Home Blog Page 63

Head over Heels

0

How ironic that a film about not judging a book by its cover should star Freddie Prinze Jr., a man who is utterly without acting talent, but who continues to get roles because he looks good.

That, in fact, is the one thing “Head over Heels” has going for it: Freddie Prinze Jr. is handsome. If you can look at him for 91 minutes without any actual entertainment going on around him, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, steer clear.

I hesitate to besmirch the good name of the adjective “bad” by applying it to this movie, but I can’t think of a better one. It’s bad. Apocalyptically bad. It’s actually worse than I thought it would be, and I thought it would be pretty bad, what with the presence of Mr. Prinze Jr. and all.

But in fact, “Head over Heels” would still be bad even if Mr. Prinze Jr. weren’t involved. Not only are the other actors wooden and incompetent, but the script and story are atrocious.

Amanda Pierce (Monica Potter) is a Manhattan gal with bad taste in men. She moves into a fabulous apartment with a bevy of supermodels, and the apartment has a great view: It looks right into the never-curtained window of fashion executive Jim Winston (Mr. Prinze Jr.), who is as hot as all get-out.

Jim seems to be perfect — perfection here defined as “really good-looking” and “friendly” — but Amanda soon discovers an imperfection: He might have killed someone. Amanda definitely saw what looked like a murder taking place in his apartment, and even though there’s no body and Jim seems like a nice guy and is obviously too skinny to murder anyone, she’s convinced he did. The police won’t investigate, though, partly because there’s no sign of foul play but also because they won’t take the word of a bunch of stupid models. So Amanda and her high-cheekboned roommates snoop around on their own.

This leads to a dreadful scene that has forever stained my soul. While the girls are looking for clues in Jim’s apartment, Jim returns home. Three of them hide in the shower, behind the curtain. Jim enters the bathroom and we hear an unzipping. We think, “Oh, how naughty. They’re going to hear him tinkle.” But no. He sits down on the toilet. Then he experiences a full 10 seconds of explosive, volcanic diarrhea. Loudly and graphically. In THX sound. It is the low point of the film, and possibly in all of Western civilization.

Its competition, though, is another bathroom scene later on, this time where the models have hidden in a public men’s room by mistake. Two plumbers come in to work on a toilet, and after engaging in work-related dialogue that makes it sound like they’re having sex (’cause, you know, THAT’s funny), they do something to a backed-up toilet that makes the commode the girls are huddled around go off like a geyser, covering them in horrifying lumpy brown liquid.

The director is Mark S. Waters, whose only previous film was a 1997 indie piece called “The House of Yes” (which also featured Mr. Prinze Jr. but was good anyway). A total of four men are credited with the story and screenplay; one wonders why it took that many people to come up with Amanda’s never-ending tongue-tied malaprops when she talks to Jim (“I’ve got the runs,” she says, instead of “I’ve got to run”).

And I would prefer not to discuss the climax, which allows bad guys to be captured while the models are stumbling dumbly into a career-making fashion show.

The movie is bad enough on the surface, but it’s even worse if you pay attention to its apparent message. Amanda and friends think Jim is a killer, which he turns out not to be (and if that ruins the surprise for you, you need help). The message, of course, is that things are not always what they seem. Yet at the same time, everyone assumes the models are shallow imbeciles — and they ARE shallow imbeciles! There is no pay-off, no sudden burst of hidden intelligence, no reversal where they turn out to be more than we thought. They are exactly what we thought they were, and no attempt is made to change that. They get by on their looks, just like Jim, and just like this movie. Ultimately, they all deserve to fail.

Left Behind: The Movie

0

“Left Behind: The Movie,” based on the best-selling novel about the Bible-predicted end times, is first and foremost a missionary tract for evangelicial Christianity.

Sure, it starts out being more than that. Millions of people — children, mostly — have disappeared sans special effects, leaving behind their clothes and loved ones. No one can explain it, except the Bible-believers, who understand that it’s the rapture. The righteous have been taken away to heaven, while the rest have been left to endure the rise of the Antichrist and all the bad stuff he has in store for mankind.

News reporter Buck Williams (Kirk Cameron), meanwhile, is putting together clues that will lead him to the aforementioned Evil One. It’s a plot that will be familiar to those who already believe a united European currency and the United Nations are insidious; in this case, the U.N. is part of a plot to control the world’s food supply.

The ideas are occasionally interesting — what WOULD it be like if people around you suddenly started vanishing? — but they are ruined by a heavy-handed religious tone. This is most evident in the story of airline pilot Ray Steele (Brad Johnson), who always made fun of his wife’s religious convictions but who isn’t laughing now that she’s with God and he’s stuck with his rebellious daughter (Janaya Stephens) here in mortality. He has an overnight conversion and is soon proselytizing in an embarrassing manner, just like the movie.

I’m in no position to judge the theology of “Left Behind,” but I am in a position to judge its quality as a film. And as a film, it’s terrible. The direction is strictly movie-of-the-week, and the dialogue is ridiculous and trite. The acting is bland, the characters are lifeless. There is no reason to continue watching the movie, except maybe to find out how the characters are going to deal with realizing the reason they’re still here is that they weren’t righteous enough.

Using a movie to present your religious views is fine. But having good intentions doesn’t excuse you from having to make a quality film. A lot of those people who were left behind had good intentions, too, and look where it got them.

Valentine

0

Can a film being released in 2001 really expect to be taken seriously when its killer wears a mask? After the “Friday the 13th” movies overdid them and the “Scream” movies mocked them, you’d think a filmmaker with any kind of savvy would know better.

But the killer in “Valentine,” whom we are led to understand is a former grade-school nerd seeking revenge on the girls who were once cruel to him, wears a mask. It’s a cherubic Cupid mask — creepy, sure, and he even uses a bow and arrow once — but no self-respecting psycho would wear a mask nowadays.

Speaking of psycho, a shower scene — that other slasher-movie cliché — is here, too, also without irony. In this day and age, it would be hard to come up with any new ideas for teen horror flicks, and director Jamie Blanks (“Urban Legend”), working from a script that took four people to write, only occasionally even tries.

A potential victim hides in a morgue full of body bags, leaving the killer no choice but to slash each one until he hits the jackpot; I admit to finding that idea fairly original, even if the result is the same. But after that, it’s a lot of pointless romances — justified because of the film’s Valentine’s Day theme — and standard don’t-go-in-the-basement scenarios.

Set in San Francisco, the film follows four 20-ish women who are allegedly friends but who go for long periods of time without seeing each other and who don’t notice when one of their fellows disappears for several days. (This is not a dynamic of their friendship; it’s a series of plot conveniences.) We meet them first at the funeral of the aforementioned morgue worker, who was also a friend of theirs. Before she was pre-posthumously autopsied, she received a weird valentine, and soon the survivors are getting them, too.

The valentines say morbidly funny things like, “Roses are red, violets are blue/They’ll need dental records to identify you,” and the girls are freaked out but not, as yet, murdered.

The valentines are signed “JM,” and the girls figure it might be Jeremy Melton, the skinny kid they all spurned in junior high. Jeremy has disappeared, with no recent photographs, so no one knows what he looks like now. (His parents died “in a fire,” which is how most movie orphans’ parents died.) With the help of a lecherous detective (Fulvio Cecere), they realize that any of their current boyfriends or acquaintances could actually be Jeremy, cleaned up and bulked out.

From there it’s rote, with nary a twist, though the apparently arbitrary revelation of the killer’s identity does make some good sense if you think about it. The characters range from Denise Richards’s saucy whore to Jessica Capshaw’s plump nice girl. Richards is leering and awful; Capshaw is actually pretty good; Jessica Cauffiel and Katherine Heigl as the other two women are somewhere in between. David Boreanaz (from TV’s “Angel”) is serviceable as the boyfriend of one of the girls.

Very little of what anyone does or says rings true to life (one woman takes her recovering-alcoholic boyfriend to a bar, and the detective shows not a hint of sympathy while questioning the friends at the funeral), but some of it is entertaining. The film occasionally manages to be clever and suspenseful. We’ve been needing a good Valentine’s Day horror movie. This isn’t it, but it’s a start.

In the Mood for Love (Chinese)

0

Kar-wai Wong’s “In the Mood for Love” is an evocative love story that collapses at the end but remains pretty well focused up to that point.

The setting is Hong Kong, 1962, at a boarding house. Mrs. Chan (Maggie Cheung) and her husband move in to the apartment next door to Mr. Chow (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) and his wife. Mrs. Chan is a secretary; Mr. Chow is a newspaper editor. Both of their spouses travel a lot, so they — and we — never see them.

(In a neat maneuver, even in the few scenes where the spouses are present, the camera never shows them. We hear their voices, but that’s it.)

Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan maintain a polite friendship; nothing more than a nodding acquaintance, really. Then they realize their spouses are having an affair with each other. Mrs. Chan is devastated. She and Mr. Chow, with whom she now shares a tragic bond, role-play how the affair might have started, and how she might confront her husband about it.

The obvious turn would be for the pair to become lovers themselves. Director Kar-wai Wong doesn’t go that route, exactly — but he certainly lets it become a looming possibility. Mr. Chow wants an affair, and Mrs. Chan considers it. Her ultimate decision is where the film runs into trouble, with an ambiguous, confusing ending.

The camerawork is excellent throughout. We often come in on a conversation unsure who’s talking because the lens is focused on the speaker’s feet. More than a few times, we think the mystery spouses are finally being shown; after a while, we learn to be wary of jumping to conclusions.

All of that’s more than just a trick: It’s a valid, effective method of storytelling. Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan will “become” their spouses if they have an affair themselves. The deft camerawork is merely foreshadowing the possibility.

Sundunce

0

How often have you remarked, possibly out loud to strangers you passed in the street, “I wish someone would make a movie about the sexual desires of handicapped people”? If you’re like me, you remark this at least twice a day, often with expletives.

So you can imagine my joy when I attended the 2001 Sundance Film Festival and was able to view, with my own eyes and eyeglasses, an extremely French movie called “National 7,” which in fact is entirely about the sexual desires of handicapped people.

If you have never seen a movie in which a fat paraplegic man is wheeled up a ramp into a prostitute’s mobile home, then there is a fat, paraplegic void in your life. This movie fills that void. It also fills 90 minutes. It also has a lot of people speaking French, which I am opposed to in movies. (Where’s Gayle Ruzicka and her gang of frothy-mouthed lunatics with their “English Only” law NOW, when we actually need it?)

But not all the movies at Sundance were about handicapped men having sex with hookers. No, many of them were about lesbians, child molesters and Ozzy Osbourne. Mr. Osbourne was the subject of a documentary, and he was at the festival, too, helping eradicate Park City’s notorious bat problem. We media types were given the option of interviewing him, and I almost took advantage of the opportunity. Then I realized I didn’t have a single question about anything in the world that could be answered by Ozzy Osbourne. So I didn’t bother.

Ozzy wasn’t the only aging rock-star grotesquery at Sundance; Mick Jagger was there, too, as producer of a film. I thought I saw Mr. Jagger, but it turned out to be just a telephone pole with some trash stuck to it. Mr. Jagger was not granting interviews to the press, as his last four functioning brain cells were destroyed by cocaine several decades ago.

A slightly younger couple that lots of people did see was teen sensation Britney Spears and her boyfriend, N*Sync-er Justin Timberlake. I did not see them because I spent all day, every day, in the press screening room, watching movies. The only celebrity I could have seen there would have been Roger Ebert, but he apparently doesn’t attend press screenings. I don’t know how he sees the movies, then. Probably has them projected directly onto his torso.

My only opportunities for celebrity-sightings were the famous Sundance parties. I attended one, dressed quite swankily in my black leather jacket. I probably should have worn something else, too, but I was so excited that the notion of pants fled my mind. It didn’t matter, because the only people there were other losers like me, also looking in vain for celebrities as they tried to look cool while simultaneously drinking and dancing. (Note: This is impossible.) The famous people were not at the “official” (i.e., “lame”) Sundance parties. They go to the underground soirees, where it’s not enough to wear a leather jacket and leather pants; you actually have to have leather skin, too. (This is probably a tribute to Sundance founder Robert Redford, who is made entirely of catcher’s mitts.)

