on its other merits.

If all you’ve got to eat is a pile of crap, you at least want there to be a lot of crap in it. This crappy movie is virtually crap-free.

The film begins in Shelbyville, Ind., where animal-shelter employee Gilbert Noble (Chris Klein) meets the new girl in town, a very hot and inept barber named Jo Wingfield (Heather Graham). After she gives him a bad trim and chops off most of his ear, they fall in love and plan to get married.

But Gilly, who grew up in an orphanage, has been looking for his mother and now discovers: It’s Jo’s trailer-trash mom, Valdine (Sally Field). Gilly and Jo are brother and sister! And they already did it! (A strong case for abstinence before marriage, I guess.)

Disgraced, Jo heads back to Beaver, Ore. (tee-hee!), where she was seeing another guy before moving back with her parents in Shelbyville. Gilly stays in Indiana and puts up with a steady stream of “pervert” remarks. He’s living with his new-found mom and her husband, Walter (Richard Jenkins), whose recent stroke makes him have to talk through a “hilarious” robotic voice simulator.

Then Valdine’s REAL son, Leon (Jack Plotnick) shows up. Somehow, Gilly had gotten it wrong, and he isn’t Jo’s brother after all. He races off to Oregon to stop her from marrying her smarmy other boyfriend, Jack (Eddie Cibrian), and is assisted along the way by a crazy legless man named Dig (Orlando Jones).

The first half-hour of the film is actually very funny in a gross-out, Farrelly Brothers kind of way, with some delightfully absurd dialogue. (A redneck friend of Gilly’s comments that he doesn’t want a Russian pomeranian because “I don’t want to put any American dogs out of work.” Later Gilly tells Jo, “I don’t want you to feel like you have to cook me dinner just because I found your cat and you cut off my ear.”)

But then it dies fast, leaving behind most of the comedy and focusing on the bland, whispery Chris Klein and his character’s pursuit of Heather Graham. Only Orlando Jones shows a real enthusiasm for his role, though I admit finding Sally Field somewhat entertaining as utter white trash.

Movies like this are an indication of humanity at its lowest. Gilly can’t just meet a wacky guy who helps him win back Jo; that guy has to be an amputee. Jo’s dad can’t just be old; he has to have an electronic voice machine. Amputees and stroke victims are not unreasonable characters to include in a movie. But when they’re there just for laughs — and, worse, when those laughs don’t come — it becomes crass.

Tastelessness is one thing; we’ve learned to deal with it and even enjoy it at times. Unfunny tastelessness is what’s unforgiveable.

The Brothers

0

“The Brothers” is a movie about sex. It deals some with relationships and the overall experience of being black in America. But it’s mostly about sex. And it has little new to say on the subject.

Similar to “The Best Man” both in style (ensemble comedy focused more on characters than plot) and subject matter (the lives of upper-middle-class African-Americans), “The Brothers” follows four successful career men in their various encounters with women.

At the center is Jack Smith (Morris Chestnut), a pediatrician with serious commitment phobias: He keeps dreaming of being shot by a woman in a wedding gown. He meets Denise (Gabrielle Union), who seems to be perfect for him, and she gets a lot of advice from his no-nonsense mother (Jenifer Lewis).

Then there’s Terry (Shemar Moore), who has just announced his engagement, much to the chagrin of marriage-hater Brian (Bill Bellamy), a lawyer who has sworn off black women and decided to date white chicks instead.

Finally, we have Derrick (D.L. Hughley), the only married man of the bunch. He’s having troubles, though, because of certain sexual practices his wife refuses to engage in.

Much of the dialogue is shockingly frank in its sexuality, and I don’t know that it’s useful. (I mean, how much discussion on oral sex do we still need? Haven’t enough other movies already talked about it?) The ensemble is good, though, and even the female half of the group — admittedly not the film’s primary focus — is enjoyable. (Jenifer Lewis, who plays Jack’s mother, has a great, sassy attitude that earns several laughs.)

The film moves slowly — as mentioned, it’s the overall lives of the characters that are the focus — and that may deter some viewers. African-Americans in particular should find it true-to-life, however, and audiences in general would be charmed by honest performances and engaging characters.

Release Me

0

Writing a press release is hard, if by “hard” we mean “not hard.” No offense to the public relations students I had classes with when I was a journalism student, but it’s not exactly brain science or rocket surgery.

Not that journalism is any trickier. Why, I once wrote an entire article without using a single verb. Every time it appropriate to a verb, I just it out.

You can see how easy it is to write a press release by examining this one, which is basically every press release I have ever read, compressed into one:

“This Friday, our group will be holding an event. This will be the most important event that has ever occurred, and any newspaper not putting it on the front page is clearly a newspaper fit to be used only for personal hygiene and not as a news source. We will be calling the newspaper office several thousand times to make sure they got this press release, and then to see if they’re running it, and then to see if they ran it (because we don’t actually read the paper), and then a few more times just to bug them.”

Anyway, though writing a press release is not difficult, it occasionally trips people up. For example, the Little London Dinner Theater recently extended its run of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Why Won’t People Stop Doing This Show?” and made the announcement by faxing me this release. Read it carefully:

“Due to popular demand, ‘Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat’ has not been extended until Friday, February 23.”

My first thought was how wonderful it was that the people’s voice had been heard, and that the theater had opted not to show “Joseph” any more times than necessary. Then I figured the word “not” had slipped in there accidentally.

But this is nothing — yes, NOTHING! — compared to a press release we got from Provo School District. Its purpose was to laud the local crisis team for all it did in the year 2000 in preventing teen suicides and stuff like that. Team member and therapist Stuart Harper is quoted as saying, “Team members will debrief with both students and parents to help them recognize that they are not alone in their feelings.”

Note that team members will not debrief students and parents; they will debrief WITH them. That is, team members will join students and parents in a room and they’ll all debrief together, possibly with cameras rolling. Woo-hoo!

But this is nothing — yes, NOTHING! — compared to something else from the same press release. What they meant to say, I think, is that in 2000, the crisis team responded to six school-related suicides; they also helped defuse some other situations in which weapons were involved.

But what they SAID was this:

“Last year alone, the crisis team responded to six school-related suicides and provided additional support with weapons.”

Good for them for helping out like that! A kid calls a suicide hotline and announces his intent to kill himself; alas, however, he is without a gun or knife with which to do the job. That’s when the crisis team swings into action and provides additional support with weapons.

I don’t mean to belittle the important work the crisis team does, nor am I necessarily in favor of teen suicide. (Spend some time at Movies 8 on a Friday night, though, and you’re bound to find your anti-teen-suicide stance loosening somewhat.) All I’m saying is that the way you write says a lot about you and the organizations you represent. If you badly, people not you seriously.

Richard III

0

“Richard III” is both difficult to follow and entertaining to watch, bolstered by enough brilliance to outweigh the deficiencies that a show with this much over-ambition and grandiosity is bound to have.

The show begins with a devilish voice warning, “Abandon hope, ye who enter here,” along with a short video that gets us up to speed on what’s been happening in the War of the Roses. The film quickly becomes campy, concluding like a movie preview (“One man … will stop at nothing …”) with crashing music and block letters that say “Richard III.”

Not that it’s particularly funny, but campiness — albeit a pitch-black variety of it — is a big factor in the show. Shakespeare wrote Richard (Cristian Bell) to be such a hideous villain, an absolutely soulless monster who is an expert liar, manipulator and con-artist, that you can’t take him seriously, especially when he speaks directly to the audience to tell us how he really feels about the people he’s just glad-handed.

The costumes (by Ruth Geilman) are beautifully outlandish, with an abundance of stunning trains, flourishes and accessories, and a ghost-laden nightmare Richard has late in the show is creepy, but a giddy kind of creepy — the kind that makes you grin as you shiver.

The murders committed by Richard’s henchmen (Jesse Harward and Matthew Herrick) — which have already inspired controversy at the typically murder-free BYU — are more over-the-top ridiculous than they are gruesome. They’re not bloody. It’s a little shocking to see a beheading or a hanging live on stage, but fears that the show is too horrifically violent for civilized folks are exaggerated — especially when you consider how absurd those assassins are (Harward’s silly English accent is the give-away), and how like a USA Network horror flick the show often is.

The role of Richard is a tricky one, but consummate actor Cristian Bell eats the part alive, then nails its hide to the wall. He acts with exuberance, physicality and sheer furious energy, and clearly enjoys every minute of it. Richard needs to be a villain who likes his work, or the audience won’t be interested in him. As Bell plays him, not walking so much as lunging, spider-like, across the stage with steely deliberation, one is enthralled.

Richard’s goal here in 15th-century England is to become king. Thanks to Richard having killed King Henry VI, his brother Edward (Isaac Walters) now reigns. So the kingdom is in the family, anyway — but so many people are in the way before Dick gets it. King Edward is fortunately rather infirm and apt to die soon. Then there’s their other brother, Clarence (Christopher Clark), whom the assassins dispatch in his bathtub just after a harrowing and poignant confession of past guilt (kudos, Clark, for making your one scene count).

A more delicate matter is King Edward’s young boys. To kill two little kids is beyond the pale (particularly when they’re your nephews), but they’ll have to go before Richard can lay claim to the crown.

Meanwhile, former Queen Margaret (the under-appreciated and brilliant Susan Keller), wife of the murdered Henry VI, is still hanging around the court like a stench, making everyone uncomfortable (“You killed my husband! You killed my son!” etc.) and pronouncing curses right and left. The current queen, Elizabeth (Becky Baird), while at first an adversary to the deposed monarch, is able to relate once her husband and sons have been murdered by the same creature who made Margaret the wretch she is.

Richard uses emotion with Queen Elizabeth, wanting to have her daughter (Cyndi Ball) as his wife, purely for political reasons. That scene — one of the show’s longest — is a tour de force of electrically charged acting. The statuesque Becky Baird, now playing Elizabeth as a ghastly, balding hag, matches Bell note for note in their tete-a-tete. Seeing either of them play opposite the supporting cast, most of whom are extremely good, is satisfying. Seeing them play opposite each other is mind-blowing.

Not everything in the show works. The dim lighting (whose purpose I do understand) is often so dark as to make actors’ faces disappear. The action is sometimes difficult to follow, too, despite the play having been shortened and somewhat simplified; things are particularly slow in the first half, before intermission.

But it’s a show that rewards diligent viewing. It’s a big show, in every sense, and most of it lives up to the big expectations it sets for itself. In the end, it is rich, evocative and deeply tragic.

Forever Plaid

0

We’re going to be as fair as we can here: “Forever Plaid,” with its catalog of great late-’50s pop songs and witty banter, has potential to be a very entertaining show.

In fact, most of us who have seen Utah’s second-favorite (after “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat”) show have seen it done well.

Which is why I’m giving SCERA the benefit of the doubt and assuming its production, which opened a week ago, will get better as it goes.

Saturday’s performance was, to put it bluntly, rather bad. Most of the choreography was off. One of the four singers frequently didn’t know the words, and that syndrome periodically afflicted the entire group.

There was no bass player Saturday night, either, which hurt the musical accompaniment considerably. I’m told there normally is one — but darned if I could find any mention of him in the program, whoever he is. (The pianist/musical director, Jeremy Showgren, is named.)

Those are the things that will almost certainly improve with time. Since the show is running nearly every night of the week, one assumes that by the time you get there (if you go), they’ll have had enough practice to be more sharp and polished.

But even putting those temporary faults aside, the show has problems.

Since the songs are nothing new — “Love is a Many Splendored Thing,” “Sixteen Tons,” “Heart and Soul,” etc. — the show lives and dies by the personality of the four actors who play the Plaids. (They’re a fictional early-’60s harmony group that has come back from the Great Beyond to do the big show they never got to do in life.)

Unfortunately, there is little characterization in the SCERA production, directed by Robinne Booth. Some are better actors than others, but not one seems committed to making his character stand apart from the other three.

All four performers — Mark Pulham, Jonathan Flick, David Whitlock and Tony Cobb — are excellent singers. In its current condition, the show is a good enough nostalgia concert. It needs more personality and zip, though, to make it any better than the other “Forever Plaid” productions the Valley has already seen.

Death of a Salesman

0

It may be that Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” is the greatest American drama ever written. That view is commonly held, anyway, and regardless of which superlatives one chooses to attach to it, it is beyond question a complicated, difficult piece, and any theater attempting it has its work cut out for it.

Little Brown Theatre owner Bill Brown’s eyes may have been bigger than his stomach when he selected the play. Certainly they were when he pegged himself to play Willy Loman, the titular salesman and the American equivalent of Hamlet in terms of complexity.

People have written doctoral theses on this play; I question whether any community theater could pull it off — especially one whose prior “heavy drama” experience begins and ends with “The Diary of Anne Frank.”

But for all the strikes against it, the Little Brown Theatre production of “Death of a Salesman” succeeds more than it fails, and in some ways it succeeds quite admirably. This was a huge piece of meat to bite off; that the production doesn’t choke on it and die is already impressive.

It is set in the year it was written, 1949, when the modern “American dream” was just being shaped and some people were realizing they’d been cheated out of it. Willy Loman is one of those men. A traveling salesman for 36 years, he has lost his touch and lost the respect of his employers and his sons. His behavior is increasingly erratic.

Dane Allred is the director here, and the task seems to have overwhelmed him. He lets actors deliver some lines in a way that is just plain wrong, and the occasional chanting that comes from offstage is an innovation that distracts more than anything. There is a good deal of unmotivated blocking, too — actors walking around for no reason.

Willy is full of contradictions. One moment he says he’s “well-liked”; the next moment, he says, “People don’t take to me.” He could be played as a raving old lunatic or a doddering fool — and both of those would be wrong. He’s a real person, albeit one stretched to the breaking point.

Brown plays him on one note: befuddled. Willy’s anger and frustration come across as mere crankiness. On opening night, Brown had to expend so much effort just to remember his lines that he had little room left to do any acting. In his hands, Willy rages a lot, thrusts his hands in his pocket a lot, and babbles a lot — but he does not penetrate the heart the way a real person would.

Kaye Woodworth, meanwhile, is utterly believable as Willy’s wife, Linda. She is harried and worried, unsure how to help Willy but certain she still loves him. Woodworth provides the show’s emotional center.

Between the sons, Daryl A. Ball has the juicier role, that of former football hero Biff. The angular and all-American-looking Ball is well-cast in the role, and his fiery emotion near the end is a roaring burst of energy.

This production does not penetrate the heart the way it ought to; it may strike audiences as just another drama. But the gold is there, and the good people at the Little Brown Theatre have mined a bit of it — enough to make it a show worth seeing.

Should you go? Everyone should see “Death of a Salesman” sometime; this production is solid enough.

Ask Eric Stuff

0

I see by the old clock on the wall that — hey, who stole the clock?! Man alive!

I see by my watch, then, that it’s time for “Ask Eric Stuff,” an occasional feature where people ask Eric stuff. All of these questions were submitted at [special Daily Herald Web address given] and are answered exclusively by Eric himself, and not by some staff member or secretary, like that lazy old invalid Ann Landers does.