So it was back to the press screenings for me, where I got to watch a man dressed as a woman play a woman who used to be a man in “Hedwig and the Angry Inch.” You know, some taboos are there for a reason, people.

Singin’ in the Rain

0

SCERA’s production of “Singin’ in the Rain” is a solid run at a show that is very difficult to produce.

It began life as a movie, and a fondly remembered one, so it has big shoes to fill. But more problematic is the show’s structure. As a film, it could have a million scene changes; as a stage musical, that means trouble. Veteran local director Jerry Elison has his cast and crew working like beavers to get those sets moved around, but no matter how fast they are, the scene changes are just too long and too frequent. (Sometimes the lights are only up for two minutes before they’re down and everything’s in a flurry again.)

Overlooking the issues inherent in the show itself, this staging is quite entertaining. Daniel R. Aldous plays Don Lockwood, a silent-film star who, in 1927, finds himself grappling with the new “talkies.” He makes the transition well enough; his co-star (whom the studio is passing off as his real-life fiancee), Lina Lamont (Afton Ferguson), does not fare so well. Her speaking voice is terrible and she’s not the brightest star in the sky.

Fortunately, Don has become involved with stage actress Kathy Selden (Melinda Stailey), who speaks and sings quite beautifully. Much to the chagrin of a jealous Lina, the studio dubs Kathy’s voice over hers, and Lina just has to lip-sync.

Aldous is a better singer and dancer than he is an actor, though he’s likable regardless of what he’s doing. (He comes off as rather snotty in his first scenes with Kathy, yet still keeps audience sympathy.) His partnership with David Whitlock as crazy friend Cosmo is remarkable, particularly in the “Fit as a Fiddle” number, which has some truly impressive choreography (by Sunny Claitor). Whitlock shows great energy and skill in his “Make ‘Em Laugh” sequence, too.

Stailey is beautiful and strong as Kathy. As for Ferguson as Lina, many of the jokes about Lina’s awful voice are harmed by the fact that Ferguson is doing a voice that simply isn’t bad enough. The accent ranges from Brooklyn to Georgia, and should be a lot squeakier and more annoying to get the right comic effect.

Shining in smaller roles are Jeremy Young as the diction coach (the victim of Cosmo and Don’s rambunctious “Moses Supposes” bit), and Melissa Benson as a star-struck Hollywood reporter. The filmed sequences are extremely authentic-looking and impressive, too.

My Fair Lady

0

One thing can certainly be said of BYU’s “My Fair Lady”: At three hours and 15 minutes in length, you’re definitely getting your money’s worth. (By comparison, last year’s production at Hale Center Theater Orem was a full 45 minutes shorter.)

While length is not necessarily a problem, it is if it’s not justified. Most of “My Fair Lady’s” problems are unavoidable without doing some cutting, as Lerner and Loewe, though great songwriters, sometimes just didn’t know when to stop. No show needs a five-minute song-and-dance number to tell us that someone is getting married, especially if that someone is a minor character and his bride-to-be is not even in the play.

BYU’s faithful, traditional staging, directed by Marion J. Bentley, lies mostly dormant until snobbish Prof. Henry Higgins (Casey Griffiths) gets Cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle (Mindy Smoot; double-cast with Korianne Johnson) to his home to teach her proper diction and grammar. When the servants, moving in amusing clockwork-style choreography, begin singing “Poor Professor Higgins” while Henry tries to tutor an exhausted Eliza, the show starts to wake up. With the next scene, in which Henry successfully passes off Eliza as an educated woman at the racetrack, the show comes marvelously to life.

In fact, the play is never more entertaining than in that scene. Mindy Smoot, already beautiful and possessed of a fine singing voice, does some great comedy here, using Cockney grammar and slang but speaking in a perfectly respectable accent. Her demeanor is that of a Stepford wife, all the life sucked out of her and replaced with false social class. It’s hysterical, and backed up well by the ensemble of stiff caricatures who make up the supporting cast.

Casey Griffiths plays the snipe-tongued Prof. Higgins for all he’s worth, earning laughs without clowning and generally handling the high-society dignity of the character very well, considering how young the actor is. Donald Allison as Henry’s friend Colonel Pickering is not a step behind him. Joshua Meyer gets only two real scenes as Freddy Eynsford Hill, but in them proves he has the best singing voice in the cast. Reyna Ricks is also notably strong as Henry’s no-nonsense mother.

The old-style American musical is not everyone’s cup of tea, but this incarnation of “My Fair Lady,” once it gets going, provides several hours’ worth of sentimental entertainment.

The Wedding Planner

0

Perhaps I was just in a bad mood. Or maybe I had been forced into that mood by the bland lameness that had already permeated “The Wedding Planner.” But there was a point in this film when I actually began talking to the screen, which I never do. (The theater was nearly empty, by the way, so don’t worry about my bothering other patrons.)

It was at the point when the title character, the cute but unlucky-at-love Mary (Jennifer Lopez), was visiting a possible site for an upcoming wedding with the bride- and groom-to-be. She already fell in love with the groom, you see; once she found out he was engaged (and a client!), she got real pouty and spiteful.

As fate would have it, the ridiculous Italian stereotype that her aging father has convinced to marry her shows up on the scene, announcing that Mary is his fiancee (even though Mary very clearly told him “no” ages ago). The groom-to-be whom Mary has the hots for is quite interested to know this, of course, since he got a stern talking-to from her when she found out HE was engaged. Quite a hypocrite, this Mary! Quite a temptress and a harlot indeed! And imagine the wackiness that will ensue when the man Mary is in love with thinks she’s engaged when really she’s not! Everyone will start treating the Italian guy like her fiance! Such comedy!

This is where I started talking to the movie. “Just say, ‘We’re not engaged,'” I said in a low voice. Instead, all the characters kept talking about how happy they were for Mary and Italian Guy. Mary kept opening her mouth to speak but getting interrupted. “Just say, ‘We’re not engaged,'” I said, a little louder. I couldn’t believe the movie was actually going to hinge a major plot point on something as stupid as Mary’s unwillingness to make her voice heard. And yet, that’s exactly what happened.

And that, my friends, is symptomatic of why “The Wedding Planner” is a pathetic movie. It’s a realistic movie in the sense that there are no fantasy elements, no fairy godmothers, no explosions and no aliens. It’s meant to be grounded in reality — which is why romantic comedies are generally successful, because the women in the audience can think, “This could happen to ME!,” and the men in the audience can think, “Hey, maybe I could score with Jennifer Lopez!”

Yet, “The Wedding Planner” relies almost entirely on improbable (and even impossible) events and circumstances to propel its weak, simpering little plot. Mary’s failure to say “We’re not engaged” is just one example. In another scene, while everyone’s horseback-riding, Mary’s horse is spooked and the groom-to-be, Eddie (Matthew McConaughey), has to ride to her rescue. Quite a romantic notion indeed. But what spooked her horse? The bride-to-be’s mother’s horrific singing voice.

This is a romantic comedy in a broad farce’s clothing, and it doesn’t fit worth a darn. Lovesick Italians and potential arranged marriages CAN be funny, and so can a woman who wants to sabotage a wedding so she can have the groom to herself. (We know that’s funny because we already saw it in “My Best Friend’s Wedding.”) But they’re not funny here, where there’s no acknowledgment that not a bit of it is original, and everything is played as if the movie is the cleverest thing in the world for thinking of this stuff.

Lopez and McConaughey are charming, as they tend to be. Lopez is not the least bit adept at doing comedy — but, then, this is hardly a comedy anyway. See it with a date and hope you get some action afterward. Other than that, there’s no reason to see it at all.

Coming Up

0

Question: What is the most unpleasant way to be woken up?

A. Wolverines biting your throat.
B. Icy she-beast Hillary Rodham Clinton tickling you with her mustache.
C. Monkeys.
D. The sound of your roommate, just a few feet away from you, vomiting into a wastebasket.

If you answered “D,” you’ve correctly guessed the topic of today’s column. (Next week: monkeys.) For some reason, roommates only get sick in the middle of the night. Such was the case a few weeks ago, when my roommate, Jesse, found himself throwing up quite vociferously at 5 a.m., much to the dismay and woken-upedness of me.

The problem if you’re an innocent bystander when someone is throwing up is that you don’t know what to do. You can’t help, really, unless the person needs to be held upside-down like a ketchup bottle and whacked on the bottom to get the last few drops out. And you don’t know what to say, either. “Are you OK?” is dumb, because he’s obviously not. “What’s the matter?” is dumb because it’s also obvious. “Hey, shut up, I’m trying to sleep” is considered rude in many circles.

After my initial concern had passed about whether Jesse would EVER stop vomiting, I began worrying that I would catch whatever he had. I’m not afraid of being sick, but I am mortally fearful of vomiting. I haven’t thrown up since I was 13, when I sat at my grandfather’s office all day and ate a dozen or so spicy microwaved chicken wings, then spent the better part of the night wishing a pox on all chickens (get it? A chicken pox?).

Fortunately, I didn’t get it from Jesse. He had caught version 2.0 of an illness some of us had already beta-tested, an illness that in fact had stricken most of the Daily Herald newsroom. If the papers were especially bad several weeks ago, it’s because we were operating with a decimated staff. Many of us were delusional, which is why the headlines throughout November kept implying we didn’t know who the new president was.

The problem with everyone being sick is that no one feels any sympathy for anyone else. (This is especially true with journalists, who don’t have any compassion anyway.) We’d sit around lethargically and play illness poker, which works as follows. I had a bad sore throat and some general achiness — bad enough to whine, but not bad enough to stay in bed all day and watch soap operas. I would mention this casually eight or nine times an hour, and Community News Editor Sharon Gholdston, seated to my right, would say, “I’ll see your sore throat and achiness and raise you a cough and a fever.” Sharon can always beat us in a hand of illness poker. If I had the Bubonic Plague, she would have the Bubonic Plague and a toothache. Food Editor Karen Hoag actually had to fold and take a day off. If you can’t handle the high-stakes games, better stay away from the craps table, that’s what I say.

And speaking of craps and illnesses — no, never mind. I’ve said too much already.

Sugar & Spice

0

Since last year’s “Bring It On” was such a pleasant surprise, a genuinely witty and fun look at high-school cheerleaders and their world, it seems logical there’d be a rip-off sooner or later.

And here it is: “Sugar & Spice,” a film whose plot and lack of consequences for its anti-heroes dictate that it be considered a “dark comedy,” but whose jokes fall more in the genre of “teens will laugh at this because teens will laugh at anything.”

The film is narrated by Lisa (Marla Sokoloff), a bitter B-Squad cheerleader whose jealousy toward the A-Squad has led her to turn them in for a bank heist they pulled off. That bank heist was an act of desperation when squad captain Diane (Marley Shelton) got pregnant by her jubilantly dim football-player boyfriend Jack (James Marsden). They moved in together and he got a job at the video store, but they weren’t going to be able to support the baby on such a meager income. So Diane got her cheerleading buddies together to rob a grocery store bank branch.

The jokes here are broad-side-of-the-barn, often grasping at verbal drollness that they just can’t reach. (Lisa says A-Squad’s routine “blew like a bulimic after Christmas dinner,” and that’s about as good as it gets.) The cheerleaders are basic: foul-mouthed tough-girl Kansas (Mena Suvari); virginal Hannah (Rachel Blanchard); geeky Lucy (Sara Marsh); and obsessive/weird Cleo (Melissa George). Their personalities are different, though they ultimately blend together into one big sassy-talking monster cheerleader. The potential humor in cheerleaders using their particular talents to rob a bank is untapped, save for one moment when a girl is launched high enough into the air to spray-paint a surveillance camera (though even that joke doesn’t work, since they’re all wearing masks anyway, making the act unnecessary).

Stay home and rent “Bring It On” instead. Or, like the girls did to glean tips on their crime, watch “Reservoir Dogs” and “The Apple Dumpling Gang.” Either one would be more consistently entertaining than “Sugar & Spice.”

The Pledge

0

“The Pledge” is not lemon-fresh, though I suspect Jack Nicholson is being held together by space-age polymers.

Sean Penn directed this atmospheric thriller, and it has the makings of a fine piece of work. Nicholson is as good as ever (it’s one of his more sympathetic roles, too), and the supporting cast includes Benicio Del Toro, Vanessa Redgrave, Helen Mirren, Harry Dean Stanton and Mickey Rourke — each of whom shines despite appearing only briefly onscreen.

The story has potential, too. Appearing at first to be a clichéd cop story about a man on the verge of retirement who is determined to stay on the case until it’s finished, it winds up being a rather subtle psychological story with an ending that forces you to consider in a new light some of the things you took for granted to that point.

Nicholson’s character, homicide detective Jerry Black, is retiring reluctantly — so reluctantly he leaves his own farewell party to help cocky youngster Stan Krolak (Aaron Eckhart) on a murder investigation. A young girl has been found sexually assaulted and slaughtered, her body frozen out in the snowy woods.

None of the local police want to tell the victim’s family, so Jerry does it (this sounds suspect already). The mother (Patricia Clarkson), a rabidly religious woman, demands to know how anyone so evil could exist. Jerry assures her grimly that they do. He says he’ll find the killer. She makes him promise. He promises.

That would have been enough already. He’s sworn to apprehend the villain, and that’s why he insists on pursuing the case, even after he’s retired. But the film has the woman turning near-crazy on Jerry, making him swear on the salvation of his soul, using a wooden cross knickknack as an idol, that he will find the killer. It’s an utterly unbelievable moment.

On that basis, Jerry slowly and quietly becomes obsessed with the case, even though a suspect (Benicio Del Toro) was arrested and later committed suicide. Jerry has a “hunch” that they’d caught the wrong guy. It’s an awfully flimsy thing to base so much on (especially an entire movie), especially when a great deal of evidence points to the contrary.

Jerry’s hunch pays off, though, as a drawing made by the girl before she died suggests she may have known the killer. From a few circumstantial elements is drawn the conclusion that the man has killed three times already and will kill again within a year. Jerry must stop him, not just to save a life, but to save his own soul.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. Jerry buys a rural gas station (why?) and becomes friends and eventually housemates with a single mom named Lori (Robin Wright Penn) and her daughter Chrissy (Pauline Roberts). He suspects a local man, but never has his cop friends run a background check on him. The last victim was sexually assaulted, but was there no DNA evidence? If there wasn’t, fine, but the movie needs to let us know it at least recognized the possibility. The identity and fate of the killer is unsatisfying, too, and for the movie’s conclusion to make sense, you have to assume Jerry never heard about a significant highway accident that, had he known of it, would have settled his doubts.

Though Nicholson and company are stellar, the dreary film makes promises it doesn’t deliver on, pulling the rug out from under us without really letting us step on it in the first place. A little more deftness in the directing, and it could have been a marvelously unsettling work.

Snatch

0

Writer/director Guy Ritchie’s follow-up to the 1999 heist comedy “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels” is “Snatch,” a film that runs out of steam long before it ends yet still compels you to like it.

How can you not like a movie with character names like Franky Four Fingers, Bullet Tooth Tony, Boris the Blade (aka Boris the Bullet Dodger), Brick Top, Doug the Head and Cousin Avi? Or a movie that lies to you about who its main character is? (Benicio Del Toro, who plays Franky Four Fingers, is listed first in the credits and appears in the first scene … and then he’s removed from the playing field 30 minutes into the film.) Or a movie whose title is spoken only once, in a seemingly irrelevant place that becomes relevant an hour later?

There is much to like about Ritchie’s directorial style, which is frenetic and visually interesting. Cameras never just sit in the corner and watch if they can be mounted on tracks and give us up-the-nostril views instead. The opening surveillance-camera tracking shot is wonderful. The large cast of characters give off-kilter performances reminiscent of a Coen Brothers film.

Perhaps it’s all those great characters who are ultimately the problem: The film is altogether zanier than is prudent. You can only keep up tart-tongued gangster farces for so long. You can only have a cast of wackos whom audiences enjoy watching but feel no sympathy toward for so long. You can only laugh at Brad Pitt’s intentionally indecipherable Irish-Gypsy accent for so long.

The plot is curvy enough to fill a book, but the gist of it is that a huge diamond has been stolen and winds up in nearly everyone’s hands. For whatever reason (probably none; the film is unabashedly pointless), several ethnicities are involved, including Russians, Jews, blacks, Irish and Italians. A dog plays a part, too.

The narrator is Turkish (that’s his name, not his nationality). Turkish (Jason Statham) and his dim, innocent partner Tommy (Stephen Graham) run unlicensed boxing matches, often working with crime boss Brick Top (Alan Ford). Somehow Turkish and Tommy get involved with the jewel theft, and wind up owing Brick Top a big favor when their fixed fight goes awry insofar as their champion, Mickey O’Neil (Brad Pitt) fails to take a dive in the fourth round. The Benicio Del Toro character gets involved because he loves gambling, and someone who seeks his downfall (he’s the one with the diamond to start with) intentionally sends him to a bookie, where hitmen lie in wait. It gets more complicated from there, and I’m not entirely convinced the plot actually made sense the whole time.

Such a fast-paced, manic film is liable to burn itself out an hour or so, and this one does. The British accents are often very challenging, too, and not in a funny way like Brad Pitt’s is. Some great scenes — like Bullet Tooth Tony’s (Vinnie Jones) intimidation of the hitmen — are instant classics, elevating the film’s overall luster to something worth looking at, but short of brilliant.

Panic

0

Most promotional posters for “Panic” have a gun on them, and the film opens with that dread-filled suspense music we’re accustomed to. Then a voice says, “You ever get the feeling you’re dead?”

So begins “Panic,” a noirish drama from writer/director Henry Bromell. The voice belongs to Alex (William H. Macy), and he’s talking to his therapist, Josh (John Ritter). Alex is going through an unusual midlife crisis: He kills people for a living, under the employ of his father (Donald Sutherland), and he’d like out of the family business now, if you don’t mind.

He has a wife, Martha (Tracey Ullman, in a rare non-comedic role), from whom he is growing increasingly distant. (“Are you getting enough sex from Martha?” asks his imperious mother, played by Barbara Bain.) He also has a smart 6-year-old son named Sammy (David Dorfman), with whom he has late-night chats about infinity, death and the music of Beck.

Alex loves his family but has become fascinated with Sarah (Neve Campbell), a quasi-lesbian whom he met in the therapist’s waiting room. He’s not sure what he wants from her at first, though an affair seems in order.

While Alex is in the midst of figuring out how to get out of Dad’s business and how to secure a liaison with Sarah, Dad gives him a new assignment. The target? Josh the therapist. Dilemmas, dilemmas.

Macy is perfect as the sad, weary men he usually plays now. His eyes, as Sarah points out, really do convey a lot of sadness, but they’re not bitter. They’ve just seen too much of the world, and they’re tired. One look at those eyes, and one is bound to feel sympathetic for Macy, whoever he’s playing.

Bromell’s dialogue often strives for the hip triviality of Mamet or Tarantino, but usually comes off more as a slightly sophisticated USA Network offering. He also straddles a little too uncomfortably the line between crime noir and suburban drama. Is this a movie about a hitman who wants out, or a man finding his place in his family? I’m not saying a movie can’t be both, but this one is not entirely effective at either.

It is, however, an interesting film, and it occasionally breaks out with some sharp moments. Its strict sense of morality is also thought-provoking. Plus, it has a kid who listens to Beck, so it can’t be all bad.

Deface the Music

0

I keep hearing this song on the radio that I don’t understand, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it’s by one of those R&B groups consisting of three black women who take turns seeing who can sing the most different notes over the course of one syllable. They get all shrill and high-pitched and go, “Ba-BEeee-EEEEE-eeeeee-EE-e-eeEYYyyYY.” OK, we get it, you can sing. Please move on to the next word.

Anyway, the music is an exact rip-off of the song “Hernando’s Hideaway,” from the old musical “The Pajama Game” (whose title song contains the lyrics, “The pajama game is what I’m in/And I’m proud to be in the pajama game,” which serves as a reminder that just because it’s in an old musical doesn’t mean it’s not stupid). The lyrics to this rip-off, repeated a thousand times, are:

“Come on and dance with me, my baby,
Let’s dance till we go crazy.”

OK, I can see dancing until you got really tired, or dancing until you got a cramp in your leg. But dancing until you went crazy? How long would that take? I’ve never known insanity to be a by-product of incessant dancing. And furthermore, why would you do this on purpose? Somehow the woman thinks this is a come-on: “Hey, baby, let’s dance until we’ve lost capacity for rational thought and have to be medicated. Perhaps they’ll put us in adjoining wards at the state hospital!” This is going to bring guys running? We already know there’s a good chance the relationship will drive one or both parties insane; now the woman wants to expedite matters through dance? Quite efficient, this gal.

But perhaps I am nit-picking. You would nit-pick, too, if the nits were swarming around your head like they are mine! A more baffling musical puzzle to me is opera. I’m the first to admit I don’t really understand it, and for a very good reason: It’s in Italian. What, they couldn’t write in English? English has lots of great rhymes, like corn/porn, comet/vomit, baby/crazy and gluteus maximus/Hootie is taxin’ us. Any or all of those would be swell in an opera.

Last week I saw “Rigoletto” (Rigoletto/big libretto), which is about a court jester named Fred. No, just kidding, it’s Rigoletto. As a court jester, Rigoletto of course is the furthest thing from funny. (You gotta wonder what the purpose of these guys was. To be creepy?) Nonetheless, people laugh at him and enjoy his whimsical antics that include splashing water on people’s faces and making fun of a guy who kills his own daughter.

It’s the last part that ticks people off. They’re angry because this guy they pay to crack jokes all the time has actually cracked a joke, if you can imagine. So they kidnap his daughter, thinking it’s his mistress, and in his haste for revenge, Rigoletto accidentally has her killed — which, you’ll recall, is the same sort of folly the mockery of which got him in trouble in the first place. It’s not funny now, though, because it’s in Italian, which is a language we don’t speak. How sad to be tormented and receive no sympathy, all because you communicate in a foreign tongue!

I guess it could have been worse. He could have danced till he went crazy.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

0

In a rare instance of a local theater recognizing its limitations and putting them to use, rather than over-exerting itself and falling flat, Little London Dinner Theater uses a small cast, tiny stage and minimal sets to present a perfectly adequate version of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.”

In so doing, their no-frills “Joseph” (directed by Bob Manning, who staged a similar production at UVSC) is actually original. It’s not just the same old show with a few embellishments for the sake of being different; it’s actually a new concept. Their Joseph isn’t chiseled or fake-tanned, and neither is their show.

The premise is that the troupe Little London hired to perform, the Blaire, Mo., Regional Players (that’s a “Waiting for Guffman” reference, by the way), didn’t show up. So now, a group of nuns providing pre-show entertainment have to do the show themselves, with their three male crew members helping out.

Since we’ve seen “Joseph” before, watching people TRY to perform it is almost as much fun as people actually performing it. And fortunately, the jokes surrounding the cast’s supposed inexperience are kept to a minimum; in general, they just do the show straight, albeit it with far fewer props and costumes than we’re used to. Sure, we know the reason for the minimalism is the expense and resources involved. But we have no trouble buying their explanation for it, too, since it’s so much fun that way.

Seth Child, David Patrick Nugent and Aaron DeJesus, who at various times have stolen whatever UVSC shows they’ve performed in, perform as Joseph, Jacob and Pharaoh, among other roles. (DeJesus’ Pharaoh is hilariously Cuban, by the way, a welcome change from the Pharaoh-as-Elvis shtick that we’ve seen so many times.)