Dear Eric: I don’t really understand the controversy surrounding the electrical power crisis in California. Could you explain that issue a little bit? — Baffled in Boise
Dear Baffled: The problem is simple: There is a finite number of electrons in the world. Or, possibly, there ARE a finite number of electrons in the world. That number is large — somewhere in the thousands — but nonetheless, it is finite. Man, it is so finite you wouldn’t even believe how finite it is. California has long been known as an electron hog, using literally dozens of electrons every day to power its many light bulbs and crack houses. Finally, the state used up everything. Utah has only survived the electron shortage because it had a year’s supply of them stored up in the basement.

Dear Eric: Why can’t people tickle themselves? — Puzzled in Provo
Dear Puzzled: You can’t? You should see a doctor.

Dear Eric: Where do they get the critic quotes that they use in commercials for bad movies? You know, the ones that say “Critics agree, [terrible movie] is ‘the best movie of the year…'” I can see tiny print after the quote which I assume is the source, but my TV is too small to see what it is. — Squintin’ from LaVerkin
Dear Squintin’: One of the problems inherent in a free society is that it allows people to have opinions that are stupid. No matter how awful a movie is, someone will like it. For example, Disney’s live action “102 Dalmatians” was so bad the dogs who appeared in it requested their faces be blurred out to avoid incrimination. Yet, when I posted my negative review of it on the Internet, I received this comment: “I very like 102 Dalmatians!!!!!!!!!!!!!” I’m sure that quote was used in the film’s promotional materials, and the tiny letters you saw after it read: “Monkeys whacking randomly at a computer keyboard.”

Dear Eric: A couple of years ago, BYU’s Daily Universe did an investigation of the Honor Code Office. I don’t know why, but I expected a “60 Minutes”-type exposé on how the office actually handles infractions. In reality, the Universe simply conducted a survey of students’ perceptions of official Honor Code policies. What’s up with that? How does a student survey translate into an Honor Code Office investigation? — Curious Cougar
Dear Curious: It’s possible that a humor column on the subject of unfair Honor Code Office tactics was censored out of the paper by an insane administrator, and doing a half-hearted “investigation” was the concession she made. Then it’s possible that a story describing actual Honor Code Office horror stories was assigned to a student reporter, but he didn’t write it because 1) he was a broadcast student and didn’t care about the newspaper, and 2) he had a large role in BYU’s production of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” and felt that entitled him to slack off on other things. It’s also possible you expected too much from The Daily Universe in the first place.

Dear Eric: When is the right time to have children? –Geoff and Madison
Dear Geoff and Madison: Not right now! Wait until I leave, for crying out loud!

Today’s point to ponder: I cried because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no head.

Memento

0

Mark my words, one of the coolest, most original and all-out best movies of 2001 will be “Memento.”

Wrap your mind around this concept: A man named Leonard (Guy Pearce) saw his wife murdered, and he was hurt by the killer, too. As a result of the injury, he now has no short-term memory. He can recall everything from before the incident — who he is, his married life, his job as an insurance adjustor — but ever since, his mind can’t create new memories. Every 15 minutes or so, his brain erases like an Etch-a-Sketch, and he has to start over.

He’s trying to find his wife’s murderer — no small feat when your memory resets every few minutes. To keep a handle on what’s going on, he’s developed an intricate way of living. He writes a lot of notes to himself, takes Polaroid pictures of everything (so he can remind himself of basic things like what hotel he’s staying in), and the really important things, he has tattooed on his body. Chief among those items are facts he has learned about the killer (part of his name being most important), and a reminder, written across his chest — backwards, so he can read it in the mirror every morning — that “John G. raped and killed my wife.” When he finds John G., he will kill him.

The film opens with a Polaroid picture slowly fading away. Clever, no, as the film is about diminished memories? Yes, but that’s not it. The picture isn’t fading away at all. Instead, we realize we’re watching the scene go backwards: A fully developed photo is slowly un-developing and then being sucked back up into the camera. It’s the first indication of the movie’s true stroke of genius: It’s told in backwards order.

The first scene is of Leonard shooting John G. in the head, having finally reached his goal. The next scene is what happened to Leonard just before that, ending with about the first 15 seconds of the shooting scene. The whole story is told that way, each scene lasting as long as one of Leonard’s memory spans, and each scene ending with a few seconds of overlap to show us how it leads into the thing that happens next (which, of course, we’ve already seen).

Why is this genius? Because it keeps us in the dark almost as much as Leonard. Just like Leonard, we don’t know what happened before; we only know what’s happening now. We have the advantage, though, because we’re able to add all of these scenes together to form a complete story, which Leonard cannot do.

Which is why the film takes such a dark, deliciously creepy turn. Seeing things progress in reverse order, we can see mistakes Leonard made along the way — mistakes Leonard cannot learn from, as he has no hindsight.

The film plays on the basic human element of trust, both in others and in ourselves. Leonard had trusted a guy named Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), who turns out to be the John G. he shoots in that opening scene. He has written on his photo of Teddy, “Don’t believe his lies,” and he lives by that motto throughout. He also trusts a bar waitress named Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss), who has also lost a loved one and will help Leonard out of pity, according to her photo caption.

Ultimately, he’s really only trusting himself. When he learns something important — like not to believe Teddy’s lies, for example — he writes it on the photo. When his memory starts over and he has to look at his notes to figure out what he’s doing, all he can do is trust that he knew what he was talking about when he wrote that.

Director Christopher Nolan exhibits an astounding attention to detail, and a watchful viewer is rewarded enormously. Why does Leonard have a scratch on his cheek? Why does Natalie appear to have been beaten up? Leonard often says he’s not good on the phone — he needs to be able to look at people to tell if they’re lying to him — yet in the ongoing scene that is interwoven as a buffer between all the reverse-order scenes, he is on the phone and speaking freely. It all makes sense; I could find no detail that went unexplained. The construction of the film is as close to perfect as anything I’ve seen.

Do our memories play tricks on us? Do we, at least subconsciously, choose our memories? Would we be better off if we were like Leonard, going only by cold, hard facts and not relying on something so subjective as memory? Fantastically taut, crafty and utterly original, “Memento” answers these questions and asks a thousand more. It’s ironic, given the subject matter, but it’s a film you’ll remember for a long time.

Enemy at the Gates

0

As “Enemy at the Gates” worked toward its finale, I jotted “A-” — the grade I intended to give it — on my notepad. It had its flaws, but was overall a riveting, meticulous war story that gripped its audience and wouldn’t let go.

Then, after the movie should have ended, there was a “two months later” epilogue. Awe-struck at the dreadfully trite ending that was being tacked on, I scribbled out “A-” and wrote “B.” As with many college classes, the final really does count for a big part of this movie’s grade.

It’s not that the ending is a “Sixth Sense”-style twist that changes everything. It’s merely an added plot detail that goes against logic and is overly sentimental. You honestly could walk out before it happens and not lose anything; in fact, I would encourage that. (Then e-mail me, and I’ll tell you what happened.)

Based on a true story, “Enemy at the Gates” takes place in the fall of 1942, with Stalingrad holding out as Russia’s last hope against the Nazis. Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), a farm boy from the Urals, emerges as Russia’s finest sharp-shooter, able to lie motionless for hours at a time, fixed on a target until an opportunity to strike arrives. He never misses, and he never just wounds anyone.

Russian political officer Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) knows that the soldiers, who are being mowed down by the Germans at an alarming rate, need someone to fix their hopes on; Vassili can be the one.

Soon Vassili is a celebrity whom peasants pray for, and the number of German officers he’s killed is updated daily in the newspapers. He is, it seems, winning the war single-handedly — or at least keeping Stalingrad out of the Nazis’ hands a bit longer.

This draws the attention of the Germans, who send their best sniper, Major Konig (Ed Harris), to Stalingrad to stop him. The result is a series of duels, with each man knowing the other is somewhere nearby, waiting for his shot. Konig will hole up in a bombed-out department store while Vassili lies camouflaged in the rubble outside. Neither one breathes or moves. They wait. They try to trick each other. It is incredibly suspenseful.

Director Jean-Jacques Annaud has an unwavering eye for detail (in the action, anyway; I can’t speak to the accuracy of Stalingrad geography or historical facts, both of which are irrelevant). Sunlight streams in through what used to be a factory wall, clearly marking death if Vassili or his partner (Ron Perlman) steps in front of it. Broken glass shows Vassili’s reflection to Konig. Dozens of Russians are slaughtered in a percussive “Saving Private Ryan”-inspired opening sequence on the Volga River, vividly playing up the contrast between deafening mass destruction and Vassili’s silent one-on-one warring. There are many point-of-view shots and close-ups that draw a viewer in without drawing attention to the director.

Then there’s the unnecessary romance that almost botches the whole thing up. Tania (Rachel Weisz) is a die-hard soldier whom Danilov falls in love with. His love is unrequited, though, as she is more interested (as is the whole country) in Vassili. Vassili soon returns her affections, and next thing you know they’re having discreet, silent sex while their fellow soldiers lie sleeping all around them.

Talk about your tacked-on subplots! You could literally cut out every scene with Tania and not hurt the movie; in fact, you’d help it significantly. The romance is not convincing enough to be moving. It only distracts.

Fiennes’s final-moments diatribe against communism is unnecessary, too. Look, guys, just because the Russians are the good guys here doesn’t mean you’re promoting communism. No one was going to accuse you of that.

Law’s performance is powerful, though Harris’s steely-eyed (but friendly-looking) glare makes him a mite better. Fiennes, too, is good in a thankless role, and Bob Hoskins growls enjoyably as Nikita Khruschev.

When you see the words “Two Months Later” appear on the screen, be courageous and walk out. The movie will resonate more and affect you more deeply leaving things as they are.

Exit Wounds

0

“Exit Wounds” stars Steven Seagal as a rogue cop who gets sent to a tough Detroit precinct as punishment for his unorthodox crime-fighting methods. If you do not like Steven Seagal movies, there is no reason why you’d like this one.

But for the sake of accuracy, here are some of the many cop-movie clichés utilized in “Exit Wounds.”

• There’s a rogue cop who gets sent to a tough Detroit precinct as punishment for his unorthodox crime-fighting methods.
• He has a fat, blustery boss who says stuff along the lines of “You’re a loose cannon!”
• When he gets to the new precinct, he bad-mouths the commanding officer to a woman he meets in the hall, only to find out SHE’S the commanding officer!
• There’s lots of slow-motion and, it probably doesn’t need to be stated, lots of punching, kicking, explosions and shootings.
• The main character keeps inadvertently walking right into drug busts, robberies, etc., allowing him the chance to take on several bad guys at once without back-up.
• The bad guys own a strip club, at which there are several gratuitous scenes.
• Someone made a promise to his father before he died.
• There’s a crazy car chase that turns into a motorcycle chase in which every law, including the law of gravity, is broken.
• There are bad cops who are involved in a huge drug ring.
• Rap music plays on the soundtrack whenever a black character appears.

Seagal’s character, Orin Boyd, is up against one Latrell Walker (DMX), a powerful drug lord who seems to be involved with some dirty cops, too. The plot line involving this drug ring does not emerge until 45 minutes into the film. Before that, there’s the opening sequence in which Boyd’s unusual tactics save lives and get him in trouble, plus a scene at an anger-management class (which also has Tom Arnold as a trash-TV host).

There is some attempted comic relief with that anger-management thing, along with Anthony Anderson as Latrell Walker’s fat sidekick. But mostly it’s run-of-the-mill action-movie fodder. It’s not unbearably stupid like some entries in the genre, but neither is it the least bit original or inventive. It is exactly what you’d expect. Whether that’s good or bad depends on your mood, I guess.

Las Craiges

0

I recently visited my friends Ken and Katie Craig. They used to live in Provo, but that’s no place to raise a family, so they moved to Las Vegas.

The purpose of my trip was to get away from the stresses that beset me in Provo, not the least of which is the guy at the front of Sam’s Club who wants to see my membership card before I’m even allowed in the store. (What, it’s Area 51 all of a sudden?) But it was also because I wanted to see Ken and Katie’s two adorable children, Abbie and Garren. Garren is 18 months old and understands English but doesn’t speak it, like Harpo Marx. Abbie is 3 years old and never stops talking, like a teenage girl in a movie theater. Both are supernaturally cute. Aggressively cute. Horrifically cute. They’re the cutest kids in the world. I don’t care how cute your kids are, they’re disgusting trolls next to Abbie and Garren. You just want to fry them up in a batter and eat them, they’re so cute.

Speaking of eating, one of the major things we did in Vegas was eat. The first night I was there, we left the kids with a babysitter and went to an Italian place called Buca di Beppo. They translate this as Joe’s Basement, though my research assistant/consultant/fashion adviser Josh, who speaks Italian, says another accurate translation would be Joe’s Hole, though I doubt you’d get many people eating there if they called it that.

Anyway, despite having a reservation, we still had a hard time getting into Joe’s Hole. Given the option of smoking, non-smoking or “first available,” we realized we’d be seated faster with first-available. Everyone in Las Vegas smokes, as part of the Nevada Foul Air Act, and what better way to enhance a meal than to cover it with the stench of tobacco? (I don’t understand smokers, but I know one of them is going to tell me now that from a culinary standpoint, it’s no different from drowning your food in ketchup. To which I respond, “OK. Would you mind putting out that ketchup bottle?”)

But as I was saying, Buca di Beppo is a traditional Italian restaurant. The entrees are served “family-style,” which means you have to fight over them. I enjoyed the buca, but I’ve had better beppo.

After evacuating Joe’s Hole, we saw the Blue Man Group. This is where a group of men who are painted blue do stuff. I can’t really explain what they do. Just, you know, stuff. Like this bit where it looks like regurgitated Twinkies are oozing through holes in their chests. The show costs $70, despite Las Vegas’s reputation for being an affordable, tourist-friendly town. (I’ll say this much for Vegas, anyway: It’s well-lit.)

The only gambling we did was was that Ken and Katie hired a babysitter they’d never used before. Imagine our surprise when we returned home after a night of beppo and blue men to find out she had fried Abbie and Garren in a batter and eaten them! No, I kid. The children had been neither fried nor eaten. The babysitter reported, however, that Garren had been crying for a long time and she couldn’t figure out why. She finally called her mom, who didn’t exactly have powers, over the phone, to make a baby stop crying. The babysitter, at the end of her wits (it was a short trip), finally gave Garren some milk. This made him stop crying, because his whole problem all along had been that he was hungry. She’s a genius, this girl! Get her a job at the front of Sam’s Club.

Barefoot in the Park

0

The trials of married life once the honeymoon is over are the focus of “Barefoot in the Park,” now in production at the Little London Dinner Theater.

Corie Bratter (Amie Robin) is the romantic, idealistic young bride who truly believes, as a wise poet once said, that love is all you need. Her lawyer husband Paul (Paul “Wally” Walstad) is more realistic and perhaps a bit stuffy (though I can’t say that trait comes out much in this production).

Paul is less than thrilled with Corie’s choice in apartments, a tiny fifth-floor flat with a hole in the roof and, apparently, no refrigerator.

Their upstairs neighbor, eccentric older man Victor Velasco (Rodney Elwood, also director), makes Paul even more uncomfortable. Corie finds him a charming kindred spirit, though, and conspires to set him up with her own weary old mother (Lesli Manning).

It all falls apart one night when Corie invites them both to dinner and the foursome winds up at an exotic ethnic restaurant miles out of town. Back at the apartment afterward, Paul is furious with Corie for being so irresponsible, and Corie is mad at Paul for, um, not being just like her.

The play is written so that, just as in real life, there is room for compromise. Paul maybe could lighten up a bit, and Corie should probably quit being such a kid.

In this production, though, there’s no give-and-take: Corie is absurdly immature, screaming a hysterical “I hate you!” and demanding a divorce at the slightest provocation. The question is not how two people with such differences ever got married, but rather how Paul will ever put up with a lifetime of this.

This is a Neil Simon comedy, which means everyone’s a wiseguy and most of the jokes are sitcom-standard. That said, it’s a funny production, with Walstad and Robin playing nicely off each other, particularly in their fight scenes. Manning is also pleasantly funny as Corie’s mother. Elwood’s delivery is a little off, though: Most of Victor’s lines are meant to be Victor making jokes, yet he never sounds like he’s joking.

Neil Simon fans should find the show entertaining, and newlyweds will no doubt smile knowingly at the little things that become so important when a couple begins a new life together.

Indiana Bones: The Lost City or Safari So Good

0

Desert Star Playhouse’s Indiana Jones spoof is just how audiences like things at the family-friendly parody factory: reliably zany and self-consciously ridiculous.

Long-time DSP conspirator Jack Drayton is excellent as Indiana Bones, the rough-shaven archeologist who is using a map and a stone to find an ancient temple. Drayton looks and sounds like an old-fashioned leading man — which makes it even funnier when, for example, he must provide his own echoes while shouting into a ravine. (His fast little grapevine dance during one of the musical numbers is also a stitch.)

Joining Indiana on his search and becoming his love interest is Cynthia Sydney (Holly Braithwaite), who is in the jungle searching for her missing father, Prof. Sydney (Ed Farnsworth). Cynthia has two folks accompanying her. First is her fiance, the extremely nerdy Oswald Banning III (Scott Holman, also director), who is destined to be dumped when Cynthia falls for Indiana instead. Fortunately, a gal named Ruby (Arika Schockmel) is along, too, whom Oswald can easily wind up with.

The bad guys are Hitler lookalike Herr Lipman (Matt Kohler) and his henchman Raboul (Christopher Glade). They want to get to the temple first and do bad stuff and blah blah blah.

Perhaps in keeping with the time frame of the Indiana Jones movies, and perhaps coincidentally, most of the songs in this show borrow tunes from ’40s-era numbers. One of the best is “You and the Night and Mosquitoes,” sung torchily by Ruby and Oswald (yes, there’s a JFK joke there) in tango-style as they slap mosquito bites on themselves and each other to provide the appropriate percussion.

Also noteworthy if just for its sheer irrelevance is Raboul’s “Thank Heaven for Little Spiders.”

The show has one of the most prolonged finales I’ve seen, but aside from that comes off very well. The local “jokes” (the quote marks are because merely saying the word “Provo” is more of a reference than a joke, though that doesn’t stop the audience from hooting) are kept to a minimum, and the few that are used generally are funny.

Everything as a whole is extremely funny, in fact. It’s another hit for this very reliable theater.

The Dish

0

Unknown to most people, the tiny Australian hamlet of Parkes played a significant role in the 1969 moon landing. Parkes, you see, was home to the largest radio telescope in the southern hemisphere, and one of the most powerful in the world. NASA could communicate with Apollo 11 when the U.S. side of the Earth was facing the moon; they needed Australia to help out the other half of the time.

That’s the basis for “The Dish,” a charmingly old-fashioned film that follows the true-life story of Parkes and its huge radio telescope.

Sam Neill is Cliff Buxton, the man in charge of operations at the dish. His right-hand men are argumentative Mitch (Kevin Harrington) and simple-minded young Glenn (Tom Long). NASA sends one of its own guys, Al Burnett (Patrick Warburton), to supervise thinks, which rankles Mitch despite Cliff’s insistence Al is just doing his job and doesn’t mean to be so uptight.

The town, needless to say, is agog over its involvement with the moon landing. Mayor Bob McIntyre (Roy Billing) leads everyone in civic pride, while shmoozing a U.S. ambassador (John McMartin) and waiting for a visit from the prime minister (Bille Brown).

The film has only two real conflicts, plot-wise. First, a power outage causes the Australians to lose contact with Apollo 11 during the time they’re supposed to be babysitting it. Second, high winds threaten to topple the massive telescope during the actual moon walk.

It is somewhat disappointing that nothing more than that occurs, and that these complications are handled without ever becoming real nail-biters; it’s almost as if they go on in the background, with the mildly nutty Parkes characters taking center stage. From a historical standpoint, if there were no serious dramas, I’m glad the filmmakers didn’t make some up; from an audience standpoint, if there were no serious dramas, then why make a movie about it?

Here’s why: The characters. Movies like “Waking Ned Devine,” “Saving Grace” and the recent “Chocolat” threaten to make us grow tired of small-town characters in non-American settings, but their welcome has not been worn out quite yet. The folks in Parkes are daft but not crazy; endearing but not pitiable.

The movie, more quaint than funny, celebrates old-fashioned values and patriotism. There is no sex or nudity — in fact, there’s nothing even close to it. Stammering Glenn tries to work up the guts to ask pretty Janine (Eliza Szonert) on a date, and an eager neighbor boy keeps pestering the mayor’s daughter. That’s as far as it goes. You’d expect either couple to walk to the soda fountain and have a malt, then maybe sit on a porch swing for a few hours.

That attitude blends nicely with the moon landing itself, which of course is one of the greatest symbols we have of old-fashioned achievement, courage and strength. Director Rob Sitch wisely lets the moon walk speak for itself, showing the actual footage and audio feed with very little creative embellishment. It is in those final moments, when the goal is met and all the world swells with pride, that “The Dish” makes up for its previous dalliances and shortcomings. Re-living that experience — or seeing it for the first time — is enough to make anyone’s spirits soar. And a movie that makes your spirits soar is a good movie.

A Tiffany Epiphany

0

I went to see Tiffany in concert at the BYU on Monday for the same reason I would go to a traveling freak show: It may be unsettling to watch, but I’m curious to see if anyone has two heads.

OK, maybe not exactly the same reason. My point is, I’m not exactly a huge Tiffany fan, and I’m not convinced anyone really is. After it was announced she would be performing on campus, I casually polled every single person I know, and no one could remember anything she sang other than 1987’s “I Think We’re Alone Now,” which was actually a remake, which means technically, she didn’t have ANY hits. (Several people tried to say she sang “Lost in Your Eyes,” but in fact that was Debbie Gibson — the Britney Spears to Tiffany’s Christina Aguilera.)

I was curious whether this “comeback” tour, in which she’s performing at colleges all over the United States, would be embarrassing. I suspected it would be. It seemed like people attending the concert would be doing so to watch an ’80s has-been try to regain her former popularity, which was dubious in the first place.

(Free joke you can tell your friends: What did Tiffany say to the bank officer after her popularity faded? “I think I need a loan now.”) (I didn’t say it was a good joke. What do you want for free?)

Upon arriving at the BYU, I was not surprised to find literally thousands of people there, clamoring around the outdoor stage, “clamor” being one of the few verbs permitted under the Honor Code. I figured a dozen or so were actual fans, and the rest were there for the camp value, like I was.

A BYU representative stepped forward to announce Tiffany, and everyone got real loud and excited. Then they had to shut up because, in BYU’s typically surreal juxtaposition of sacred and secular, someone had to offer a prayer. (“Please help Tiffany to rock” is something the person offering the prayer did not say.)

It was important that a prayer be offered so that Tiffany could be properly inspired when she sang: “Then you put your arms around me/And we tumble to the ground/And then you say/I think we’re alone now.” (Also: “Look at the way/We gotta hide what we’re doing.”)

After the crowd yelled a thundering “amen,” Tiffany came onstage. She sang a lot of her new songs, which all sounded about the same. Her guitarist was hopping around like he was a superstar. My friend Reyna pointed out to me the sadness inherent in this situation, as here was a guy who was not even a former pop star; he was a former pop star’s guitarist. (Reyna also suggested we start the rumor that the reason Tiffany performed at BYU is that she’s a Mormon now. So consider the rumor officially begun!)

After a while, I realized something strange: I graduated from this university years ago, yet here I was, standing on campus like a student and listening to Tiffany. Not one detail of this scenario made any sense. Next thing you know, I’ll be wearing socks with sandals and proposing marriage to girls I’ve just met.

Then I realized something else. Though I had come to the concert to mock Tiffany, I was actually enjoying myself. Tiffany was rocking, to the extent that Tiffany can rock. I didn’t care a lot for her new songs, but then, I didn’t care a lot for her old song(s), either.

You have to respect someone who has the courage to stage a comeback. Many have tried and failed. Take Donny Osmond, for example. He spent most of the ’80s in oblivion, then tried a comeback in 1989 with “Soldier of Love.” Do you remember this song? Of course you don’t. The song stunk, and his comeback didn’t work. But he reappeared a few years later, this time acting out characters from Bible stories, and he was a star again. Then he did that dreadful talk show with his sister, What’s-Her-Face, and lost a few points. But the net result is that he’s a big deal again, and he has fans everywhere, all the way from Logan to St. George.

Others have not been so lucky. Huey Lewis, Vanilla Ice and cocaine all tried comebacks, but to no avail. I don’t know whether Tiffany will fare any better, but one thing’s for certain: She’s a Mormon now. Spread the word!

The King and I

0

“The King and I” isn’t exactly a rootin’-tootin’ sort of musical anyway — it does end with a major character’s death, you’ll recall — but the slow pace of the SCERA production makes it seem particularly dismal.

More energy is called for, as well as a better memorization of the dialogue and just a general picking up of the pace. Often, there is too much pause between the end of one person’s line and the start of the next person’s. We’re talking about halves of seconds here, but the overall impact is one of stony silence.

Two scenes do stand out as very charming, however. One is near the end of the first act, when the king wants Anna’s advice but his pride won’t allow him to ask for it. The coy interplay between the actors, Lyle Mortimer and Karlene Young, is believable and engaging, and those traits are mirrored in the other noteworthy scene, which is when Anna teaches the king to dance.

Young has a beautiful, lilting voice and she handles all of Anna’s songs with perfect grace. Mortimer’s voice is good, too, and he remains in character while using it — vital in his soliloquy songs like “A Puzzlement.”

I was also touched by Nannette Wiggins’ sincere performance of “Something Wonderful,” in which Lady Thiang pleads with Anna to help the king.

The show’s subplot, involving secret lovers Lun Tha and Tuptim, is problematic. The actors are Victor Camacho and Lindsay Dodge, and Camacho looks to be about 20 years older. Not only does this lend an air of creepiness to a relationship that should be young and reckless, but it also ruins any chance there may have been of onstage chemistry. The Lun Tha/Tuptim scenes, though certainly acted with earnestness, add almost nothing to the show.

The director is Robinne Booth, who corralled a large number of cute kids into behaving properly. The costumes, credited to Lori McClure, are gorgeous. Leslea Osborne’s choreography is serviceable, particularly in that strange “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” interpretive dance number.

I question the use of so much bronze body makeup, since by the end of the show most of it has rubbed off and the people of Siam look to be victims of a strange skin condition. But what’s a little jaundice among friends, right?

Should you go? If “The King and I” is a sentimental favorite for you, this production may tide you over. Otherwise, it is rather flat.

15 Minutes

0

“15 Minutes” is an ugly, depraved movie that is not so much an indictment of American celebrity culture as it is a worthless pile of trash.

It is not without irony that the film starts out like a joke, since that’s what it turns into: A Russian and Czech sneak into America. They just got out of prison for robbery and are looking for a friend of theirs in New York City who should have their share of the money. Alas, said friend has spent said money, so the Czech (Karl Roden) stabs him and his girlfriend to death and sets the place on fire. The Russian (Oleg Taktarov), who has a fascination with American movies, has stolen a camcorder and films the whole thing.

After the post-murder fire, arson investigator Jordy Warsaw (Edward Burns) shows up and bumps into homicide detective Eddie Flemming (Robert De Niro). The two have no reason to be working together, yet they do; Jordy’s interest in police work goes unexplained. For whatever reason, though, they become buddies, kind of, and work together, more or less, when the two Europeans kill a hooker in a hotel room.

It should be noted that the hard-drinkin’ Eddie is a local celebrity, due to his frequent cooperation with tabloid TV host Robert Hawkins (Kelsey Grammer). He’s also about to propose marriage to legitimate newswoman Nicolette (Melina Kanakaredes).

But back to the main story, which is that the mean Czech guy has watched enough daytime TV between killings to hatch a plan: He and the Russian will videotape everything they do, get caught, plead insanity, go to a mental institution instead of prison, overcome their faked insanity, sell the movie rights, and become millionaires.

Never mind the millions of holes in that scheme; the movie wants us to take it as a satire of the way we Americans always turn our culprits into victims. But “15 Minutes” is no parody. It barely has a sense of humor at all, let alone one sly enough to pull off a dark, ironic theme like that. No, in this movie everyone is obsessed with getting their 15 minutes of fame, but not in a parodical way. Just a cynical one.

It gets more ludicrous as it goes, leading up to a finale that includes hostage-taking, reappearances of old characters and unconsequenced gunfire. I wouldn’t have been surprised if a truckload of monkeys had overturned in the midst of the brouhaha, so fractured and crazy was the scene already. (“Sure,” I would have thought. “Why not monkeys?”) I’ll give the movie this, anyway: At least it’s not boring.

De Niro and Burns are good actors (better than the insipid Euro-trash who play the Euro-trash, anyway). They clearly are taking their work here seriously, which is a shame. With the right direction and a more structured screenplay (both are the fault of John Herzfeld), “15 Minutes” could have been a marvelously thought-provoking satire. Instead, it’s just vile.

Get Over It

0

While it clings too tightly to the now-standard gross-out mentality of teen films, “Get Over It” manages some originality and wit, too, in its story of a boy who gets dumped and the girl he falls for instead.

Berke (Ben Foster) is the average, slightly bookish high-schooler whose girlfriend Allison (Melissa Sagemiller) dumps him suddenly and without provocation. She doesn’t have another beau in mind; she’s just bored and wants to move on.

Berke, however, does not want to move on. When he sees Allison getting cozy with Striker (Shane West), the boy-band singer who has just moved into their school after touring the world with the Swingtown Lads, he becomes desperate to win her back. Since Allison and Striker (the “Backstreet B****,” Berke calls him) are both auditioning for the school’s Shakespeare play, he decides to audition, too.

He doesn’t have a clue about Shakespeare, though, so he gets help from Kelly (Kirsten Dunst), the year-younger sister of his best friend Felix (Colin West). Felix doesn’t like the idea of anyone having the hots for his sister, so he watches the situation carefully — but despite Kelly’s increasing attraction to her brother’s friend, Berke shows no interest in her. He just wants Allison back.