Six nuns play the eleven brothers. (Six women playing eleven people is funny in itself.) Traci Brewster and Jessie Clark are the amiable narrators, with Brewster also playing the deliciously vampy Mrs. Potiphar.

Not everything works in this adaptation. With a small number of singers — and women, too, instead of husky-voiced men — the big numbers don’t ring out like they should. The small space occasionally leads to static stage pictures. Little London’s new lighting system could use some more juice, too (the stage is too dark too often), and the sound system still has some bugs in it.

But the best thing about the show is this: That end-of-show “megamix,” which is essentially just a 10-minute curtain call, is gone. Viva la difference!

The Three Musketeers: All for One and Fun for All

0

It’s the silly characters who make Desert Star Playhouse’s “The Three Musketeers: All for One and Fun for All” a successful bit of lunacy.

There’s MiLady DeWinter (Annette Wright), a villain with mildly evil goals who vamps trashily as she tries to help Roquefort (Joel Wallin) gain control of France. Roquefort himself is over-the-top bad, and Wallin has quite a healthy maniacal laugh on him. He is joined by Igor-like sidekick Grizel (Ed Farnsworth), whose ears stick out and who walks like a slinky.

Then there’s the three musketeers. Aramis (Scott Holman) is fey and mincing, Porthos (Spencer Ashby) is old and forgetful, and Athos (voice of Ed Farnsworth) is a puppet. Their quest is to throw the flamboyant king Louis (Steven Fehr) out of office and replace him with the rightful heir, his twin brother Philippe (Fehr again). They want to make sure Spanish Princess Isabella (Kathleen Richardson), who rolls her r’s like there’s no tomorrow, doesn’t marry the wrong guy, too. They’re joined by D’Artagnan (Matt Kohler), a dashing musketeer wannabe with the hots for local girl Constance (JulieAnn Christensen).

Ed Farnsworth has a third role as Constance’s hideous mother, making him the show’s MVP — though Steven Fehr comes in a close second in his twin-brother roles. Scott Holman, normally the best reason to go to the Desert Star, has a role in this show that doesn’t allow him much stage time. He makes the most of it, though, and gets one of the best lines: When Roquefort says during a sword fight, “I shall miss our little tete-a-tetes,” Holman’s Aramis replies, “I never say no to a pair of tetes!” (Don’t worry, that’s as naughty as the show gets.)

Annette Wright and Spencer Ashby, both “Saturday’s Voyeur” veterans, are serviceable in the main show, but even better in the post-show olio, when they play a white-trash couple who insult each other on TV. (The olio also has Christensen, Wright and Richardson — shamefully underused in the show — singing a hysterically shrill “Whistle While You Work.”)

The fight choreography, by Joel Wallin, is quite good, as is JulieAnn Christensen’s dance choreography. (The musketeers’ flouncy “Noble Sons of France” number is a hoot.)

It’s not the Desert Star’s best show ever; the laughs are consistent, but rarely of the gut-busting variety. It is, nonetheless, as fun for all as the title suggests.

Invisible Revolution (documentary)

0

Beverly Peterson’s documentary “Invisible Revolution” presents an objective, “60 Minutes”-style report on racist and anti-racist factions in America. There is little of the director’s own personality or opinions — her voice-over narration even sounds detached — and that’s probably a good thing. The racist groups come off as so ridiculous, one would be inclined to think Peterson rigged it that way on purpose.

Some interesting characters cross the screen. First there’s Ben Smith, an Indiana college student and ambitious proponent of the World Church of the Creator. His racist literature — distributed in an affluent suburb along his paper route — rankles the mayor, among others, and no one can understand how a boy with his upbringing turned out that way.

More unsettling is James Roesch, an 18-year-old who becomes Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in Ohio. He seems a fairly intelligent youth, all things considered, and he’s certainly a good leader for a group that relies so heavily on leadership. The film documents his and April’s KKK wedding, complete with formal robes. At the end — this is absolutely true — everyone at the wedding shoots guns in the air and yells, “White power!” Here comes the bride, and heil Hitler!

If KKK members ever realize how ridiculous they look, it will be the downfall of the Klan. Never mind their ideology; it’s their behavior that’s the most blatantly goofy.

Somewhat less stupid in its tactics but no less zealous is the Anti-Racist Action group. The ARA is just what it sounds like, also attracting angry young people in search of a cause, only this one is dedicated to fighting groups like the Klan. They’re just as inclined to be furiously emotional during public rallies as the KKK is; in fact, it’s good that the film labels each interview subject as “KKK” or “ARA,” because it’s often hard to tell them apart. Members of either group have a propensity toward tattoos and short hair, and someone talking about having been shot or stabbed could be on either side.

Which, of course, is some of the documentary’s fascinating appeal — the idea that groups with completely opposite ideas could be so similar in their tactics. No real solutions are given, but both sides of the issue are examined with unflinching sociology-lesson honesty.

Lift

0

Co-directed by DeMane Davis and Khari Streeter, “Lift” is a gritty family drama based on the creators’ own experiences as professional shoplifters.

Niecy (Kerry Washington, recently the best reason to see “Save the Last Dance”) is a young African-American Bostonian who works at an upscale department store by day, shoplifts designer clothing by night. She uses stolen checks and credit cards when necessary, but is also adept at just takin’ the stuff. (It’s hard not to be impressed with her skills, especially when Davis and Streeter film them so artfully, almost poetically.)

She sells the clothes at a significant discount — but still a tremendous profit, obviously — to her friends and family, making her the cock of the walk in all her social circles. These are people who, we’re told, used to have balloons and streamers at birthday parties instead of presents, but who look good no matter how poverty-stricken they are.

Niecy is newly pregnant by her boyfriend, a former “booster” named Angelo (Eugene Byrd) who is trying to get her out of the business. (“Why don’t you drink rum and smoke crack, too?” he snaps at her.) Angelo’s former employer, meanwhile, the reptilian Christian (Todd Williams), is trying to get Niecy to join his crew. She prefers to work alone, though, except when it comes to one special job: Obsessed with pleasing her emotionally detached mother (Lonette McKee), Niecy wants to lift an expensive necklace. She’ll need some help from Christian’s guys, but no price is too great to pay to win her mother’s affection.

While the idea of organized shoplifting is probably foreign to most viewers, the situations and emotions here are as familiar as anything. Niecy is horrified to realize that dressing nicely has become the end-all and be-all of her existence; this point is driven home in a gripping funeral sequence in which all the mourners nightmarishly turn into runway models, and she can’t seem to keep her eyes on the dearly departed.

Washington’s performance is bold, as is a surprisingly powerful Barbara Montgomery as Niecy’s grandmother (who also lived through the circumstances that made Niecy’s mother so distant). DeMane and Streeter use hand-held cameras during some of the more dramatic sequences, to add immediacy to the family issues at hand. The movie is about shoplifting, but it’s more about familial relationships. Gloriously, it’s one of the better films on either subject to come along in a while.

Raw Deal: A Question of Consent (documentary)

0

On the night of Feb. 26, 1999, the University of Florida Delta Chi fraternity held a party at which a hired exotic dancer drank enough and became friendly enough to become part of the festivities herself. The next morning, she ran from the frat house half-naked, declaring she had been raped. Shortly after that, she was arrested for false reporting of a crime, as the frat boys’ home video had shown, in the police detectives’ minds, that the sex that occurred had been consensual.

The preceding paragraph contains just about all the information about the case that is beyond dispute. The explicit documentary “Raw Deal: A Question of Consent” demonstrates that, even when something has been caught on tape, there can still be a lot of questions open for debate.

Lisa Gier King and Disa Holly were strippers hired at the last minute for the party. Due to the omnipresence of video cameras in today’s society, it should come as no surprise that most of the proceedings were taped; in fact, two different frat brothers, Tony Marzulla and Leo Yuque, had cameras rolling for most of the night.

After a lot of drinking and dancing, Disa Holly was driven home by Marzulla, with King going along for the ride and then returning to the house, where her car and clothes were. She stayed at the house, though, spending time in the hot tub with Marzulla and others and continuing to drink.

She curled up on the couch under a blanket to sleep off the booze, only to be awakened by Michael Yarhaus, a good friend of Marzulla’s about whom King had frequently expressed uneasiness throughout the night. For the next few hours, Yarhaus and King were involved in something King would later call rape.

Police detective Alice Hendon — a woman, note — was the one to declare, upon watching the tapes, that King had been a willing participant. The outrage from women’s groups was considerable, and soon all of Gainesville and environs was abuzz with controversy.

Adding to the scintillating gossip was a Florida law mandating that all court evidence be available to the public. That meant the videotapes could be viewed by anyone who wanted to watch them. Soon copies were being made (and even sold by local entrepreneurs), as apparently EVERYONE wanted to watch the tape and see for themselves whether rape occurred.

Documentarian Billy Corben deftly interweaves interview footage with Marzulla, King and others with clips from the notorious tapes. Yarhaus refused to be interviewed, which may inspire skepticism as to his innocence. However, the National Organization for Women — the group that most loudly protested the decision not to prosecute Yarhaus — also wouldn’t go on camera unless their demands of 40 percent of the documentary’s profits, $5,000 up front, and approval of the title and final cut were met. (The producers “politely declined,” we are told in a title card.)

It is amazing to hear Marzulla and King tell such different stories, even though they’ve both seen the video. King says Yarhaus had her arms pinned down with his knees; the video shows that not to be case. She also says that one point while Yarhaus was on top of her, Yuque dogpiled on Yarhaus. Marzulla says that never happened; a clip from the video shows it happened exactly as King said it did.

Even more staggering is the fact that, despite being shown ample portions of the sex video in all its graphic detail, it is still difficult to tell whether it was consensual or not. King is often shown to be struggling and kicking, but she’s frequently talking in a smutty/flirtatious manner at the same time. She makes counter-offers — to perform other acts without intercourse — which her advocates say were her way of bargaining out of doing the ultimate deed, while her detractors say were just more examples of her being trashy.

So many questions are raised, most of which are impossible to answer. If she didn’t want to be there, why didn’t she leave? The door wasn’t locked. Marzulla insists if he’d ever thought what was going on was coerced, he wouldn’t have let Yarhaus get away with it. One is inclined to believe him on that point, as he had watched out for King several times earlier in the evening. Why didn’t King make a point of indicating she was raped, since she knew the cameras were rolling? Furthermore, why would Yarhaus have allowed video to be shot if he was committing a crime?

The answer to most of these questions, actually, is: alcohol. It’s possible King was raped, and she just lacked the judgment to make her opposition more apparent. It’s possible Yarhaus knew he was raping her and didn’t think clearly enough to get rid of the video evidence. If everyone had had clear heads, the questions would be easier to answer. (Of course, if no one had been drinking, the whole incident wouldn’t have happened at all.)

“Raw Deal” is an unforgettable, highly objective film; it’s hard to know what Corben himself thinks of the case, and that’s good. The film is not done any great service by a musical score that sounds too much like something from “Hard Copy,” but otherwise is a strong, effective discussion of the issues at hand, and a powerful reminder that there are at least two sides to every story.

The Natural History of the Chicken (documentary)

0

Americans spend $40 billion a year on chicken products, and each person eats an average of 80 pounds of chicken annually.

Those are two of the less-entertaining facts presented in Mark Lewis’s “The Natural History of the Chicken,” a highly amusing documentary whose faux-pretentious title is the first clue that its exploration into the world of poultry will be tongue-in-cheek. (Or should I say, “tongue-in-beak”? No, I was right the first time. Tongue-in-cheek.)

“I believe that people one day will hopefully understand as I do … how wonderful a little chicken can be,” says Karin Estrada, a Palm Beach woman who dotes on her pet rooster like it was her grandchild, going so far as to put custom-made panties on him in case he has an accident in the house.