The school play is “A Midsummer Night’s Rockin’ Eve,” which is an awful musical version of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” penned by the school’s starry-eyed drama teacher, Dr. Desmond Forrest-Oates (Martin Short; think Corky St. Clair in “Waiting for Guffman”). Explanations of the play’s plot let the layperson understand that its romantic entanglements closely resemble the Allison/Striker/Berke/Kelly situation. Berke, who can’t sing (his audition consists of him butchering the jingle from the Big Red chewing gum commercials), gets a minor role, but since this is a movie that revels in its own predictability, you know it’s only a matter of time before one of the leads drops out and Berke has to take his place.

Director Tommy O’Haver has a highly visual style that leads to several amusing moments. A long tracking shot of a just-dumped Berke walking down the street as townspeople join in a well-choreographed dance number set to Captain & Tennille’s “Love Will Keep Us Together” suggests a more ambitious attitude than most films of this genre are afforded.

The film’s music should be noted, too. (Yes, one-hit wonder Sisqo has a role as one of Berke’s friends, and sings the film’s closing-credits number with Vitamin C. But we’re not mentioning that, because it’s irrelevant.) The songs in “A Midsummer Night’s Rockin’ Eve,” written by “South Park’s” Marc Shaiman, are quite funny, ranging in style from a “Grease”-like opening number to a boy-band-inspired ode to the play’s beauteous Hermia.

Where the film suffers is in its insistence on being crude. Someone vomits into the punch bowl at a party, which is bad enough, but then someone has to accidentally drink it, too. An over-sexed dog keep turning up as well. A scene at a strip club is the most egregious, though, as it commits the heinous crime of not being funny.

No one’s saying “Get Over It” is any great stroke of genius, and it’s nowhere near as sassy or clever as the best teen films. But for what it is, it’s extremely funny.

There’s a Placenta for Us

0

I saw a hair-care product whose two main ingredients were henna and placenta. The name of this product: Henna ‘n’ Placenta. Obviously, originality was not a strong suit here.

Please note that the product is not called Henna and Placenta; it is called Henna ‘n’ Placenta. The ‘n’ gives it a much more informal feel, like a ’60s folk duo (“I’m Henna…” “…and I’m Placenta…” “…and we’re Henna ‘n’ Placenta!”). Why you would want to put a placenta in your hair is beyond me, but I’m glad the marketing department didn’t try to hide it from the consumer, which is what I would have done. I would have called it Henna ‘n’ Stuff, or I Can’t Believe It’s Not Placenta.

I wanted to know more about Henna ‘n’ Placenta, so I consulted our friend the Internet. The first logical step was to visit a beauty or hair-care chat room and ask the gals there what women might use Henna ‘n’ Placenta for. (I’m assuming it is not a men’s product. No man I know would put anything in his hair that came from a uterus.) (Well, unless a woman told him to.) I was also curious to know why the company didn’t call it Placenta ‘n’ Henna, like how Kraft used to call their macaroni and cheese, Cheese & Macaroni (“It’s the placenta-iest!”).

But Yahoo! (enthusiasm theirs) doesn’t have any beauty chat rooms. I could infer from this that people who spend time in chat rooms have no use for beauty tips, but I won’t. Anyway, instead I went to a German-language room, not because I speak German, but because I was writing a humor column, and I consider German a funny language. (It’s a good thing World War II ended the way it did. If I were speaking German now, I’d never stop giggling.) At the German chat room, I found this exchange, reprinted here verbatim:

candy4you_00: bin gegangen Uteeeeeeeeeeeee kurz nach dir
donnie_s_2001: JA DAS BIN ICH MIMITITTI
teufelchen_aus_hb: ja mill wo isser denn
jutze: als blumenarragnement
candy4you_00: lol ute
oregonsnow: haste ihn alleine gelassen?
teufelchen_aus_hb: und hanky hast du eine bessere idee
mahee_m: cool

I also noticed a person with the screen name “chrissy_luvs_da_wiggle,” which amused me but didn’t provide any answers. If someone’s name had been “chrissy_luvs_da_henna_’n’_placenta,” well, then we’d have been in business.

Undaunted, I continued my quest. Through the use of a search engine, I found Folica.com: “The Hair Market.” From this site, you can buy all manner of hair-related products, including one that contains ONLY placenta. This leads me to believe henna wasn’t all that useful anyway, like the two guys who hung on Sting like barnacles when he was in the Police.

The site gives this description of placenta: “The most powerful natural protein for the hair instantly restores life and luster to day brittle hair.” I don’t know what “day brittle hair” is, unless they meant “DRY, brittle hair.” Whatever the case, I finally learned why you would smear placenta on your head: It has proteins, and you’re crazy. Hast du eine bessere idee? Cool.

Blow Dry

0

“Blow Dry” makes me sigh wearily. Movies about quirky small-village folks in the British Isles have already reached their zenith of effectiveness — “Waking Ned Devine” and “Saving Grace” being two fine examples — and are now on the downturn. “You-can-do-it” comedies like “The Full Monty” and “Billy Elliot” have displayed profundity and exuberance.

So what’s left? “Blow Dry,” which has characters who are only mildly quirky and whose dreams in life are not especially inspiring or funny. Put bluntly, “Blow Dry” blows.

Predictable and bland, the film tells of a little town that gets to host the annual British hairdressing competition. No one’s very excited except for the mayor, until a local quasi-salon (their main activity is trimming the pates of dead people before their funerals) decides to enter the contest. Now there’s a local team to root for! Hurrah!

Except it’s not much of a team. There’s a hairdresser named Phil (Alan Rickman) whose son Brian (Josh Hartnett) is learning the family trade while having the hots for Christina (Rachel Leigh Cook), who is the daughter of the snively competition (Bill Nighy). Then there’s Phil’s ex-wife Shelley (Natasha Richardson), who left Phil to become a lesbian and live with Sandra (Rachel Griffiths) and who is now dying of cancer.

This rag-tag group has to come together if their town is to earn its notoriety, and Phil’s ex-wife’s lover must become his hair model in the contest. You can imagine where it goes from there, and you’d probably be right on every count.

“Blow Dry” has amusing moments, particularly with a campy Bill Nighy as the bad guy. Richardson’s illness stuff is just maudlin, though, and any film that is this unsure of its own attitude — comedy? drama? something else? — is bound to get awkward.

The script is by Simon Beaufoy, who also wrote “The Full Monty.” Lightning may strike again for him, but this one is a miss.

Our Towns

0

So what’s happening in Our Towns this week? A better question would be, what ISN’T happening in Our Towns this week! No, sorry, that would actually be a worse question.

You’ve seen his face, but you probably never knew his name. LaGrese Bingham is the sprightly senior citizen who has spent every day for the past 30 years peering under the ladies’ fitting room doors at ZCMI.

He’s a fixture in the community, and we’re sorry to announce today will be his last day “on the job,” so to speak. Do you know, in all those 30 years, he’s never missed a day? “I enjoy looking at the ladies’ underthings too much,” said the cute old fellow, who hails from Lamanville.

Have a great retirement, LaGrese! Every time we feel creepy, we’ll think of you!

Got a phone call the other day from SinDee Jeppesen, who told me the unusual spelling of her first name was the result of her mother’s learning disability. Anyway, she was calling to tell me that her aunt, Maverglenn Baird of Beaver Fork, is turning 100 years old today. Congratulations, Aunt Maverglenn!

Aunt Maverglenn sounds like a remarkable woman. She was born and raised in a ditch in Muleton, and never even learned to drive — according to her niece, Maverglenn “didn’t trust machines, seein’ as how they have the devil in ’em.” A faithful churchgoer, Maverglenn was always the hit of the ward socials with her famous Chocolate Liver Pie.

Alas, age has taken its toll on Aunt Maverglenn. She stopped wearing clothes in 1962, and hasn’t been able to breathe on her own since the late ’70s. Clinically, this feisty old gal may have died decades ago, but you wouldn’t know it from seeing her out digging in the garden every morning! Let’s hear it for our beloved senior citizens!

Are you with me, that the past tense of “sneeze” should be “snoze”? That would sure be a hoot, wouldn’t it? What a confusing language we speak! No wonder all those foreigners refuse to learn it!

If you want a real tear-jerker, find yourself a copy of LyniMar Peterson’s “Pioneers to Glory Volume 1: Why Won’t My Feet Stop Bleeding?” Peterson is a local author, from right here in Orvo, and this is the first part in a series of historical novels in which a fictitious family — the Smiths — joins the real-life Mormon pioneers of 1847.

In the first book, Bob Smith and his family meet none other than Brigham Young! And I don’t want to give anything away, but let’s just say that by the end of the book, several of Bob Smith’s unmarried daughters are a little less unmarried, if you know what I mean! By which I mean, Brigham Young marries them. I can’t wait for volume 2, which LyniMar tells me will be called, “This is the Place … for Love.”

Finally, a tip of the ol’ Our Towns hat to little McKay Spencer Rowley, who has earned his Eagle Scout award at the early age of 4! His proud momma, LaVerDelLynTee Rowley, calls McKay “a scouting prodigy,” and claims he was already tying knots when he came shooting out of the womb like an illegally weighted pinewood-derby car.

“I didn’t force him into it at all,” Mrs. Rowley said. “It was his idea to get all 413 merit badges before he started kindergarten.” Then she added: “McKay, Momma needs a Fresca.”

Congrats to the Rowleys for their accomplishment! Between them and the chemicals in the water, we’re sure we never want to leave Our Towns!

The Taste of Sunrise

0

“The Taste of Sunrise” is produced by BYU’s Young Company, which means they perform it various schools and take only a couple weeks off to do it at BYU.

Instead of doing a “children’s” show, though, like “The Cat in the Hat” or “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat,” they do things like 1999’s “Yellow Boat,” about a boy with AIDS, or 2000’s “Goodbye, Marianne,” about Jewish children living in Nazi Germany.

“The Taste of Sunrise” is not quite so heady, though it’s every bit as intelligent and mature — a classic example of speaking to children without pandering to them. It’s about a deaf farm boy named Tuc (Daniel Payne, who is deaf) who has been without hearing since scarlet fever struck him as an infant. His devoted father (Tyler Weston) cares for him, and they communicate well enough — “father talk,” Tuc calls it. He is happy.

Then Tuc’s dad hears about a school for the deaf where they can teach Tuc to read lips and even speak. This being the 1920s, folks believe that’s all it takes to assimilate deaf people into society. Tuc’s dad thinks such a thing would be “miraculous.”

At the school, sign language is forbidden. The stern headmistress, Dr. Mann (Laura Aldrich), says it ruins the children’s chances of learning to speak and read lips. The kids sign to each other, though, as does a sassy young girl named Maizie (Rachel Lynne Terry), who helps around the school while taking care of her parents, who are deaf.

When Tuc goes home to visit, his dad expects him to be reading lips. He seems to be able to — but he wants to sign, not talk. Maizie, meanwhile, having been raised by deaf parents in a hearing world, feels torn in half by the conflicting cultures.

The supporting characters, when not speaking onstage, shadow whoever is and provide sign-language translation for them — or, if they’re shadowing someone speaking in sign language, they act as voices for them. There are some intense moments where the conversation is chaotic, and it’s doubled by having another set of actors behind them speaking and signing right along with them. It’s fantastic.

This is almost entirely, from beginning to end, an extraordinarily beautiful play. Children and adults alike will be utterly enchanted by it.

At its best, theater is like sign language in that it communicates to people in ways that transcend words. Theater has spoken dialogue, of course, just as signs have specific meanings. But it’s the movements, the music, the gestures, the facial expressions, the delivery, that truly communicate to an audience. “The Taste of Sunrise” says that it doesn’t matter how you express yourself. What matters is that you do express yourself, and that someone understands you.

See Spot Run

0

From 1-800-CALL-ATT commercials to feature films, dunder-headed monkey boy David Arquette has been annoying in everything he’s appeared in. The only exception is the “Scream” trilogy. What can we learn from that? David Arquette is a moderately talented physical comedian who must be given good material in order to turn in a good performance.

“See Spot Run” does not provide good material. “See Spot Run” exists entirely at crotch level, using everything from flatulence (six times, including one incident of flammable zebra toots) to groin injuries to produce humor. The results are abysmal.

Arquette plays Gordon, a hapless mail carrier who hates dogs, probably because mailmen in cartoons always hate dogs. He’s an irresponsible moron with a jive-talking best friend named Benny (Anthony Anderson) and a hot neighbor named Stephanie (Leslie Bibb).

Stephanie wants nothing to do with Gordon, and rightly so. Her little boy, chubby-cheeked James (Angus T. Jones) sorta likes him, though. So when Stephanie has to leave town on business and her baby-sitter falls through, it’s OK for Gordon to watch the little tyke overnight.

Meanwhile, in a different movie, a mob boss (Paul Sorvino) is brought down by an FBI canine agent, who bites off the mobster’s testicle. (That word and its variants are avoided — it’s a kids’ movie, allegedly — but there’s no mistaking what happened.) The mobster swears revenge and orders his two goons to kill the dog. The dog, Agent 11, is put in the Witness Relocation Program but accidentally escapes and winds up in the hands of Gordon and James.

There is some goofy comic possibility in a dog going into hiding, as well as with his human partner’s (Michael Clarke Duncan) over-attachment to him. Anthony Anderson earns a few laughs, too, as Gordon’s pal. And both the dog and the kid out-act Arquette and have their moments of genuine charm.

That is the extent of the good things I have to say about “See Spot Run.”

To target kids with a film that is utterly inappropriate for them takes a lot of nerve. No, there’s not any swearing to speak of, and no sex or nudity. (Arquette winds up pants-less in one scene, but pulls his shirt down to cover himself, thank Allah.) Does that mean it’s OK for kids? No, no, a thousand times no!

The dog poop scene alone should have earned a PG-13 rating. In it, Gordon takes the dog outside for a squat on the lawn, then gets locked out of his apartment building. He accidentally steps in the stuff several times (this is a man dumb enough to deserve whatever he gets), then climbs up a water spout, then falls into the stuff again and gets it all over himself. His boxers get torn off during all this, too. Brown smears are all over his hands and back. It’s disgusting and — even worse — the polar opposite of funny.

Then there’s the testicle-biting, which happens twice in the film. Again, no words are used, and we don’t see it graphically. But is it funny for a dog to emasculate a gangster? Well, yeah, sort of. But not in a kids’ movie!

Leaving aside the constant crudeness, this is a bad movie anyway. Adults, who I guess are old enough to watch fat men flatulate as they break-dance, can’t possibly get much enjoyment out of the predictable, over-done antics of Arquette and company. And though kids might laugh at everything, you still shouldn’t take them to it.

The Mexican

0

¡”El Mexicano,” con Julia Roberts y Brad Pitt, es muy bueno!

That’s all the Spanish I know, and I’m not sure on some of it. But “The Mexican” is a delightfully original film whose tone lies somewhere between “Pulp Fiction” and “The Three Amigos.”

Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts are a cohabiting Los Angeles couple named Jerry and Samantha. They attend a therapy group, and Sam is perpetually perturbed at Jerry’s inability to express himself (perhaps he’s just trying to get a word in edge-wise) and his general shiftlessness. Jerry, for his part, loves Sam as much as she loves him and would do anything for her.