Other real-life characters introduced are Joseph Martinez, a Viriginia farmer of free-range chickens who tries to afford the creatures some dignity even up through the beheading process; Troy Waters, the grandson of the 1940s couple who had the side-show attraction headless rooster; Joel Vavra, a Nebraska man whose imitations of rooster calls are uncanny; and Janet Bonney, a Maine matron who gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation when one of her pets lapsed into hyperthermia during a Nor’easter.

All of these chicken lovers speak without irony. Martinez seems to know, in the back of his mind, how odd it must seem to have fondness for an animal so generally disregarded; Vavra the rooster-imitator seems unaware, though. The CPR woman is so matter-of-fact (“I did give her mouth-to-beak,” she says simply) as to discourage any condescension toward her.

The film shows us another side of the story, too. Residents of Oxford, Ohio, were upset a few years ago when Bobby Wayne Webb moved to their quiet community and started raising roosters for cock-fighting. The locals weren’t mad about the cruelty of such sports; they were bothered by the 100 roosters’ non-stop noise-making all day, every day. They were bothered enough to take Webb to court, in fact.

Filmed with bright colors and vaguely self-conscious reenactments, the documentary aims to be as enjoyable to watch as it can be without resorting to humor at the expense of its subjects. Lewis generally does just let the people tell their own stories, supplementing them with sound effects or re-creations at times, but in a manner that bolsters the tales rather than smirks at them. The woman with the underwear-clad rooster, unfortunately, is allowed to over-act for the camera; aside from that, Lewis shows great restraint, putting in enough directorial touches to keep it interesting without turning it into a farce.

Informative? Not particularly. But who wants to know a bunch of stuff about chickens anyway? Real people with real feelings about chickens — THAT’S where the fun is.

The Bleep Brothers (Japanese)

0

Did you hear the one about the strip-club comedians who became national sensations when they filthied up their act?

“The Bleep Brothers” tells us that story, while half-heartedly mocking popular culture and TV, and also presenting an old-fashioned sibling-rivalry dilemma.

Tatsuo and Ikuo Yoshida are brothers. Tatsuo is tall and handsome; Ikuo is nerdy and bespectacled. They work at their parents’ funeral home, but in their spare time perform manzai comedy at a local flesh parlor. Manzai is a two-man comedy dialogue, very similar to vaudeville in that it emphasizes one-liners and uses a straightman, and tends to induce more groans than laughs. The brothers are not especially good at it (though I suspect some of it may be lost in the translation); their claim to fame is Tatsuo’s hormone-induced, um, physical endowment, which he is not afraid to show to heckling crowds as a means of shutting them up.

Comedy isn’t really Tatsuo’s bag; he does it for his brother’s sake. One day, fed up with the whole thing, Tatsuo goes way off script and starts telling filthy stories about his sexual conquests. The audience eats it up. They find their way onto TV, where their heavily bleeped routine is a sensation. Soon even news reporters are swearing just to get that oh-so-trendy “bleep,” and the brothers are bona fide celebrities.

They start to run out of sex material, though, and Tatsuo finally confesses: He’s a virgin. He’s been making the stories up. Ikuo helps him overcome his fears, though, and starts eavesdropping, too, so they can use the real-life exploits in their act.

Meanwhile, Ikuo is developing a rather sweet relationship with Fumie, a local girl whose mother has recently passed away. Their budding romance is a pleasant contrast to the non-stop filth we’re treated to during the manzai acts.

Where the film stumbles is in its over-length and sappy ending. There are some eye-rolling contrivances, too, like the special live episode of the brothers’ TV show. Why is it live? So one of them can make startling accusations during it with no hope of editing it out later, of course — the only reason any TV show is ever done live in movies.

It often seems the film is trying to do too much at once, too. There is some satire of TV and TV audiences — the more crass and less creative the show gets, the more popular it is — but not much. We see only one example of other shows using the “bleep” style of delivery, yet we’re expected to understand that it’s a phenomenon (sorry, but one instance does not a phenomenon make).

The frenetic and witty tone of the movie is a saving grace, though. A little more focused on the theme and purpose, and we’d have ourselves a great movie. Is it stands, it’s funny and mostly entertaining — better than a manzai routine, but not much.

Diary of a City Priest

0

“Diary of a City Priest” is a quiet, slow-paced film about a Catholic priest in an inner-city church. More a portrait than a story, it paints a picture of Father John McNamee (David Morse), who has preached sermons and ministered to the poor at St. Malachy’s Church for 24 years and who is very near burnt out.

Father Mac, as they call him, isn’t harried by major catastrophes; it’s the day-to-day things, like the endless parade of street folks who ask him for food, and having to help the repairman fix the church’s furnace, and all the adminstrative work that goes into running a parish. Like George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life,” Father Mac has time and love for everyone else, while he keeps having to push his own desires aside. He is lonely (which he expected when he accepted the call) and sad (which he did not expect).

Buoying him up every now and then are visits from various saints. Their words of encouragement ring a little hollow to him, but it’s a nice thought, anyway.

There is not a major story line in the film; the point is to show us who a character is and watch him discover a little something about himself. David Morse plays the role extremely well, his friendly, weary eyes speaking volumes. Some of his scenes with church workers and parishioners are serene, pleasant and natural. One’s heart goes out to him instantly.

The movie, based on the diaries of the real-life Father Mac, picks up some subjects and puts them down again without really dealing with them. The idea of keeping a diary to help collect your thoughts is mentioned but not developed, and references to a parishioner who died two years earlier just sit there, motionless.

In the end, our journey has not been quite as compelling as Father Mac’s apparently was. But “Diary of a City Priest” is a good-hearted character study nonetheless.

Julie Johnson

0

Following your dreams can be more of a burden than anything.

This message is brought to us by “Julie Johnson,” a subdued, amusing film with a hopeful tone and a heart that almost soars despite having some rather heavy weights at the bottom of it.

The title character (Lili Taylor) is a Hoboken, N.J., housewife who lives a dull life with her boorish husband Rick (Noah Emmerich) and their two kids, Lisa (Mischa Barton) and Frankie (Gideon Jacobs). Their sex is passionless, and whenever she’s watching TV, he’ll come and change it to a ball game. Sometimes she fetches him a beer.

What gives Julie a little hope is her secret love for science. She buys as many science magazines as she can, hiding them in places where she knows Rick will never stumble across them — kitchen drawers, for example. She keeps it hidden even from Claire (Courtney Love), her life-long best friend and fellow suburban prisoner.

When a flier comes in the mail advertising a chance to get her G.E.D. and take a computer class at the community college, Julie seizes the opportunity and drags Claire with her. Rick, apparently thinking he is a character from a 1950s sitcom, thinks the whole thing is stupid, whereupon Julie tosses him out of the house. Claire, ever the follower of Julie’s strong intuitions, leaves her mediocre husband, too, and moves in with Julie and the kids.

Julie’s years of secret studying help her excel at math and computers, and she’s aided by a kindly professor, Mr. Miranda (Spalding Gray). Meanwhile, on the homefront, it seems inevitable before Lisa and Frankie have two mommies. Sure enough, Julie confesses her long-held romantic feelings for Claire, who is at first quite upset but soon admits the feeling is mutual.

Here the film passes up one good opportunity for an even better one — which it also doesn’t live up to. The first clever idea was having Julie live in a conservative, old-fashioned town while harboring a burning love for science. Such a story could have been a metaphor for so many things, while keeping it on a whimsical level.

Instead, the movie (which is based on a play by Wendy Hammond) gives that up and shows us one of the possible parallels: Julie’s secret leanings toward science compared to her secret leanings toward lesbianism. This has great potential, too, but the uneven script doesn’t pay it enough attention. Some parallels are made obvious — soon Julie is interrupting whatever Claire is watching so she can see a science show, for example — but others go completely untouched. Basically, the lesbianism, despite all the time spent on it, in the end is nothing more than an irrelevant distraction from the main plot.

Bob Gosse (who co-wrote the screenplay with Hammond) has an unobtrusive directorial style. There are many quiet, extended shots. Hand-held cameras are used noticeably only when Julie quickly hides a stack of magazines from Rick, and later when she kicks him out. A few random flashback shots are thrown in here and there; these are not bold enough to make any real impact, and one gets the feeling Gosse used them just for fun.

Taylor and Love perform adequately as Julie and Claire, pulling off the two characters’ different reactions to their new-found love very realistically. Julie, particularly, has a neat arc in which chasing her dreams causes her to BECOME those dreams, at the expense of most of her social life. Still, I’d like to have seen Taylor be a bit more lively. Even when Julie is happy, Taylor is so low-key and dowdy, it’s hard to be happy with her.

The film has a melancholy feel about it, ending on a note that is not entirely positive but that has some hope to it. Not quirky enough to be a big crowd-pleaser, and not insightful enough to be very moving, “Julie Johnson” nonetheless wins points for earnestness.

MacArthur Park

0

The unfortunate thing about setting your gritty urban drama in L.A.’s MacArthur Park is that you’re almost obligated to include Richard Harris’s absurdly melodramatic pop song “MacArthur Park” on the soundtrack.

Having Macy Gray remake it might help it sound more like something the film’s target audience would enjoy, but the lyrics are just as stupid. “Someone left the cake out in the rain/And I don’t think I can take it/’Cause it took so long to bake it/And I’ll never see that recipe again” causes snickering no matter whose throat it’s coming out of.

Fortunately, the song doesn’t turn up until the closing credits of “MacArthur Park,” when the film has already had whatever impact it’s going to have. And that impact is reasonably strong, particularly due to the performance of Thomas Jefferson Byrd as Cody, one of many crack-addicted homeless people who inhabit the park. Byrd is gaunt and haggard, his face showing more than its fair share of age. A so-so script and complacent directing do little to diminish his natural pathos as a man who finally has cause to try turning his life around when his estranged son shows up after five years.

The son, Terry (Brandon Adams), needs Cody’s signature to sell the house following the death of Cody’s ex-wife. Cody, though, is held captive by his fellow park denizens and by the park itself, which is home and hell to all of them.

They’re a loosely knit group, acquaintances and occasionally friends, but not above stealing from each other when required. Cody feels the most affinity for P-Air (Bad Azz), who wants to get enough money to go into a recording studio and lay down some raps. There’s also a smooth-talking lothario, E-Max (Sticky Fingaz), and the new girl in the park, Linda (Sydney Tamia Poitier), who gets involved with him. A worn-out gal named Blue (Ellen Cleghorne) tries to talk some sense into the girl, telling her the obvious things about how the park will chew her up and spit her out.

That is, essentially, the point of this relentlessly dismal cautionary tale: not to get involved in drugs and such. The good-natured Blackie (Miguel Nunez) steals from a rich white actor (played by David Faustino), who wants revenge and takes it in a cruel and unusual (and overplayed) manner, bringing everyone else in the park into the fray at some point. Ultimately, everyone gets pretty much what they deserve — which, given this motley bunch, is not too pleasant (though there is a moderately happy ending).

Director Billy Wirth forces some dramatic situations (a laughably fat-headed TV news reporter is one embarrassing example) and mistakenly believes that shaky camera work is the only thing required to make intense moments seem real. Strung-out junkies have been portrayed with more realism and depth in other films, too, though there are some genuinely engrossing scenes and characters. Someone may have left the cake out in the rain, but at least it didn’t get TOO wet.

National 7 (French)

0

How often have you remarked, possibly out loud to strangers you passed in the street, “I wish someone would make a movie about the sexual desires of handicapped people”? If you’re like me, you remark this at least twice a day. Leave it to the Sundance Film Festival to showcase a film that fills this void.

“National 7” is a very, very French movie by director Jean-Pierre Sinapi. Based on a true story, it’s about a home for handicapped people in which one very disagreeable, vulgar, wheelchair-bound man named René (Olivier Gourmet) who insists the cause of his woes is that he hasn’t had sex in who knows how long. He passes the time watching dirty movies and looking at the dirty pictures he has pasted on his wall, but what he really wants is a roll in the hay.