At the film’s beginning, though, Sam is throwing Jerry out because he has agreed to do another job for a bad guy named Margolies. Actually, Margolies is in jail (which is sort of Jerry’s fault, which is why he has to keep doing him favors), and his underling, Nayman (Bob Balaban), is directing the action.

Jerry’s assignment is to go to Mexico and retrieve a particular gun, the titular Mexican. The Mexican has a much-storied past; in fact, we are shown the story several times, each told by a different person who has understood the gun’s mythology differently. Suffice it to say the gun was made by a poor metal-worker for a nobleman’s son, who desired to marry the gun-maker’s daughter even though she was in love with a peasant boy. The gun did not work properly, and has since had a curse affixed to it.

That curse is made to seem less superstitious when, moments after getting the gun, Jerry’s Mexico connection is accidentally killed and his car — and the gun — are stolen. He’s in and out of jail and wanders through Mexico for much of the film, flitting from one misadventure to another.

Meanwhile, Sam has left for Las Vegas, still fuming at Jerry. En route, she is almost killed by one guy and then rescued by another. This is a hired goon named Leroy (James Gandolfini, from TV’s “The Sopranos”), who turns out to be gay and quite useful in helping Sam figure out her love life. His actual job, though, is to hold Sam as a hostage until they can get a hold of Jerry and the gun. Nayman and Margolies, apparently, fear Jerry has double-crossed them when he doesn’t report back right away.

The screenplay, written by J.H. Wyman, twists and turns, breezing through every genre from crime caper to romance. The dark sense of humor is a constant, though, with smart dialogue reminiscent of David Mamet and loopy scenarios that recall the Coen Brothers. (Seeing “The Dukes of Hazzard” dubbed in Spanish is automatically funny, as is Sam’s tearfulness while watching a Mexican soap opera: “You don’t have to understand their words to feel their pain,” she says earnestly.)

There is a point where it seems the story has twisted all it can and things seem to be settled — yet the movie doesn’t end. Where it goes turns out to be quite rewarding, with a marvelous cameo and a surprisingly poignant love-story message, but there is that stretch where you wonder if the film has run out of steam. Fortunately, it hasn’t.

Brad Pitt keeps getting more and more likable, and he wears this slightly dopey fish-out-of-water role like it was tailor-made for him. Julia Roberts, too, lights up the screen every chance she gets. James Gandolfini plays against type fantastically. He’s a hired hitman, which suits him perfectly, but his hysterical sensitivity is what knocks us for a loop. Admittedly, I don’t know that I’d have found him quite so funny if I weren’t a huge “Sopranos” fan — part of the humor is certainly in seeing him playing against type — but Gandolfini is a gifted actor whether you know his work or not.

2001 has been a miserable year for movies so far. But there’s nothing like a relaxing (OK, chaotic) trip to sunny Mexico to rejuvenate us.

Series 7

0

“Series 7” is one of the most devastating satires of American pop culture ever conceived, a vicious and dark look at “reality TV” — and, by extension, our society’s obsession with everyone getting their 15 minutes of fame.

The film is set up as a marathon of an entire season of “The Contenders” (it’s the show’s seventh year, hence the title), a TV show in which six strangers are chosen at random, put in an American city, and told to kill each other. The last one alive becomes the champion and returns the next season to face five new opponents.

The reigning champion is Dawn (Brooke Smith), an eight-months-pregnant, no-nonsense gal whose wiles and cunning have already helped her dispatch several contestants. (The first shot of the film is of her, hugely pregnant, barging across a parking lot with a pistol in her hand — one of many audaciously ironic visual images we’re treated to in the movie.)

Her new opponents, introduced by your standard melodramatic narrator, are as follows: a sweet nurse named Connie (Marylouise Burke) who insists she cannot kill yet has Kevorkian tendencies; an unemployed family man named Tony (Michael Kaycheck); a loony old man named Franklin (Richard Venture); an 18-year-old daddy’s girl named Lindsay (Merritt Wever); and Jeff (Glenn Fitzgerald), a suicidal cancer patient.

The setting of this season’s “The Contenders” is Newburt, Conn. (“the Nutmeg State,” the narrator is careful to mention), which probably not coincidentally — you know how manipulative reality show producers can be — is Dawn’s hometown. In fact, we discover, she and Jeff had a relationship as high school students.

Except for the profanity (which should have been bleeped out for proper effect; a woman’s nudity is blurred, like it would be on TV) and the shortness of each episode, you’d never know you weren’t actually watching a TV show. It even pauses for commercial breaks (which last a nanosecond) and has a cliffhanger at the end of each episode.

Written and directed with precision detail by Daniel Minahan, “Series 7” couldn’t have come at a better time, what with “reality TV” being all the rage at the start of the new millennium. We’ve all been raised on TV; in fact, most of our parents (and even THEIR parents, in many cases) were raised on it, too. TV is boring now. In order for us to be entertained by it, we have to actually be part of it. Watching is boring.

One interesting aspect about “The Contenders” is that the contestants are chosen at random and apparently are powerless to refuse. In real life, people are willing to go on TV just to be famous, even if there’s no money involved; in this not-too-distant future world, people don’t just WANT to be on TV; they’re compelled to.

“Series 7,” then, is the logical extreme of the directions we’re already heading. Sooner or later, we’ll be bored with people stranded on desert islands, and someone will have to up the ante.

As if to smack us in the face for even thinking such a thing, the film is at times wantonly violent. One contestant is beaten to death with a cane (as family members look on), and there’s no sparing the blood when people are shot. Minahan seems to say, “You think the idea of a TV show where contestants have to kill each other is funny? Well, here’s how awful it would be if it really happened.”

Relentless morbid and incredibly, darkly funny, “Series 7” is a brilliant parody. The funniest thing is, we — the American TV audience — are the targets.

The Caveman’s Valentine

0

Though many films that debut at the Sundance Film Festival are unusual, unique or in some other way “independent” (and not just in a corporate sense), others are just plain entertaining.

“The Caveman’s Valentine,” while possessed of some interesting directorial touches that put it in good company with its Sundance brethren, is more of a genre picture than anything. It’s a psychological thriller about a paranoid-schizophrenic named Romulus (Samuel L. Jackson) who lives with his nappy dredlocks in a cave in a New York City park. He insists a man named Stuyvesant is effecting a world-domination plot from atop the Empire State Building, and that he, Romulus, is a frequent victim of Stuyvesant’s machinations. He rants and raves and frightens people on the streets of Manhattan, an imposing figure made more intimidating by his wildness.

But Rom wasn’t always like this. Trained at Juilliard, he was a brilliant pianist before the pressures of life took their toll. His ex-wife Sheila (Tamra Tunie) haunts his imagination, voicing his fears and also serving as his muse. His daughter, Lulu (Aunjanue Ellis), is a cop who is embarrassed by her father.

On Valentine’s Day, Rom awakens to find a frozen corpse perched in a tree near his cave. The police identify him as Scott, a gay junkie seen running around town half-naked just prior to his death. He froze to death, that’s all.

Scott’s former boyfriend, Matthew (Rodney Eastman), tells Rom more of the facts, though. Scott was posing for renowned photographer David Leppenraub (Colm Feore), who treated Scott like a love slave and a possession. Matthew says not only did Leppenraub torture Scott, but he had someone videotape it, too. When Scott tried to blackmail the artist with that tape, Leppenraub killed him.

The police (read: Lulu) don’t put much stock in Rom’s story, especially since he attributes Leppenraub’s actions to his involvement with the ever-present Stuyvesant. So Rom has to solve the crime on his own. After obtaining a new suit and a shower, he gets himself invited to a party at Leppenraub’s rural cabin/studio, where he meets Leppenraub’s sister Moira (Ann Magnuson) and his new model, a filmmaker named Joey (Jay Rodan). Joey, Rom figures out, was the one who videotaped the torture. The only problem now is how to get the tape.

Essentially, this is your basic movie about a regular guy who has to solve a crime that the police won’t or can’t do anything with. It also has an embarrassingly Scooby-Doo-ish ending (“…if it hadn’t been for you meddling homeless men…!”), and has more than a little fun with throw-away characters becoming important later on. Genre conventions aside, though, director Kasi Lemmons employs a style that is busy without being cluttered. It seems there’s always something going on: primitive-sounding music, quick flashes into Rom’s point of view, or Gothic shots of hellish-looking angels. She also uses a rather catchy technique one might call Delusion-Cam, in which we see in actuality whatever Rom’s latest paranoid obsession is (beams of green light coming down from the Empire State Building, for example). It’s a fun way to mess with reality, showing us things that are not, technically, actually happening.

The idea of false reality figures into the film itself, too, with Rom and Leppenraub both being men who attempt to pass off illusion as fact, though for different reasons and to different ends. The real, objective facts of the situation unravel nicely, and the film comes out a satisfying bit of eeriness.

Me You Them (Portuguese)

0

First Darlene, wearing a wedding gown, gets on a bus and leaves the dusty Brazilian desert village she grew up in. Next, it’s three years later, and she returns by bus — this time carrying a child but with no husband in sight.

So begins “Me You Them,” a light-hearted Brazilian drama with an off-center attitude about modern relationships.

Though Darlene (Regina Case, the “Brazilian Oprah,” I’m told) masks it with a smart-aleck persona, she recognizes her limited options as a single mother in the rural wasteland of her home. With her own mother dead since she left home three years ago, she has no family, and she must work in the fields by day to earn a living. So she accepts a marriage proposal from Osias Linhares (Lima Duarte), a man several years her elder who nonetheless offers her a comfortable home and the promise of a livable future.

What he fails to mention is that he’s a boorish jackass. While he reclines in his hammock and watches the kid with one eye, Darlene works to support them all. She also has another child, this one of a different race altogether from her husband, though Osias seems not to care. She begins a sweet relationship with Osias’ diffident cousin Zezinho (Stenio Garcia), who later moves in with the Linhareses.

Yet another lover enters the picture when Darlene meets Ciro (Luis Carlos Vasconcelos), a handsome young laborer who also moves into the Linhares house. This time, Osias seems to embarce Ciro’s presence as a means of making Zezinho jealous, though he begins to have that effect on Osias himself, too.

It’s a strange little arrangement they’ve got there, but credit director Andrucha Waddington and writer Elena Soarez for keeping it out of the sex-farce genre. There is very little sneaking around or stealing kisses behind the shed, as the secrecy of Darlene’s various relationships is not the focus of the plot. It’s the way she uses three different men to acquire the things she needs, emotionally and temporally — though “uses” is not a fair word, because she’s not doing it selfishly or cruelly.

Regina Case has a broad, friendly smile with row upon row of huge teeth. She is not beautiful in the classical sense, but one can imagine why men might come to love her. She is appealing in her ability to create Darlene as a desperate character who manages not to act desperate — and, for that matter, as a woman of fairly loose morals, sexually speaking, who manages not to seem like a tramp.

The humor in the film is subtle and unobtrusive, though the overall impact can surely be felt as you realize that for a drama, “Me You Them” is rarely very serious and hardly dramatic. This is not necessarily a liability, but the fim’s extremely slow pacing could be. As nice as the characters may be to watch, they can wear out their welcome when so many scenes are devoted to watching them do almost nothing.

Congressional Wreckord

0

The Utah state legislature has wrapped things up for the year, which means I can go back to my regular routine of not remembering they exist.

The most important thing they did this time around was make Jell-O the Official State Snack of Utah. This was an actual thing that happened, and it happened because of strong-arm tactics used by the Jell-O Mafia, a group of big-haired women who converged on the Daily Herald offices several months ago and tossed a bunch of free Jell-O products our way. We did what any sane people would do, which was ignore the Jell-O Mafia and hose down the newsroom after they were gone. The legislature, however, is apparently more easily swayed than we are, because they immediately stopped passing laws against foreigners and made Jell-O the official state snack.

Before this, Utah had no state snack. Residents were permitted to choose their snacks pell-mell (or, at times, higgledy-piggledy) without uniformity or consensus. Thousands were killed. Now, all Utahns are required to eat Jell-O at least once per week, under penalty of deportation.

O how great the legislature, in its infinite wisdom, to designate an official state snack! O how long we have waited restlessly for guidance in this important matter! O how we rejoice in the hoof-based dessert, with or without shredded carrots! O what Mormons we are!

In addition to ratifying the Jell-O Sanctification Act, state officials made Jell-O spokesman and former celebrity Bill Cosby an honorary citizen of Utah. Cosby was humbled to be the state’s only black citizen, and promised to see about finding more. Then, mistaking Lt. Gov. Olene Walker for the fat substitute Olean, Cosby said, “Hey, hey, hey!,” devoured her whole, and lumbered off into the night.

But not all of the legislature’s actions were gelatin-related, nor did they result in the eating of prominent citizens. Here are a few other laws enacted this year.

– As suggested by the people who write letters to the editor, anyone not liking the way things are done here must move away.

– All Utahns must think about the 2002 Olympics in a positive manner at least once per day. Negative thoughts will be punished. All Utahns must bow before the Olympics and kiss the Olympics’ feet. Hail the almighty Olympics!

– Elected officials may drive while intoxicated provided they allow newspapers to photograph them in comical poses as they take the roadside drunk tests. No further punishment is required.

– Hate crimes are not to be prosecuted any differently from regular crimes. Love crimes, though — you know, where you shoot a guy in the face because you love him — are punishable by death.

– By order of the state senate, Gayle Ruzicka is to be considered insane and highly dangerous. She may still carry a gun, however.

– Turn signals are banned from use in the state of Utah. The four Utahns who were using them had better stop.

– Official Most Embarrassing Town Names in Utah: Tooele and Beaver.

Show Boat

0

“Show Boat” is an old-style musical, where the guy and girl fall in love over the course of one song, where the women pledge to stand by their men no matter how worthless they are, and where the characters are all involved in show business in some way.

The first act is set on a boat on the Mississippi River in the late 1800s. Three couples are introduced. The main one is Magnolia (Jodi Darling), daughter of the ship’s captain, and drifter Gaylord Ravenal (Rob Richardson). We are told he once killed a guy, but it was in self-defense, so it never comes up again (but, you know, thanks for mentioning it).

Their love is forbidden by the captain’s prudish wife, Parthy (Pam Feicht), though dad (Kerry Sensenbach) is OK with it. They go off to Chicago, where Gay makes a living as a gambler, until he abruptly leaves a pregnant Magnolia with no explanation.

Meanwhile, the show boat’s stars, Steve (Alan Gillespie) and Julie (Jean Michelle Grier), are banished from the boat when the local authorities find out they’re an inter-racial couple (which was illegal in those days). They, too, wind up in Chicago, where Julie struggles to make a living as a singer in a divey nightclub.

More meanwhile, Frank (Chad Harlow) and Ellie (Lisa Kassay) are the show boat show’s comic relief, as well as “Show Boat’s” comic relief, if you can follow that. They, too, come in contact with the others in the second act.

It’s a bittersweet musical, with some great toe-tapping raggish tunes mixed in with the mournful “Ol’ Man River” and other laments.