A kindly nurse named Julie (Nadia Kaci) takes pity on René and agrees with him that only a prostitute would be willing to take on the task of having sex with a man who is paralyzed. She convinces the hospital directors that this is a medical need; however, convincing a doctor to approve it is another thing.

Without authorization, they go out to National 7, a freeway known for being where prostitutes live in their mobile homes. They find one named Florele (Nadine Marcovici), your standard “hooker with a heart of gold.”

Sure enough, sex does the trick for René, and he’s soon tolerable again. Meanwhile, there’s a subplot involving a gay, handicapped, Muslim orphan named Rabah (Said Taghmaoui), who wants to convert to Catholicism but is in need of a godfather and godmother. This story is whimsical and adds a little flavor to the theme of “what do handicapped people want?”; it also takes the focus off sex for a few minutes.

The film uses natural sound and lighting, as well as hand-held cameras, to achieve a measure of realism. René is a sympathetic character who is often funny as well as pitiable. (His best line is at a party, when an annoying clown is bugging him: “Go yell in someone else’s ear. You’re not funny.”) Julie is a trouper, and while it’s not her story, it would be nice to have seen more about her than her silly love-life problems. (She has a cat, and the guy she likes is allergic to cats.)

For a film whose subject matter is one we didn’t think we wanted to see a movie about, “National 7” turns out pretty well.

Angels of the Universe (Icelandic)

0

The most interesting thing I learned about life in Iceland in the Icelandic film “Angels of the Universe” is that the president of that country lives in what appears to be a regular house, where you can just walk up and ring the doorball.

OK, I learned more than that. I also learned that the cold climate and long winters might contribute to Icelandic filmmakers turning out some dreary, haunting stuff, like Fridrik Thor Fridriksson’s “Angels of the Universe.”

The film has a promising first half, exploring the nature of insanity and introducing a tragic protagonist, an unsuccessful artist named Paul (Ingvar Eggert Sigurdsson). Paul still lives at home with his taxi-driver father, housewife mother and younger siblings. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, he has fallen in love with a woman whose upper-class mother rejects him and breaks up the relationship. Soon, he is mad and in a mental institution, where he becomes friends with Viktor (Bjorn Jorundur), who thinks he’s Hitler; and Oli (Baltasar Kormakur), who thinks he writes Beatles songs telepathically.

Paul is in and out of the hospital and has visits with reality that are just as erratic. Sigurdsson’s performance is eloquent and powerful, and Fridriksson has a deft, occasionally surreal directorial touch. Sad, urgent strings frequently play on the score, all to great emotional effect.

The trouble is with the film’s middle: It doesn’t have one. Paul has his peaks and valleys, and we settle into that rhythm. And then nothing really happens. The film plateaus and doesn’t build toward a new climax until the end, when suddenly things are interesting again. Alas, this is enough of a misstep to reduce a dramatically effective film into one that is merely well-acted and artful.

Perfume

0

It’s always nice when a film’s press notes, along with blowing smoke up our skirts about how great the movie is, also tell us why it’s so flawed.

Witness the notes on “Perfume,” the new film from director Michael Rymer:

“All the dialog in ‘Perfume’ was completely improvised by its actors. And while each major storyline had its own ‘arc,’ each actor brought their own experience and skills to their scenes, creating their own characters — and often changing the film’s entire story — as they worked.”

Did you notice the clause set apart by dashes? “And often changing the film’s entire story.” Ah-ha! No wonder all the separate plots don’t gel into a unifying whole! No wonder they all have so little to do with each other, or with any kind of overriding theme! No wonder some of them are boring! It’s because the actors, while given something basic to start with, often changed the story as they went, thus preventing the possibility of knowing the end from the beginning and acting to build up to it.

You can see this in the film. It’s like a bunch of people got together to build a house, except they were allowed to ignore the blueprints (which were vague to begin with) and do whatever they wanted. And so people would build rooms without doorways, and put staircases on top of closets, and cut out windows wherever they felt like it, all without thought to how the finished product would look. They were having too much fun “experimenting” and being creative, and to heck with the team effort!

“Perfume” is not a bad movie, per se, though it’s not a good one, either. It’s allegedly about the fashion industry, though its billing as a “parody” of that world is utterly false. It’s not a parody of anything, except maybe the art of filmmaking, and I think that was unintentional.

At the center (more or less) is Roberta (Rita Wilson), a designer with a major show in four days whose star, Camille (Leslie Mann), is dropping out in favor of seeking greener pastures. Specifically, she’s sleeping with Jamie (Jeff Goldblum), who’s with the very powerful Fantasia agency.

There’s also a photographer named Anthony (Jared Harris) who never has time for his wife. One sentence is all that subplot deserves.

There’s also a magazine editor named Janice (Joanne Baron) whose long-estranged daughter Halley (Michelle Williams) shows up. Janice, all unctuousness and insincerity, has some legitimately funny lines (condescending to a colleague: “It’s cute that you’re trying to make a joke”). I would like to have seen more of her and less, say, of Jeff Goldblum’s typically Goldblumian rambling.

Finally, the best plot has to do with gay designer Lorenzo (Paul Sorvino), who is dying of cancer and is surrounded by a son (Michael Sorvino) he doesn’t trust to leave the business with, and a lover (Peter Gallagher) who is too young for him.

Paul Sorvino is the highlight of the film. The scene in which he finds out he is dying is why improvisational acting can sometimes work. Actors know what sounds trite and what sounds sincere — they spend their days memorizing lines of both sorts — so when they want to sound real, they know what to avoid. It would have taken an excellent screenwriter to handle the scene better than Sorvino handles it off the cuff. If only his character’s story weren’t limited in screen time in favor of one-scene cameos by the likes of Harry Hamlin, Kyle MacLachlan and Mariel Hemingway. Many scenes are interesting simply because they’re so well-acted, but it’s awfully frustrating to realize none of them is really going anywhere.

As an experiment, “Perfume” is fairly successful. Give Rymer credit for getting his large cast of actors to do what he wanted, anyway. But as a movie, “Perfume,” well, stinks.

Double Whammy

0

The problem with a film’s writer and director being the same person is that if the script is full of holes, the director can’t point them out. Also, if the direction is bland and unoriginal, the writer can’t object to his screenplay being mistreated. Writer/directors need good assistants.

Tom DiCillo, who is responsible for “Double Whammy,” apparently went without the assistant. The mild-mannered (except for when it’s strangely violent) comedy scores some scattershot laughs, but mostly comes up short.

The premise is promising. Depressed New York police detective Ray Pluto (Denis Leary) suffers a back spasm during a restaurant shooting and can’t stop the assailant. He drops his gun, though, and a nearby 8-year-old boy picks it up and shoots the killer. Now the little boy is a hero, and Ray is a laughing-stock.

His boss, Generic Movie Hard-Nosed Police Lieutenant (Victor Argo) puts Ray on medical leave until his back is better. His partner and friend Jerry (a characteristically weird Steve Buscemi) recommends a chiropractor, who turns out to be the very beautiful Dr. Ann Beamer (Elizabeth Hurley). Dr. Ann wears some awfully low-cut blouses for someone who spends all day leaning over people, but we’ll blame the costume designer for that, not DiCillo.

There is some brief talk of Ray’s back problems being psychosomatic — his wife and daughter were killed in a hit-and-run a few years ago, and Ray blames himself — but it doesn’t go anywhere. Ray and Ann develop a relationship based on nothing, and Hurley goes woefully underused; her character adds little.

Meanwhile, Ray’s building superintendent Juan (Luis Guzman) is at odds with his rebellious teen daughter Maribel (Melonie Diaz), who wants a tattoo in order to fit in with her friends. Angry at her father for being so strict, Maribel — I swear I am not making this up — steals his money and hires two goons to kill him.

Also, there are two would-be screenwriters named Cletis (Donald Faison) and Duke (Keith Nobbs) who have a wacky-silly friendship and are trying to hammer out an action-flick. Their efforts tie in later, sort of.

I said before that the premise is promising. Unfortunately, DiCillo wastes it with some very basic errors. The basis of everyone’s ridicule of Ray is that he proved worthless during the shooting spree. It is utterly unrealistic, though, to suggest that Ray’s back spasm went unreported by most of the news media. Newspapers love to say WHY things happened; no way would one report that a cop was present and didn’t act without also investigating why, and surely Ray would make no secret of his medical condition, as it would make him look less like a coward and more like a victim of circumstance.

There’s also the matter of one of the hired assassins wearing Juan’s distinctive “Papi” gold necklace after the murder attempt. No criminal would be stupid enough to flaunt a unique piece of jewelry worn by his victim — unless it were necessary in order for it to be a plot device later on.

Let’s not even talk about Maribel hiring two guys to kill her dad. Please. Let’s just pretend it didn’t happen and move on with our lives.

“Double Whammy” is pedestrian and contrived. The few laughs it contains (I liked Cletis and Duke’s rejected movie title: “Suck the Monkey”) don’t make up for the forced plot twists and superficial characterizations.

Roof to Roof (Armenian)

0

What were they thinking?

Some directors have had good luck casting non-actors in roles similar to who they really are; Chinese auteur Zhang Yimou (“Not One Less”) has done quite well with it. It often lends a film realism, and is particularly helpful when dealing with realistic subject matter.

But using real people and running around with hand-held cameras and using improvised-sounding dialogue can sometimes backfire, as Ara Corbett’s “Roof to Roof” demonstrates. In this case, all those devices do indeed make the film realistic — they make it boring, like real life often is. A victory for realism, perhaps, but a defeat for stupefied audiences.

The disappointing thing is, there’s a really good story here, completely under-developed and under-directed. Armenian immigrants living in Los Angeles are at the center, particularly one Zaven (Zaven Movsesian), a single father who works as an auto mechanic to support his adorable daughter Amy (Amy Aivazian). If he can become a licensed smog technician, he’ll make more money. He has to pass a test to do this, though, and his English skills are less than his daughter’s.

Complicating matters is the fact that Amy is becoming increasingly interesting in Zaven’s sister’s affluent lifestyle. Zaven must come to terms with wanting Amy to be happy, and wanting her to be with him.

It sounds good, but it’s not. Though only 73 minutes long, the movie manages to waste a lot of time with lengthy scenes about nothing and plenty of dialogue that goes nowhere. Why is there a scene in which Zaven and Amy are driving somewhere, and she’s reciting a nonsense poem to him? Is it because the script devotes only six or seven minutes to the actual plot, and the rest is padding to make it into a feature-length film?

The acting is nothing special, and it would have taken some serious thespianism to overcome such a weak script and indifferent direction anyway.

After Image

0

I have seen hundreds upon hundreds of movies in my day, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film in which so little happens as in “After Image.” It contains not one coherent thought: It’s an alleged thriller that is not only devoid of thrills, but that doesn’t even seem to be trying, coming off as completely emotionless even when major stuff is happening.

“After Image” stars John Mellencamp — formerly ’80s rock star John “Cougar” Mellencamp — as Joe, a crime-scene photographer who opens the film by providing us this narration: “Where does it come from, this thing that haunts us?” That’s a bad enough line, but Mr. Cougar’s twangy delivery and elfin little face make it worse. He’s a continual blight on the film all the way through, demonstrating no acting skill whatsoever. (In the opening scene, he’s supposedly so bothered by the images that confront him that he wants to quit his job. But darned if you can get that from the look on his face or the tone of his voice.)

Running circles around him, acting-wise, is Terrylene, a deaf actress who plays a deaf woman named Lora. Lora’s been having creepy premonitions that turn out to be tied in with a series of murders Joe has had to photograph.

We know up front who the murderer is. The film doesn’t tell us his name (though the production notes insist it does); it’s Rye (Michael Zelniker), and his motives are … um, the movie doesn’t tell us, and the production notes are silent on this point, too. All we know is, he kills young girls and videotapes it. Does he send the videotapes to the authorities in a creepy game of cat-and-mouse? No, we’re not even afforded that cliche. All he does is watch them at home, eventually sending a copy to Joe and advancing the plot not one iota.