The cast of the touring company in Salt Lake City this week is hit-or-miss. Frances A. Jones and Phillip Lamar Boykin are fantastic as Queenie and Joe, the two main black characters who work on the boat. Boykin sings “Ol’ Man River” and earns the thunderous applause he gets for it; the two also sing “I Still Suits Me” like there’s no tomorrow.

Pam Feicht is embarrassingly stilted and amateurish as the captain’s wife, however, and some of the other smaller roles are played with the wide-eyed over-excitement of talent-show participants.

I should point out that it is impossible to give the show an entirely fair review. My seats were in the 11th row, which one would think would be fine. However, Kingsbury Hall’s auditorium is not sloped very well. The first five rows are great, and so are the back eight (and the entire balcony). Everything in the middle, though, has you struggling to see past the heads of the people in front of you. (The chairs aren’t staggered, either: Everything’s lined up exactly in a row, so you can’t even see between people.) If it hadn’t been sold-out, I’d have moved to a different seat. If it hadn’t been for deadlines and scheduling, I’d have come back a different night.

So there I was, stuck in a seat from which I could see stage right great, stage left OK, and center stage not at all — depending on how the guy in front of me positioned his head, which depended on how the guy in front of HIM sat, and so on.

A friend of mine in the audience said he enjoyed the show, from what he could see; between the two of us, we think we saw the whole thing. It’s a little uneven, and avoid those mid-section seats at all costs, but it’s generally a solid production of a warm old musical. From my perspective: C- From what I could tell of the show’s actual quality: B+

Monkeybone

0

“Monkeybone” is a fairly bad movie in a good movie’s clothing.

It was directed by Henry Selick, who also helmed “The Nightmare Before Christmas,” and the look and feel are the same: dark, visually entertaining, and sometimes just flat-out weird. There are hallucinatory images that are nearly nightmarish, and the mixing of real actors, computer animation and puppets is impressive.

What it lacks is a good script. Unsure whether it’s a comedy or a big-screen comic book, “Monkeybone” dabbles in both and does neither one very well.

Stu Miley (Brendan Fraser) is a cartoonist whose strip, “Monkeybone,” is about to be turned into a TV show. All the money and merchandising are coming with it, but Stu is more interested in proposing to his girlfriend, Julie (Bridget Fonda).

On the way home from the premiere screening, Stu wrecks the car and goes into a coma. While Julie keeps a vigil (and Stu’s heartless sister plans to pull the plug), Stu’s soul is sent to Downtown, a hellish carnival land whose denizens watch other people’s nightmares for entertainment, and where the bar’s lounge act is … Monkeybone.

Monkeybone (voice of John Turturro) is Stu’s repressed Id, in the form of a cartoon monkey. He’s brash and loud and oversexed — all the things Stu normally is not. Stu would just as soon keep Monkeybone repressed, but instead the two of them must work together to steal an “exit pass” and get back to the land of the living.

To do this, they encounter Death herself (Whoopi Goldberg), but Monkeybone double-crosses Stu. He leaves Stu in Downtown, and himself goes back into Stu’s body. Julia wonders why Stu is suddenly so wacky, but what are you gonna do?

The real Stu has to find another body, meanwhile, and this leads to the film’s best sequence. Chris Kattan plays a newly deceased organ donor whom Stu briefly inhabits, and it’s hilarious. Kattan makes for a surprisingly good Brendan Fraser double, at least in voice and manner, and that climactic scene is very enjoyable.

Everything else, well, no so much. The humor is scattershot and the characters non-existent. It’s downright boring sometimes.

Oddly, though the special effects are seamless, much of the regular filmmaking is sloppy. Stu’s hands and face are covered with frosting in one shot, clean the next, and sort-of messy in the next. It’s daylight as Stu enters a building, dark when he briefly leaves, and light again when he comes out for good later. Perhaps Selick was so intent on getting the crazy stuff right, he neglected to look at the mundane things, like continuity and a good script.

3000 Miles to Graceland

0

While the idea of a crew of Elvis impersonators shooting up a casino and stealing $3.2 million is appealing, the movie it happens in, “3000 Miles to Graceland,” is such a horrid, directionless mess that it’s hard to revel in it.

Ex-cons Michael (Kurt Russell) and Murphy (Kevin Costner) are behind the job, with losers played by Christian Slater, David Arquette and Bokeem Woodbine rounding out the gang. Woodbine’s character gets killed during the heist, and ruthless Elvis-worshipper Murphy kills the other three in a double-cross. (I will say that I appreciate any film with enough foresight to kill David Arquette within the first half-hour. Better not to cast him at all, but if you’re stuck with him, ditch the loser as soon as you can.)

Anyway, Michael was wearing a bullet-proof vest, so he’s not exactly dead. He hurries back to the motel where the money is stashed and takes off before Murphy can find him. In tow is a dead-end small-town gal named Cybil (Courteney Cox) and her kleptomaniac little boy Jesse (David Kaye). They’re heading for Idaho, where a money launderer (Jon Lovitz) has pledged to help un-mark the marked bills, and Murphy is on their tail.

Pursuing them all are two federal marshalls, played by Thomas Haden Church and Kevin Pollak. The scenes with these two are funny, leading me to believe they are from another movie altogether.

Director Demian Lichtenstein has learned about “antiheroes” from watching other films, but he has no idea how to actually use them. Michael and Murphy are technically antiheroes, in that they are main characters whose actions are the sort we normally associate with villains. What Lichtenstein apparently doesn’t know is that antiheroes are not excused from being likable. When Costner and company shot literally dozens of security guards and innocent bystanders at the casino, I honestly wanted the cops to win. The Elvises kill so many people, and their actions so unjustified, that it’s hard for a viewer’s sense of justice not to kick in.

The movie presumes we will care about its characters, but does little to warrant such compassion. The longer the film gets, the less sense it makes. Costner would be funny if he weren’t so laughable; Russell has charm, but it avails him nothing, as his character is too repulsive. The fact that Michael and Murphy had been prison cellmates is referred to exactly one time. All the other details that might have been nice to know about these people are given even less attention, leaving plenty of time for furious action and bloodletting. It’s a miserably dreary disaster of a film.

This Old House

0

My parents, back in California, have sold the house I grew up in and are moving to one whose walls I have not marked with crayon (yet).

I can understand why they’re doing it. When you get older and the kids have moved out, it makes sense to get a smaller, more manageable house. Except the one they’ve bought is actually bigger, and half the kids still live at home. So I guess I don’t understand it after all. This is just another house for my mom’s idiot chihuahuas to urinate all over.

I do take some solace in knowing that, while they’re moving, I’m safely in Utah, where I can’t be asked to help. I’ve hated helping people move ever since I served an LDS mission in the United States, where church members move a lot, and where they think missionaries are all named Elder Piano-Lifter. If I had a little joy for every soul that went unsaved because I had to waste an afternoon loading boxes onto a pickup truck, how great would be my joy.

My dad’s attitude toward moving is to save on U-Haul rentals by throwing everything in the trash now. My mom has to rush to get her errands done during the day, for fear that by the time she gets home, my dad will have put an entire room, walls and all, into a Dumpster. You’d think my dad was from the Old Country, where they were forced from their homes with nothing but the shirts on their backs. But he’s from Los Angeles, and he was never forced out of anywhere, except maybe a few nice restaurants.

It’s unsettling, though, because we moved to the current house when I was 2. It’s the only house I remember. (Well, the only house I remember living in. I do remember other houses. There’s one next door to me now, for example.) This was my boyhood home. Every memory of my family up until I left for college centers around this house.

Like when my three brothers and I shared two sets of bunk beds in the master bedroom (my parents were relegated to a lesser bedroom), and my brother Jeff came running home one night, leapt onto the first top bunk, bounced over to the second top bunk, then bounced right into the window, which he shattered.

Or when I got on the roof and ripped off one of the shingles, which resulted in my dad angrily asking the very stupid question, “Do you think that makes the house look better?”

Or when my brother Chris, for reasons I have yet to ascertain, did a nose-dive onto the floor from atop the bathroom sink.

Or when I had a bad dream about a spider, so I climbed into bed with my parents, and my dad reached over to feel which kid I was, and his hand moving on the blanket felt like a spider crawling across me, and I freaked right the hell out.

Or when my brother Lane used a hammer to smash up an outside wall of the house because he was trying to sneak up on my sister Laura, who was playing in the bedroom on the other side of said wall.

Or when I was playing with my cousin Stephen (who lived nearby), and we got in trouble for something, and my dad sent us to my room to await sentencing, and we ingeniously thought to disguise ourselves in old clothes being stored in the closet, figuring that when my dad came in, he wouldn’t recognize us, and we could tell him Eric and Stephen had escaped through the window.

Or when we thought my sister Joy was lost and we looked everywhere for her and pretty much decided she was gone forever, and then finally found her curled up asleep under some blankets in the closet.

Or when my sister Laura, as a toddler, would toddle out into the front yard and eat snails.

Or when Stephen and I wanted to walk to Circle K to get candy by ourselves, but my brother Chris wanted to tag along, and my mom said we could go without him if we waited until he took his nap, so we used crayons to draw stars and moons on his bedroom walls, hoping to fool him into thinking it was nighttime.

I’ll miss that house. The new one was just built, so it doesn’t have any memories in it yet. And I don’t think we can take the old ones with us. At least, not if my dad has anything to say about it.

The Boys Next Door

0

Despite its unusual subject matter — mentally handicapped adults — “The Boys Next Door” is an accessible, enjoyable play.

The show, focused on characters more than plot, takes place a group home inhabited by four men. Arnold (Devin Asay) is an extremely high-strung, precise man whose retardation is mild. Norman (Andrew Hunsaker) is also pretty functional, working in a doughnut shop and pining for another handicapped adult, Sheila (Emily McFadyen).

At the other end of the spectrum is Lucien (Bart Nutt; double-cast with Bob Colomb), with a mental capacity, we’re told, “somewhere between a 5-year-old and an oyster.”

Rounding out the bunch is Barry (Brian McFadyen), who is not retarded but is schizophrenic. He’s convinced himself he’s a golf pro and tries to give lessons to anyone who will sit still long enough.

Supervising the men is Jack Palmer (Nathan Mathews), a burnt-out social worker who considers the guys his best friends despite his personal dissatisfaction with life.

The story is slight, offering us little vignettes from the men’s lives with a few ongoing plots. Most important is the upcoming visit from Barry’s estranged father (Daryl Tucker), a hunched-over, ape-like brute who is the least convincing character in the play.

Also significant is Lucien’s having to testify at a senate subcommittee hearing in order to get his government support money back. Bart Nutt is very sweet in this role, conveying Lucien’s child-like nature without making fun of the mentally handicapped.

That is the danger in such a play. There’s a fine line between acting a role and doing an impression of someone; in this case, acting would seem real, while impersonating would be awkward for the audience. But director Kathleen Nutt (who has directed the show before) leads the cast through most of the pitfalls.

A few elements are a little rough. The aforementioned scene with Barry and his father lacks most of the punch it should have had, and Jack’s personal life seems quite underdeveloped (not to mention irrelevant). But the plusses outweigh the minuses. Brian McFadyen’s Barry is a subtle and touching character. Since Barry is the one closest to reality, he’s the one most vulnerable to it. His interaction with the others is limited, making him appear even more isolated than he is. Devin Asay and Andrew Hunsaker also shine in their roles, giving the show a warm ensemble feel.

Southern Comfort (documentary)

0

Robert Eads seems like a fairly ordinary man of the Deep South. He drives a big pickup truck, cooks “country bacon,” and smokes a lot. His friends, Cas and Max, seem the same as they gather at Robert’s rural trailer for an Easter cookout.

Then we notice things. Max’s voice seems unusually high. All three have soft eyes and strange-shaped hips. They are more affectionate toward each other than you’d expect. Slowly — the documentary’s best effort at dynamic storytelling — we learn that all three were born female and subsequently had sex-change operations to become men. They are transsexuals.

“Southern Comfort” is their story, but particularly the story of Robert, who, after becoming a man, developed ovarian cancer. (“The last part of me that’s female, and it’s killing me,” he says ruefully.) Worried about their reputations, two dozen doctors refused to treat him; now, it is certain he will die.

As if this weren’t unusual enough, Robert is also very much in love with Lola, a genetic man who is now about half-way on his journey to becoming a woman. Max is involved with a genetic man who is now completely a woman (a rather pretty one, too), and Cas is married to a regular ol’ woman.

Filmmaker Kate Davis follows Robert during what turns out to be his last year of life. His goal is to live long enough to attend the Southern Comfort Conference in Atlanta — “the cotillion of the trans community,” Robert says. His friends rally around him and provide support as his life slowly slips away.

It’s a compelling story, to be sure; most fiction could never come this close. Unfortunately, the people whose story it is don’t live up to it. Their situations are interesting, but the characters themselves are rather ordinary, even bland at times. This is probably a fault of the filmmaker more than anything — I wouldn’t presume to say these are just “boring people” — and indeed, it often seems that Davis is so fascinated by the uniqueness of the situation that she forgets to take a step back and see what would make the presentation of it more engaging.

That said, you have to admire a movie in which this line is spoken: “He was already living in the trailer park when I moved in.”

Guys and Dolls

0

Maybe the Hale Centre Theatre will use this quote in their advertising:

It’s no gamble: Hale Centre Theatre’s “Guys and Dolls” is a sure thing!

One of the more delightful and non-sexist musical comedies to come out of the 1950s, “Guys and Dolls” follows two couples on the rocky road to love.

Nathan Detroit (David Glaittli) runs an itinerant craps game in New York and has been engaged to nightclub dancer Miss Adelaide (Sharon Lynn Kenison) for 14 years. Adelaide, in fact, has developed a psychosomatic cold from fretting over her commitment-phobic Nathan.

Meanwhile, big-shot gambler Sky Masterson (Jack Kenison) rolls into town and makes a bet that he can take any girl Nathan names to Havana with him. Nathan names Sarah Brown (Alisa Harris), a local volunteer missionary saddled with the impossible task of reforming the sinners and gamblers of Broadway.

But Sky not only gets her to Havana; he starts to fall for her, too. Mixed with all this is Nathan’s desire to get a big craps game going, if only he can find a location.

Directed by Bruce Bredeson, this production smoothly handles the show’s two couples, allowing Sky and Sarah to be the more serious pair, but not leaving Nathan and Adelaide too far behind. This task is enabled by a stand-out performance from Sharon Lynn Kenison as Adelaide. With her chirpy voice and bird-like appearance, Kenison delivers everything perfectly. She is, deservedly, a crowd favorite.

The performances are good all around, in fact; it’s one of the stronger ensembles we’ve seen lately. From Nicely-Nicely (Mark Daniels) and Benny’s (Darin Stites) contraction-free patter to Big Jule’s (Glen Carpenter) vaguely foreign accent, the dialects are good, and the singing voices are all top-notch.

Amy Glaser’s colorful costumes are great, too: Nathan’s purple suit is outrageous enough to make the audience whisper when he first enters (not that it’s hard to make audiences talk during a show in Utah).