I’m also going to mention Joe’s old Aunt (Louise Fletcher), who not only doesn’t have a name in the movie, but doesn’t get one in the production notes, either. She’s old and dying, and she raised Joe and Joe’s now-crazy-for-unexplained-reasons brother Sammy (Billy Burke). Sammy serves no purpose in this film. Seriously: You could cut out his scenes altogether and not affect the movie in any way.

(The production notes inform us that Sammy’s “daily conversations with [his] cats provide a strange parallel to the paranormal occurrences among Lora, Joe, and Rye.” This is a bald-faced lie. Sammy has cats, and can occasionally be seen speaking to them the way people normally speak to their pets, but that’s as far as it goes. No conversations, and certainly no parallels to anything else.)

The film trudges along at a remarkably slow pace. All emotions are muted, and there is almost no plot to speak of. No twists and turns, no surprises, no action. Lots of style and lots of weird imagery, but not a bit of meaning. One almost thinks it was done as a joke, to see if someone could make a movie about a serial killer in which nothing ever happens. Well, they did it, all right, and the joke’s on us.

AntiTrust

0

I saw two movies on Jan. 10, and both had characters named Teddy. The first Teddy was in a good movie called “Memento.” The second was in a mediocre movie called “AntiTrust.” It is the latter, unfortunately, that we have to talk about now.

It’s about a sexy young computer geek named Milo (Ryan Phillippe) who, with his buddy Teddy (Yee Jee Tso), is on the verge of developing the technology to send instant video, audio or text messaging to any electronic device in the world, from computers to TVs to Palm Pilots.

At the same time, though, the Portland-based computer monopoly NURV is about to figure out the same thing — only instead of giving it away, they’re going to sell it and further their chokehold on the computing world. The head of NURV is Gary Winston (Tim Robbins), who is NOT AT ALL exactly like Bill Gates, even down to the geeky glasses, bad haircut and pact with Satan.

Gary needs Milo and Teddy’s skills and succeeds in hiring away Milo and his live-in girlfriend Alice (Claire Forlani). Teddy refuses to go on a matter of principle and stays in Silicon Valley to work out the software himself.

The NURV headquarters are a large, modern facility with all the amenities, including a hot female coworker named Lisa (Rachael Leigh Cook), who is pretty indifferent toward everything but seems to have a slight interest in Milo.

Since we know this is a movie about an evil software giant, and since Teddy is a minority, we can guess that he’ll be first to die. Which he is, except for an anonymous software developer who is in a questionable car accident, mentioned in one of the film’s few bits of foreshadowing that’s actually subtle. Teddy’s murder is obviously the work of Stan’s goons, but they make it look like a racially motivated hate crime. Milo figures out what’s going, though, and goes about trying to get to the bottom of it all, Scooby-Doo style.

“AntiTrust” is one of those movies that have characters who say, “Give me the disk!” in very angry tones. It’s full of plot twists, but none of them is different from what we’ve seen in other thrillers.

For that matter, even if you’d never seen a movie before in your life, you could still guess what was going to happen here because of Peter Howitt’s all-thumbs directing. In a restaurant scene, Milo absent-mindedly almost eats a sesame seed. Alice makes a huge deal out of it, then the subject quickly passes. They’re hoping we won’t catch on that later in the movie, sesame seeds are going to be important. Later, it’s not enough for Milo to find about 17 different proofs that Gary had Teddy killed; he has to find an actual videotape of the incident, too, accompanied by a shrieking musical soundtrack and zooming close-ups on Ryan Phillippe’s puffy-lipped face. All the clues are beaten into our heads that way, Howitt apparently assuming the audience is as slow on the uptake as the protagonist is. (You’ll be amazed at the people Milo is dumb enough to trust.) This movie wasn’t directed so much as it was man-handled.

There’s a very clumsy direct reference to Bill Gates, too, which is impossibly stupid. The Gary Winston character is obviously meant to represent him, what with his character owning all the computer software in the world. But how could he be so powerful if Bill Gates is a real person in the movie’s world, too? Bill Gates and Gary Winston can’t exist in the same universe, because the whole controversy around both of them is that they own too much. If they both exist, then obviously neither of them has anything close to a monopoly.

Lacking tension and originality, “AntiTrust” is just another trendy film about a trendy subject. Like most computer software, it will be obsolete before too long, and you’ll have forgotten you ever saw it even sooner than that.

Double Take

0

Many comedies are based on the personalities of the performers: If you think the guys are funny in general, you’ll like the movie. Mike Myers, Martin Lawrence and Adam Sandler all work in this genre.

Well, “Double Take” is proof that we’ve taken the performer-as-entertainment train to the end of the line. Writer/director George Gallo is so convinced we’ll find Orlando Jones and Eddie Griffin funny just because they’re Orlando Jones and Eddie Griffin, that he doesn’t even bother coming up with a coherent plot or writing jokes for them. Just put ’em on the screen and let ’em be!

Eddie Griffin, who follows in the fast-talking, punch-line-muttering footsteps of Chris Tucker and Jamie Foxx, plays a nickel-and-dime con man named Freddy Tiffany. His target of late is wealthy businessman Daryl Chase (Jones), a Bryant Gumbel-ish suit-wearer not at all in touch with his inner homey.

Daryl winds up wanted for murder after stupidly picking up the gun at the scene of his secretary’s killing. He had been in touch previously with an FBI agent named McCready (Gary Grubbs), who needs Daryl’s help in bringing down a Mexican soda company that’s really a front for a drug cartel. He told Daryl to call if he had any problems, and now, fearing the feds won’t believe Daryl’s story, he tells him to high-tail it to Mexico, where McCready can protect him.

After running into Freddy for, like, the millionth time, Daryl hatches a plan: He and Freddy switch clothes, thus helping him escape on a train to Mexico. Once he gets there, he discovers that Freddy is wanted for the murder of a Mexican governor. Suddenly, being mistaken for Freddy is no safer than being correctly identified as himself.

The laughs early on are supposed to be at the contrasts. Daryl is button-down, while Freddy is like Robin Williams on crack, doing “outrageous” things like slapping nuns on the rear end and talking a mile a minute.

Problem is, that jokes wears thin, and then it disappears altogether. The plot is amazingly convoluted, the film apparently thinking it’s remaking “North by Northwest.” By the final absurd showdown South of the Border, the focus has become the ridiculous story (one that prefers to announce surprise twists rather than develop characters or build interest) and the laughs have been forgotten. Just as well, really, since they were never very good to begin with.

Save the Last Dance

0

As one might expect from a film credited as an “MTV production,” “Save the Last Dance” is one-half realistic portrayal of youth, and one-half pure cinematic pablum. It is the former half that earns the film some degree of respect, but the latter half that will bring in the teen-agers — especially the girls, who will be glad to have a strong heroine their age.

And I’m all for giving girls a role model. But couldn’t it be one who doesn’t have sex, doesn’t get into a nightclub using a fake ID, and doesn’t drink? The fact that Sara Johnson (Julia Stiles), the protagonist of “Save the Last Dance,” does all those things without repercussions of any kind is not at all encouraging.

Moral issues aside, this is a serious-minded movie led by a serious-minded Julia Stiles. This is a girl who needs to lighten up and be a little more friendly if she’s going to be in charge of an entire film, but perhaps her melancholy is justified. See, Sara grew up dancing ballet and was in the middle of auditioning for Juilliard when her mother, rushing to get to the audition on time, was killed in a car accident. Sara vowed not to dance again.

Now Sara has come to Chicago to live with her musician father Roy (Terry Kinney) in his sub-standard little apartment. She goes to Phyllis Wheatley High School, where she is one of approximately three white girls amid a sea of African-Americans. This is a movie-land school where they have metal detectors — ya know, ’cause inner-city schools are scary — but no actual crimes or threatening behavior beyond the typical high school rivalries.

And I do mean typical: Every relationship in this film has been done before, and it’s all done pretty efficiently, with no extra characters. Bad girl Nikki (Biance Lawson) isn’t just angry because Sara’s white in an all-black school; she’s also jealous because her ex-boyfriend Derek (Sean Patrick Thomas) is sweet on Sara. Nikki, therefore, serves as both Mean-Spirited Villain AND Stupid Racist. Derek’s friend Malakai (Fredro Starr) is the Vicious Drug-Dealer AND The Opposite, whose poor decisions serve as a contrast to people like Derek, who are trying to rise above their dismal surroundings and make something of themselves. Derek’s sister Chenille (Kerry Washington) acts as the Best Friend and the Sadder-But-Wiser Girl (she has a baby who was fathered by a deadbeat). Eight or nine stock characters, all rolled into three or four people!

The dour Sara gets off on the wrong foot with Derek but quickly becomes friends with him, and then lovers. (Their sex scene, by the way, is one of the film’s more absurdly unrealistic moments. It’s not graphic or anything, but it’s filmed so tenderly and maturely, as if what they’re doing is a totally fantastic idea, even though they’re both so young and not entirely in love yet. Real-life teen-age sex situations are, I believe, a bit less romantic than this one. But a scene taking place in the backseat of a car and lasting five minutes from start to finish probably wouldn’t get the audience a-cooing like this one does.)

Derek, meanwhile, is trying to get away from his bad-boy past and into college. Malakai is pulling him the other way, though, and that darned Nikki is awfully pesky, too.

Oh, yeah, and there’s some dancing. Despite the title, the film is not really “about” dancing. It’s about finding your potential and overcoming bad circumstances. In fact, the dancing is when the movie falls the flattest. Sara’s obligatory Juilliard re-audition is melodramatic as all get out, culminating in a judge telling her, “I can’t say this on the record yet, but welcome to Juilliard.” All that’s missing is a guy walking in suddenly to announce Derek has won the lottery. (Sara has already had a rote reconciliation with her dad, of course.)

But there is some realism, too. Chenille’s motherhood is handled quite well, better than most films of this ilk would handle such an issue. The dialogue and general demeanor among the teens rings true, too. And I was glad to see the inter-racial relationship dealt with only as much as necessary (there’s a funny scene on a train in which Sara and Derek put on a show for a white woman who is scowling at them). Chenille voices thought-provoking concerns that Sara the white girl — who could have any number of decent white men — is taking one of the few respectable black men out of circulation, leaving the black girls with nothing but scrubs.

For all its eye-rolling triteness, “Save the Last Dance” is often more intelligent than it should be. Which is better than a lot of movies that pass themselves off as teen films.

Meat the Press

0

Food and shopping malls go hand-in-hand, like grease and food, or shopping malls and stores that only sell one thing and it’s something you don’t want. After a long day of being annoyed by 1,000-percent mark-ups and incompetent 15-year-olds masquerading as sales clerks, nothing “hits the spot” like a visit to the food court and a steaming plate of bland something-or-other (from the chain of “Bland Something-Or-Other” restaurants).

Not that there’s really any good reason to go to University Mall, but if you happen to have been dragged there by dogs or banshees, you’ll be glad to know the food situation has recently improved, insofar as most of the food court places have moved out, leaving shoppers ample space to sit and eat the sack lunches they brought from home. All that remains are The Corndog Factory, whose name conjures an appetizing picture of sweat-shop employees manufacturing corndogs in assembly-line fashion; and Zorba’s, which serves Greek food and which used to be owned, I happen to know, by an Iranian family (’cause who makes better Greek food than the Iranians?).

Yes, my friends, Taco Taster (not Taco Bell, not even Taco Time; Taco TASTER) is gone, as is Sandwich Loft. (What was the idea there? That food sounds better if you think it came from somebody’s attic?)

Elsewhere at the mall, though, two new food emporia have appeared. First is The View, a cafe inside ZCMI. Despite being housed in the world’s most overpriced department store (motto: “Brigham Young Said We Should Make Our Own Clothes. Also, He Said We Should Buy Them Here”), The View is quite reasonable and serves enormous homemade-style sandwiches, none of which appears to have come from someone’s attic. The name “The View” refers not to the TV talk show featuring Barbara Walters and her cadre of gossiping harridans, but to the fact that the cafe is on the top floor and therefore boasts a “view.” (The view is of the mall parking lot.)