Marilyn May Montgomery’s choreography leads to some outstanding dance numbers, including an energetic gambling scene and Adelaide’s nightclub numbers. It’s a bit over-done at times — I would argue that there’s no reason for the singers of the opening “Fugue for Tinhorns” to be dancing around when they’re just talking about the horse races — but what’s a big Broadway show without a little superfluous movement? Sit back and enjoy.

Down to Earth

0

Give Chris Rock credit for rising above his meager “Saturday Night Live” bit-player status, becoming a top-notch comedian and having a highly rated HBO series. We like him now, and we want to see him succeed.

“Down to Earth,” however, is not going to be his ride to the big-time. Based on the 1978 Warren Beatty film “Heaven Can Wait,” this good-natured hip-hop comedy is too uneven and too frequently unfunny. For all his skill as a stand-up, Chris Rock is most assuredly not an actor just yet, and certainly not a leading man in a romantic comedy.

Rock plays Lance Barton, a would-be stand-up comedian who gets booed off the stage by the notoriously brutal Apollo Theatre audiences. On his way home one night, he’s about to get hit by a truck when an overzealous angel (Eugene Levy), thinking Lance is as good as dead, plucks him one-tenth of a second before impact. Trouble is, Lance WASN’T going to die, and now he’s in heaven 40 years early.

To make up for the error, top angel Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri) agrees to put Lance back into a body, but it will have to be someone whose death hasn’t been noticed yet (they can’t have folks rising from the dead, after all). They settle on a millionaire whose trophy wife (Jennifer Coolidge) is trying to kill him so she can have his money and run off with his assistant (Greg Germann).

To everyone else, Lance in old Mr. Wellington’s body looks and sounds like Mr. Wellington. To him (and to us, most of the time), he looks and sounds like Chris Rock. Now he has to right the wrongs Wellington made — including saving a run-down hospital at the request of pretty nurse Sontee (Regina King), with whom he also wants to fall in love.

There are issues here, not the least of which is the improbability of Sontee falling for a middle-aged white man. If underscoring the beauty of color-blind love is one of the film’s purposes, it needs to have tried harder to make it believable.

The writing (by Rock, Lance Crouther, Ali Le Roi and Louis CK) is wildly uneven, too, as is the direction by Chris Weitz and Paul Weitz. After a very promising first five minutes, the film screeches to a halt and is only fitfully amusing after that. When it’s funny, it’s very funny, but it often forgets to try. (A sure sign of ineptitude: There are two, count ’em two, “go to hell” jokes in the heaven sequence. One was funny; two was embarrassing.)

A high point includes Lance’s first stand-up gig as old Mr. Wellington, when he realizes the jokes he usually tells about the differences between white folks and black folks sound astonishingly racist when coming from a white guy. His adjustment to his new persona — “Shut up before I crush you with my wallet,” he barks at a heckler — is clever, too.

When Lance finally gets his big break, the movie looks like a concert film — and a funny one, too. Chris Rock is funny, and “Down to Earth” is most entertaining when he’s mouthing off and being himself. Putting Chris Rock into a leading-man role is, at this point, as ill-advised as putting an edgy black comedian into the body of a white industrialist.

Sweet November

0

“Sweet November” has a few moments in which Keanu Reeves’s character, Nelson Moss, is asleep. At these times, we can see plainly that what we’ve always suspected is literally true: Keanu’s facial expression when he’s asleep is the same as when he’s awake.

Nelson Moss is a fast-lane San Francisco advertising executive who spends money recklessly and treats his girlfriend shabbily. Everything can be bought and sold as far as he’s concerned, and that includes paying off a woman named Sara Deever (Charlize Theron) when he inadvertently makes her fail her DMV test.

Sara, a free-spirited New Age succubus, will not be bought, however. Her license suspended, she gets Nelson to drive her around and eventually gets him back to her place. There she proposes a crazy plan that will sound crazy when I tell you about it and sounds no less crazy in the movie: She wants Nelson to move in with her for exactly one month. He is to quit working and let her “fix” him, take him from his money-driven lifestyle and teach him a simple existence.

Nelson tells her this is crazy talk, of course, which it is. But when he gets fired from his job for a hot dog-related debacle, and his girlfriend leaves him, well, you know, what the heck. Why not move in with the stranger for a month? Why not go ahead and have sex with her the first evening, too, in what is possibly the most out-of-nowhere, unjustified physical relationship in movie history? I mean, why not?

Sure enough, Sara starts to get Nelson to think about something other than money and power (Screenwriting 101: people with money are bad). They befriend the pleasant transvestites who live downstairs from Sara. Nelson and Sara fall in love, don’t ask me why. Then there is a tragedy that has already been loudly hinted at in the film’s advertisements, but which I won’t spoil here except to say that it’s another standard Screenwriting 101 technique. Then everything turns all weepy and melancholy. We’ll call it “Autumn in San Francisco” (except that you probably didn’t see “Autumn in New York” and therefore don’t get the reference).

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but Keanu Reeves can’t act. Or maybe he can and has just chosen not to so far. He’s had moments of adequacy (“The Gift”), and even adeptness (“Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”). But he’s mostly just had moments of having a stuporous look on his face and saying lines as if reading them for the first time and not bothering to make them sound real. (He is utterly unconvincing as a cocky ad exec, especially in his big meltdown scene.)

Keanu’s slack-jawed, I-just-got-hit-in-the-face-with-a-board expression in particular does “Sweet November” a disservice. This is a romance; we should probably see some emotion in the guy’s face. We should probably see some indication that he and his co-star have some chemistry together. Charlize Theron is good enough as Sara, though her featherweight acting technique, which makes her characters all seem believable but shallow, is fast wearing thin. (Putting her in eight movies a year is not helping any.) And she’s no match for the park bench that is Keanu Reeves anyway; even Audrey Hepburn would be dull as a butter knife if paired with him.

Did I mention Keanu sings in this movie? Yeah, he does. It’s not supposed to be funny, but it is. San Francisco is a lovely city, and many scenes in the film reflect that. Jason Isaacs is nice as one of the transvestite neighbors. And that’s all the good I have to say about this dismal, cliché-ridden fiasco.

Recess: School’s Out

0

There’s nothing particularly wrong with “Recess: School’s Out,” the latest animated feature from Disney. You should know that it’s based on a TV series, and has approximately the same quality. This is no “classic” (although, knowing Disney, it will probably be marketed that way when it comes out on video).

But it is amusing and mostly devoid of crude humor, which is worth mentioning with kids’ films nowadays. The story is about the kids at the Third Street Elementary School and their plans for summer vacation. The ringleader is T.J. (Andrew Lawrence), a master of non-malicious pranks and mischief who is saddened to learn every single one of his friends is going to a different summer camp, leaving him all alone.

While biking past the school one summer afternoon, he sees strange activity. Further investigation reveals a strange green light eminating from the auditorium, and burly guards keeping a close eye on the place. Panicked, he finds Principal Prickly (Dabney Coleman) — the Seymour Skinner to T.J.’s Bart Simpson — on the golf course and convinces him to come back to the school to see what’s going on. The instant he touches the doorknob of the school, Prickly disappears, leaving only a pair of smoldering shoes.

Even more panicked now, T.J. blackmails his sister into driving him around to all the summer camps to collect his friends. They’re the usual motley assortment: a fat singer (with the singing voice of Robert Goulet!), a science nerd, an ROTC wannabe, a tomboyish girl, etc.

They uncover what’s going on. The school’s former principal Dr. Benedict (James Woods), now a psycho, wants to do away with summer vacation by altering the moon’s orbit and eliminating summer. That green laser is being tested, with the intention of aiming it at the moon and knocking it off course. Such diabolical machinations!

“Recess: School’s Out” is no doubt solid entertainment for kids. While other animated films (most Disney stuff, for example) tend to have subtle jokes for the grown-ups, this one does not. Still, while other animated films (“Pokemon,” for example) may amuse kids while annoying adults, this one does not.

Time for a Napster

0

We Napster users have been in an absolute tizzy lately, downloading songs as fast as we can before the Feds shut everything down. A few more hours, and I’ll have completed my Hall & Oates collection.

As with most of the world’s major tragedies, the dismantling of Napster can be traced directly to a heavy metal band. Has-been rock group Metallica has been the most vocal critic of Napster for months, claiming to have lost money because of Napster. I disagree. I think Metallica has lost money because Metallica sucks. They should be on their knees, giving thanks to the God of Washed-up Heavy Metal Bands that anyone wants to hear their music at all, for free or otherwise. If someone wants to hear Metallica, Metallica should drive to their house and play for them. (I estimate the band could perform for every Metallica fan in the country in less than a week, and that would include stopping twice at my brother’s house.)

Metallica’s complaint was that if people can download songs for free, they’re not going to buy the CDs. The counter-argument was that bands don’t make much money from CDs anyway; the big bucks are in concerts, which are helped by songs being more widely distributed. The counter-counter-argument was that who cares if bands are losing money from Napster; bring on the free stuff.

I was a proponent of the last point of view. I don’t have much sympathy for groups like Metallica who are already quite wealthy and haven’t produced anything worth listening to in nearly a decade anyway. (Metallica’s last album was so bad it set fire to every stereo it was put in.) I do have sympathy for me, though, having to pay money for CDs. Why should I suffer? HAVEN’T I BEEN THROUGH ENOUGH ALREADY?!?!?

Yes, I have. I watched a Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie AND a Keanu Reeves movie in the same two-week period. It was like watching paint dry and then having that paint shot into my eyes with a bazooka. The only thing that got me through it was Napster and its never-ending cavalcade of free music.

Metallica resides in an ignoble period of music history known as “the early 1990s,” a dank realm also inhabited by the likes of Vanilla Ice and Wilson Phillips. But not all older music is forgettable. When I was a kid, we had a record called “Mickey Mouse Disco.” It had disco versions of “It’s a Small World” and “Zippety Doo-Dah,” as well as new songs called “Disco Mickey Mouse” and “Macho Duck,” plus, if I recall correctly, one called “Walt Disney Spins in His Grave.” We listened to this record constantly. We often forsook bathing in order to hear it one more time. It’s one of my more pleasant childhood memories, as it reminds me of a simpler time, a time when I was young and carefree, a time when I was allowed in the house.

Today, of course, the record is as scratched and battered as Bill Clinton’s underpants. Even if record players still existed in North America, I wouldn’t be able to listen to it. So I was delighted to find, in a moment of idle Napster-wandering, all of the tracks from “Mickey Mouse Disco” available for downloading. Here was my childhood, downloading at 100 kilobytes per second! Can you put a price on that? The courts have said you can. I say you can’t. If Napster bites the dust, something else will take its place. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to find a few more Wham! songs before time runs out.

The Texas Chainsaw Manicurist

0

“Texas Chainsaw Manicurist” is an insane musical revue that giddily skewers American pop culture and commercialism. The printed program suggests the show “raises questions about where we place our priorities in this life,” but I must have missed that part. I was probably too busy laughing.

With no plot or characters, the show is wisely very short, too — but still well worth whatever they’re charging these days at Provo Theatre Company.

Instead of a story, the show has a running theme: the mundane stuff that makes up our daily lives. Four people (Carly Lewis, Daniel Law, Celine Morton and Matt Armstrong) sing and dance through a series of numbers on everything from TV reruns to candy bars, doing so with rampant, unchecked lunacy.

Who wouldn’t laugh at a psychotic beauty pageant loser sobbing through her plastic smile? How can you not like a song called “My Barbie Was the Tramp of the Neighborhood”? Is not the idea of a Texas chainsaw manicurist — “She’s filled with hate / But she’s got reasonable rates” — utterly, perversely delightful?

The cast gets it exactly right. There is enough cheesy choreography and mad energy to make it goofy, but not a hint of clowning, mugging or over-doing it.

Celine Morton has the two unhinged characters, the beauty contestant and a Spirograph-obsessed woman. Carly Lewis’s tour de force is the exceedingly vampy “Barbie” number. Matt Armstrong’s funniest title is “Mr. Potato Head Married My Mother,” but his best song is “Creamy Nougat,” in which he sings torchily of his lost candy bar in counterpoint to Daniel Law’s lost lover. And Law’s shining moment is “Billy Goats and Bumblebees,” a nonsensical tongue-twister story that he pronounces flawlessly.

The entire cast sings well, and the peppy “Up with People” group number — a not-too-subtle parody of the Young Ambassadors — is astoundingly, fall-on-the-floor funny. (Actual lyrics: “Up, up, up with the people in the world / They’re the greatest people in the world.”)

One serious number (“I Will Still See You”) is puzzlingly out of place in a show that is otherwise nothing but laughs. Aside from that, this cool, kitschy confection is picture perfect. It reminds us why we love Provo Theatre Company.

Over the River and Through the Woods

0

Hale Center Theater Orem is a small, intimate venue reminiscent of many Off-Broadway theaters in Manhattan. The shows they do, though, are usually the furthest thing from the New York mentality, focused more on pleasing crowds with broad-stroked comedies and familiar musicals than on presenting exciting new material (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

“Over the River and Through the Woods,” recently an Off-Broadway success, is an utterly charming example of how the theater can branch out while still maintaining its primary goals.

The play, about a young man dealing with his two sets of overbearing grandparents, is witty and poignant, and addresses issues of family relationships with a satisfying, old-fashioned point of view.

At the same time, its Off-Broadway roots are obvious in its whip-smart dialogue, intelligent characters and everyone’s tendency to stop the action and speak directly to the audience now and then (a staple of “serious” theater).

Nick Cristano (Ryan Radebaugh) is a 27-year-old marketing executive whose only close relatives, geographically speaking, are his four grandparents. He has dinner with all of them every Sunday at the Hoboken, N.J., home of his maternal grandparents, Frank (Eric Bjarnson) and Aida (Karen Baird). Frank is an Italian immigrant who’s been running into things with his car lately, and Aida is a typical Mom to whom everyone always looks hungry. Their house is perpetually hot (but not just “hot,” Nick says; “August in Ethiopia hot”), because they won’t run the air-conditioning.

The other grandparents are Nunzio (William Bisson; double-cast with Richard G. Wilkins) and Emma (Melany M. Wilkins) — “the loudest people I’ve ever met,” Nick tells us. The four old-timers love to eat and talk, debating at which grocery store a certain pointless anecdote took place, or employing extremely circular deduction skills to remember who starred in “High Noon.”

One Sunday, Nick announces he’s been offered a promotion that would take him to Seattle. His grandparents are devastated, especially the Old-World Frank, for whom “tengo famiglia” (“keep the family,” literally, but much more than that in Italian) is a rallying cry.

To keep Nick from moving, Emma invites Caitlin (Katie Purdie), the relative of a canasta partner, over to dinner one week, hoping she and Nick will fall in love. The encounter is a disaster (none of the grandparents can comprehend the concept of “vegetarianism”), and the plan backfires. Now, more than ever, Nick is convinced he needs to move far away from this insane, overly loving group of senior citizens. Then he has a panic attack and is forced to spend several days at the house, where he really gets to know his grandparents.

In a typical Hale Center play, the plan would work, Nick and Caitlin would fall in love, and he wouldn’t move away. Also, the dinner scene would be the centerpiece of the show, full of farce and outrageousness and possibly with a man dressed as a woman.

“Over the River and Through the Woods” clings to realism without leaving behind sheer entertainment. The dialogue is eminently quotable. (“I want to see you married before I die,” Emma tells Nick. He replies, “Let me know when you think you’re going, and I’ll see who I can dig up.”) The acting is superlative all around, bringing these vivid and lovable characters to life in what will probably be one of the best shows of the year.

Burdens of Earth

0

“Burdens of Earth” is an interesting, if unspectacular, dramatization of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s soul-trying time in Liberty Jail. It’s funneled into one important night, during which all the doubts and fears come back to haunt Joseph one last time before finally he sees the light at the end of the tunnel.

Little time is wasted; within five minutes, the question at hand has already been asked: Why? The saints have been chased out of New York and Ohio and are about to lose Missouri, too. Their property is being destroyed. Some are dying.

Joseph (Joseph S. Hale) is frustrated at apparently being punished without knowing what his sin was. He’s locked in this freezing-cold prison with his brother Hyrum (Jacob Anderson), and followers Caleb Baldwin (Jacob Draper), Alexander McRae (Doug Stewart) and Lyman Wight (Andrew Allman). They want him to say definitively, as a prophet, that they’ll all make it out alive. He can’t — not because he knows it to be false, but because he doesn’t know one way or the other.

Though his friends try to comfort him, Joseph is beset with regrets. In flashback, he sees the recently excommunicated Oliver Cowdery (Stewart). Did he handle that correctly? He also sees Mormon-haters Phineas Hobart (Anderson) and Sam Burris (Allman). What if he had treated them more respectfully? (In that instance, he even sees an alternate version of the past, where he did act differently — and the result was the same.) What about Hanson Jacobs (Draper), the unsteady convert whose family endured so much at the hands of Missourians? Are all of these bad things Joseph’s fault?

The play, written by BYU’s Susan Howe, is thoughtful and incisive. Joseph’s dilemmas and demons are clearly defined without being oversimplified. The answers to his questions do come, but like the revelations they were, they come quietly and subtly. This lends realism, although dramatically speaking, a more careful building up to the final epiphanies would have been better. The play is essentially in climax the entire time — which, without different levels of emotion, is almost the same as having no climax at all.

On the plus side, “Burdens of Earth” is commendable for presenting Joseph Smith in an un-sentimentalized manner. It’s the rare theatrical treatment of him that doesn’t stoop to emotional manipulation or mushy sermonizing, making this a highly intelligent theatrical and religious experience.

Cowboys & Angels

0

Writer/director Gregory C. Haynes, a Utah resident, has made a feature film written and produced entirely in the Beehive State — and it’s not about Mormons. Why, many of these people even drink beer.

“Cowboys & Angels” is about a mopey man named Danny (Adam Trese) who finds out, long after the fact, that the ex-fiancee for whom he still pines was seeing his best friend, Carl (Hamilton von Watts), behind his back. He learns this at Carl’s wedding reception, and is informed of it by a mysterious woman named JoJo (Radha Mitchell), who likes to attend the weddings of strangers just for fun.

Danny and JoJo start dating, but she breaks it off before it goes too far, citing unexplainable reasons that he’ll understand someday. The next day, he meets Candace (Mia Kirshner) and soon finds himself in love with her, though he’s also still in love with JoJo (and with that unfaithful ex-fiancee, too, for that matter).

We realize right away, and are eventually told outright, that the reason JoJo can’t get serious with Danny is that she’s an angel. She has a connection to Candace, too, resulting in a pleasant, gentle twist at the end.

While no masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, “Cowboys & Angels” is not bad, either. Haynes effectively uses ethereal techno-pop music to evoke moods, and there’s quite a bit of mood in this film. Most of it comes from Adam Trese, whose character is frankly too down-hearted all the time. Radha Mitchell and Mia Kirshner give much better performances.

When the movie finally arrives, we get a very nice message about the impact we have on other people’s lives, and how the Fates use us to bless others. Trouble is, it takes a long time to get there. For a half-hour or so, it seems to be going nowhere. The addition of Utah actor Duane Stephens as an angel with ambiguous duties hinders more than helps.

It’s melancholy and contemplative, and earnestly done. It is “family-friendly,” as they say, except that it will bore kids. The grown-ups, though, may have an agreeable time with it.

Hannibal

0

“Hannibal” is an unnecessarily gruesome thriller that pales in comparison to its predecessor, “The Silence of the Lambs.”

“Silence” was a horror film whose goriness was justified by the gritty nature of the psychological drama at hand. On-screen gore, in fact, was not abundant; it was mostly the ideas that were awful.

“Hannibal,” on the other hand, has no psychology. It is a horror film that puts all the gore it has to offer right there on the screen, leaving little to be imagined. People don’t just get stabbed and die; they have spurting wounds that leave puddles of blood. Characters don’t have motivations or back-stories; they just do what they do, in big puddles of acting.

The film takes place 10 years after “Silence.” FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, taking over the Jodie Foster role) has just been disgraced after a mishandled drug bust, but is given a chance to re-live her former glory: Hannibal “Cannibal” Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) has been put back on the FBI’s Most Wanted list. Her rapport with him a decade ago, when she got him to help her track down another killer, is legendary. Can she use that to her advantage now to find him?

Lecter, meanwhile, is in Italy, posing as a museum curator. A local cop named Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) learns who he is — and, more importantly, that there’s a huge reward for his capture. He takes matters into his own hands to capture Lecter. You can guess the rest.

Back in the states, Lecter’s only surviving victim, a now-faceless and grisly Mason Verger (Gary Oldman, uncredited), wants revenge. He’s a millionaire, luckily, and is behind the reward offer. He’s been collecting man-eating wild hogs just for the occasion.

“Hannibal” has virtually no good interaction between Clarice and Hannibal — which means it’s missing what made “Silence” so eerie and intriguing. Moore and Hopkins both act the roles well enough, but the screenplay allows them no quality time together. Hannibal’s protectiveness and creepy respect for Clarice are played up, while her character is reduced to almost nothing.

Oldman is evidently hiding behind the prosthetic face; surely he wouldn’t be such a shameful ham in broad daylight. His character proves to be a non-villain, though, with an anti-climactic story arc. And Ray Liotta’s conniving FBI supervisor Paul Krendler is too prejudiced to be believed.

“Hannibal” is a big movie, with high production values and grand music. Director Ridley Scott tries too hard to lionize Hannibal Lecter, though — a dicey proposition to begin with, since he’s such an evil character. Making a film with him as the main character (and the hero, too) unwisely moves him from the frightening shadows into the garish light of day. Like liver and brains, a little bit of Hannibal Lecter goes a long way. Put too much on your plate, and it’s going to seem bland after a few bites.

Saving Silverman

0

When I tell you that “Saving Silverman” is very funny and entertaining, please don’t think I’m saying it’s not stupid, because it is. The people who made it would surely be first to admit that fact.

They’d be proud, too, and rightfully so. “Saving Silverman,” about a young man whose friends try to save him from his possessive girlfriend, is a curious duck. It’s not a gross-out teen comedy (except for a few brief instances). It’s not a sex comedy (except for a few brief instances). It’s not a satire of those genres, but it was obviously made by people who have seen them.

It’s mostly a dark comedy — the two friends kidnap the girlfriend and consider killing her — with characters who are too good-natured to be the black-hearted denizens one normally sees in such a film.

Jason Biggs plays Darren Silverman, the poor shmoe stuck with Judith (Amanda Peet), a two-dimensionally domineering woman who won’t have premarital sex and is prone to wearing tops that leave her breasts half-revealed. His friends since childhood are pest-control specialist Wayne (Steve Zahn) and musician J.D. (Jack Black). All three are in a Neil Diamond cover band, until Judith puts a stop to that and all of Darren’s other fun.

Coincidental with Wayne and J.D.’s ill-hatched kidnapping plan (they chain Judith to a car engine in their garage) is a reunion with Sandy (Amanda Detmer), whom Darren loved in high school and, until recently, insisted was his one true love forever. With Judith apparently out of the way, all they have to do is get Sandy to forget her decision to become a nun and hook up with Darren instead.

I was struck with how much of a caricature Judith was. She literally had no human qualities, and I thought that was a mistake. Eventually, the film proved itself to be two-dimensional all the way through, and not in a bad way. The finale is fantastically over-the-top absurd, complete with a ridiculously happy ending (the real Neil Diamond is involved), and everyone behaves idiotically throughout. The broadly drawn characters are that way on purpose. It’s not laziness on the part of the writers; it’s a style, and it works well. Once you accept that it’s all for laughs and not grounded in reality, it truly is very funny.

Biggs, Zahn and (especially) Black are talented comic actors when given the right material. There are several moments when all three seem to be floundering, swimming upstream against a flow of lame jokes. After that, though, the script catches up to them and Black and Zahn become a hysterically dumb comedy team, with Biggs as straight man.

There is some unforgivable crudeness, and certainly some badly conceived ideas. There will surely be funnier movies this year, but so far, this one’s at the top.

Without a Hitch

0

I’ve been thinking a lot about marriage lately. Not because I’m any closer to getting married now than I was when I was, say, 7, but because I live near BYU, which emits high-frequency marriage waves. It’s impossible not to think about marriage under these conditions. Even people who never think about marriage, like hermits and Elton John, think about it when they’re in Provo. If the pope were to drive past BYU, he would say, “You know, it’s about time I settled down….”

I have nothing against marriage. My parents have been happily married for 11 months longer than I am old — they were not procrastinators, those two — and they’ve been a perfect example of how a marriage should work. This is because they adhere to one simple principle: no fighting or tongue-kissing in front of the kids. That’s really all there is to it. You don’t need seminars or wish-granting magic toads to learn how to maintain a happy household. My parents could write a book on marriage and parenting, and it would be called: “No Fighting or Tongue-Kissing in Front of the Kids.” And it would sell at least as many copies as the crap Richard Paul Evans turns out.

My parents’ marriage actually is pretty close to perfect. They not only don’t fight in front of the kids; they don’t fight at all. Sure, they disagree — like when Dad wanted to sell me to the gypsies while Mom thought a sack in the river was a better idea — but they don’t let it become heated. They discuss things rationally, often relying on flow charts and schematics to present their differing points of view. Then, being senile, one or both of them forgets what the disagreement was, Mom goes back to addressing her pet chihuahua like it’s another one of her children, and Dad goes back to videotaping my 1-year-old niece (which he has not stopped doing since the moment she was born. Seriously, if my niece is ever accused of a crime, she’ll have an airtight alibi, as my dad will have thoroughly documented her whereabouts with the camcorder. She’s living her own personal “Truman Show”).

But I have divagated from my point, to the extent that I got bored and looked up synonyms for “digress” and learned a new word: divagate. My point is that I have no problem with marriage. I rather like the idea, in fact. I like the idea of Pop-Tarts, too, but I wouldn’t want to hear about them 24 hours a day.

When I was in a BYU ward of the LDS Mormon Church, every single church lesson we had was about marriage, regardless of what it was actually about. We could start out discussing the priesthood or jumper cables or kangaroos, and somehow it would come around to marriage. If there had been some crazy lesson telling us why marriage is evil and we should never get married, the teacher would have presented it as a lesson on why marriage is great and we should get married ASAP, possibly even while quoting the same scriptures.

All the ward activities were centered around getting people together, too. We had a program set up wherein guys would go to the library every night at midnight to escort young ladies back to their apartment complexes. Ostensibly, this was to stem the tide of young-lady murders that apparently had been occurring without my hearing of them; really, it was so guys and girls could walk together in the dark. Family Home Evenings groups are established for the same reason, with the added creepiness of allowing “moms” and “children” to date each other, a practice not normally condoned this far north.

I think we’re not far from arranged marriages. Tevye and Golde had one in “Fiddler on the Roof,” and they turned out to be a very happy, fat couple. I know my parents would have hitched me up a long time ago if they’d found a taker. (I come with an impressive dowry, I’m told.) Some of the polygamists are already pre-arranging their unholy, God-mocking marriages; why not arrange the normal ones, too? Anything to make me immune from the high-frequency marriage waves, which sound a lot like Afterglow songs.

Laughing Stock

0

“Laughing Stock” is Pioneer Theatre Company artistic director Charles Morey’s love letter to the world of theater. And like most love letters, it’s liable not to mean much if intercepted by a third party.

Morey wrote and directed the show, which is about a small New England summer-stock theater trying its hand at repertory — that is, preparing three shows at once, and then performing them on alternating nights. The dogged (but increasingly weary) director is Gordon Page (Anderson Matthews), who lives for the summers in the humid 200-year-old barn, doing plays on a tiny stage for audiences who sit on uncomfortable folding chairs.

The plays are “Charley’s Aunt,” “Hamlet” and a new adaptation of “Dracula” written by Gordon himself. (“No royalties,” he says, grinning — one of many inside jokes about the world of theater, especially when you realize that by having the character write his own version of “Dracula,” it saves Morey from having to deal with royalties, too).

His small troupe of actors includes the impossibly ditzy Mary (an over-the-top Julie-Anne Liechty), the swaggering peacock Tyler (Kaleo Griffith), a forgetful old codger (Richard Mathews) and his partner (Patricia Fraser), a too-good-for-summer-stock fathead (Max Robinson), and three summer interns. There’s also a production assistant (Joyce Cohen) who seems to have a past with Gordon, and a dreary psycho-lesbian co-director (Anne Stewart Mark).

Chief among them, though, is Jack Morris (Robert J. Hamilton), a young man who is about ready to give up on acting and go to law school instead. Will this ragtag group of misfits come together to get the shows up in time, have an awesome summer, and find what made them become actors in the first place? Gee, d’ya think?

Morey clearly has great affection for all the traditions, pains and triumphs of this world, and it shows in the details. The longest monologues are about the travails of a would-be professional actor. It is, ultimately, the good performances that make all the bad ones worthwhile.

Unfortunately, little attempt is made to universalize the situation. This is never about Everyman’s quest to Overcome the Odds and do The Impossible; it’s about actors and their craft, nothing more, nothing less. There are many, many lines, jokes and references that lose their punch unless the viewer is already familiar with “Charley’s Aunt,” “Hamlet” and “Dracula.”

Do you know that “Charley’s Aunt” centers around a dress and that “Hamlet’s” Ophelia is supposed to be young and that “Dracula” is based on the real-life Vlad the Impaler? Not everyone does, but “Laughing Stock” assumes it anyway, among other things.

The show’s tone varies depending on the scene. The opening night of “Dracula” is an all-out farce, a well-timed comedy of errors (although, frankly, jokes about shows gone awry have been done before). The final moments, after closing night, are maudlin. The characters switch gears, too, with Tyler and Mary as caricatures for most of the show, then “real people” at the end. The transition is too abrupt.

Though well-acted and benefiting from the best of intentions, “Laughing Stock” is too limited in its scope to include everyone, and at nearly 3 hours is far too long to sustain itself. In describing what it’s like to tell fondly remembered theater stories to non-actors, one of the characters aptly describes how “Laughing Stock” will probably come across to the average viewer: “They’ll nod and smile, but they won’t understand.”