The other big event is the arrival of a Brazilian restaurant called Rodizio Grill. Brazil is a South American country that produces great food despite spending a total of 11 months of every year celebrating drunkenly in the streets. They take two weeks off for Mother’s Day, for example, and are currently still celebrating New Year’s Eve 1972. The native language of Brazil is not Brazilian, dummy, but Portuguese (or, as we call it in the United States, Spanish).

Rodizio is — get this — an all-you-can-eat meat buffet. Surely this is the greatest idea in the history of food, and it’s made even better by the fact that legions of Meat Guys BRING THE MEAT TO YOUR TABLE! Yes! Not only do you get all you want, but people even bring it to you! If you asked, they would probably chew it for you, too. (Note to self: Ask.) It’s a never-ending meat parade, all kinds of meat, huge slabs of meat, sliced up right at your table with large, deadly knives that will no doubt poke out more than their share of eyeballs before they’re through. There’s so much meat that they give you a wooden voodoo doll to put on your table: Turned green side up, it tells the meat guys to keep the meat coming. Turned red side up, it means you want to reduce the onslaught of meat for fear of dying a slow, meaty death.

I’m told there are other restaurants like this, but I can tell you without hesitation and without having been to them that they suck.

Rodizio is also very good for people on the Atkins Diet, which is where you can have all the protein and fat you want, but no carbohydrates. (This makes Rodizio the ONLY restaurant you can eat at while on this diet, by the way.) I was an Atkins follower briefly, but I stopped after I almost passed out in the shower due to starvation and doughnut-withdrawal. It was an effective diet, I guess; in four days’ time I lost 1 pound, my equilibrium, and my will to live.

Still, though my diet no longer required such a strict regimen of flesh, I went to Rodizio on New Year’s Day as part of my resolution not to pass out in the shower anymore. I went again two days later, too, and I would consider just moving in. Maybe I could live upstairs, in the Meat Loft.

Nunsense

0

Let’s face it, a quintet of nuns singing merry cabaret tunes and dancing like Broadway engenues is automatically funny.

That’s the idea behind “Nunsense,” now playing at the Little Brown Theatre. The small theater is a good setting for the small, simple show, and it means the performers don’t have to use microphones to be heard. (Still, the pre-recorded music could be louder at times — most of those nuns do a fine job belting out the lyrics, sometimes drowning out the accompaniment altogether.)

The Sisters of Hoboken, N.J., are in a dire situation. Seems their cook, Sister Julia, Child of God, made some bad soup that sent 52 of their sisters on to their eternal reward. The convent could afford to bury 48 of them before the Mother Superior (Pat Bartlett) spend the rest of the money on a DVD player.

The remaining four ex-nuns are currently in the convent freezer, waiting until the sister can raise enough money to bury them. “Nunsense” is their fund-raiser, a little musical talent show featuring the Mother Superior, her right-hand nun Sister Hubert (Miriam Latour), dim-witted Sister Merry Amnesia (Lynette Webb), quiet Sister Leo (Chaundra Wilson), and street-wise understudy Sister Robert Anne (Wendy Asay).

It’s an outrageous, perhaps even appalling, premise for a show, of course, but it’s all in fun. “Nunsense” was written by Dan Goggin, himself a Catholic, and all the jokes about nuns and convents are written with love behind them.

Topping the cast is Lynette Webb as Sister Amnesia, who came to the convent a few years ago without a memory, a crucifix having fallen on her head. She grins with a wild cluelessness that is hilarious to watch.

All of the cast is strong and committed to their goofiness. Pat Bartlett, as the Mother Superior, was stumbling over almost every line on the second night of performances, which causes a problem, since she’s the MC. Still, one assumes she’ll improve as time goes on, and her prim, owlish character is a delight already, especially during a hysterical scene in which she accidentally gets high.

The ever-changing lighting design does an excellent job in making the small stage not seem too static, and in adding to the overall energy of the show. There are slow moments — a film called “Nunsmoke,” produced by the sisters, doesn’t add much — but things generally are brisk.

Witty lyrics and a light-hearted demeanor make this a fine, funny show, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

The Foreigner

0

“The Foreigner,” that farcical community-theater favorite, is back for another go-round at Hale Center Theater Orem. If it’s your sixth time to see this show, you’ll be glad to know it’s nearly as funny as the first time. If it’s your first time … well, I don’t know what that’s like, because this was my sixth time.

British military guy Froggy LeSueur (Dave Hanson, also director) is visiting Georgia to do some maneuvers with the Yanks. He’s brought along Charlie (Mike Wisland), his painfully shy cuckold friend who needs a few days’ vacation after dealing with his wife’s hospitalization.

Froggy puts Charlie in the hands of old widow Betty Meeks (Kathy Llewellyn), a down-home gal who owns a rural fishing lodge and delights in the simple life. Knowing his friend is terrified at having to communicate with strangers for three days, Froggy tells Betty that Charlie is from an exotic country and doesn’t speak any English. To try talking to him would only embarrass him, so it’s best not to try, he says.

And there’s your comic conceit: people think a man can’t understand them, so they’re not afraid to have private conversations in his presence. Soon all the lodge’s inhabitants have bared their souls to Charlie and the audience: Former debutante and current basket case Catherine Simms (Marydee Potter) is pregnant by her fiance, the slick Reverend David Marshall Lee (Mitch Hall; double-cast with John Lundwall). David, meanwhile, is conspiring to make Catherine’s doltish brother Ellard (Matt Clayton) seem dumber than he is. David’s redneck pal Owen Musser (Larson Holyoak) is up to no good, too, and is especially upset at the presence of a “foreigner.” For dark and sinister reasons, David and Owen are bent on getting a hold of Betty’s property and fishing lodge.

It’s a fine situation indeed, exploited to all its great comic potential. Ellard gets to feel smart by “teaching” English words to Charlie, and Charlie gets to use his previously untapped ingenuity to help good triumph and make evil look foolish.

The Hale Center isn’t double-casting its comedies these days, and may the saints be praised for it. Single-casting allows for more rehearsal time and helps the cast work together as a unit — absolutely essential in a comedy. It shows in the performances.

This ensemble is very strong, overall. Mitch Hall is so unctuous and smarmy as Reverend David that you know he’s either a snake in the grass or about to be summoned directly to heaven. Kathy Llewellyn is sweet as Betty, though a bit over-the-top at times; no matter how dim you are, you wouldn’t get literally AN INCH AWAY from a foreigner’s face when you yell to help him understand English.

The biggest laughs are earned by Matt Clayton, who proves that the funniest role in this play is not Charlie, but Ellard. Clayton plays him as a well-meaning simpleton, energetic but not hyper, and extremely entertaining to watch. Which accurately describes the show as a whole, in fact.

The Odd Couple

0

“The Odd Couple,” one of Neil Simon’s simplest and least shticky comedies, is still entertaining more than 30 years after its debut, as currently demonstrated at the Little Brown Theatre in Springville.

Full of snappy one-liners and basic comedy devices (the title says it all; opposites are funny), the play is about recently divorced slob Oscar Madison (W. Bill Brown, Jr.) and his persnickety clean-freak friend Felix Ungar (Dane Allred). During the weekly poker game at Oscar’s apartment, Felix shows up, despondent: His wife is divorcing him. By the end of the first act (in which all the characters are rather irritatingly angry and flustered with one another), Felix is moving in with Oscar.

He wreaks havoc on Oscar’s slovenly lifestyle, constantly cleaning up and insisting the poker guys use coasters. Oscar’s annoyance at Felix’s obsessive-compulsiveness reaches the boiling point when British birds Gwen (Dana Campbell) and Cecily (MinD Jensen) come over for dinner and all Felix can do is weep about his ex-wife.

The scene with the women is the highlight in this production, as both actresses are infectiously giggly and bring a lot to the show. Brown and Allred do quite well as Oscar and Felix, too. Their comedy chemistry together isn’t as fine-tuned as it might be, but as individual characters, they’re spot-on.

Also well-cast is Kevin Macklay as poker buddy Murray. He’s the very picture of disheveled bumptiousness, and a treat to watch.

A minor quibble with the play’s time period: I don’t know what it is. It was written in the ’60s, and Gwen and Cecily’s outfits are clearly from that era. But some of the dialogue has been updated (particularly where prices of things are concerned), and various elements around the apartment like CDs and a Garfield poster indicate a modern setting. More communication between the director, set designers and costumers is probably in order. (Probably no one will be bothered by such a small thing; we mention it merely out of duty.)

The show has peaks and valleys; one suspects it’s the sort of production that may vary in quality from night to night. Overall, though, it’s as Neil Simon intended it: amusing, at times laugh-out-loud funny, and a day-brightener no matter what.

Airline Fracture

0

The latest way the Internet has turned our lives into living nightmares irreversibly and forever is with Priceline.com. If you have not used Priceline to get airline tickets, then it’s a safe bet you have gotten to where you actually wanted to go.

The way it works is, you tell Priceline how much you’re willing to spend on a plane ticket, and Priceline will check with all the airlines until they find someone who will sell you a ticket for that price. If you put something reasonable — for example, your entire life savings — then Priceline will send you an e-mail within an hour notifying you that the amount you put was not enough and you’ll have to try again.

But there’s more to it than that. You can’t just raise your bid; you have to alter your flight plans, too, either by changing one of the days you’re traveling, allowing your ticket to involve several layovers, or increasing the number of screaming diarrhetic babies you’re willing to sit next to. Basically, Priceline is for people who have to go somewhere, sometime, but don’t care where they go or how long it takes to get there.

Priceline uses William Shatner as its TV spokesman. What else needs to be said?

My recent Priceline experience was in flying to California for Christmas. Priceline told me that rather than just go from Salt Lake City to Ontario, I would need to fly to LAX and then take a 12-minute shuttle flight to Ontario. Naturally, there would be an hour layover in LAX, too, and naturally my plane would leave Salt Lake at 6:40 a.m., approximately 12 hours before I actually wanted to leave. Priceline is a cruel mistress indeed! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! (Did I mention that once you’ve told Priceline how much you’re willing to pay and when you can travel, you are locked into buying whatever ticket they find for you, no matter how ridiculous the itinerary? Well, it’s true.)

While I was en route to LAX, the good people at United Airlines decided that they would go ahead and cancel that flight to Ontario. They must have figured that if it’s only a 12-minute flight, it couldn’t take us much longer than that to just walk there.

Actually, the excuse they gave us was: fog. It didn’t make any sense, because many planes could be seen taking off and landing, evidently unencumbered by this alleged fog, but it’s the excuse they stuck with. It’s every airline’s excuse for everything, actually, because it takes the blame off them and puts it on God, whom most people don’t dare criticize. “How come my plane ticket cost $150 when the person sitting next to me paid only $130?” Fog. “Why did you stop serving little packets of peanuts and start handing out that execrable ‘trail mix’ that is so nasty even airline passengers, who will eat anything, consider not eating it before they go ahead and eat it?” Fog. “Which is smaller, the tissue-box-sized airplane bathrooms, or the amount of legroom between the rows of seats?” Fog.

Anyway, you’ve never seen such weeping and wailing as when airline passengers are told their flight has been canceled. You might just as well announce that their mothers have caught fire. People were running around the terminal, shrieking and cursing and causing chaos. It was like New Year’s Eve in Evanston, Wyo., but without the public urination.

As is always the case when I’m in a crisis, my first thoughts were of my luggage. It had been checked to Ontario and would probably arrive there even if I didn’t. I called my family and told them I’d be spending the holidays at LAX, but that they should make sure my suitcase had a warm place to sleep and didn’t have to sit next to Uncle Stinky at Christmas dinner. “Treat my luggage like one of the family,” I said, meaning, “Make fun of it until it cries.”

The airline graciously decided to find a shuttle van to haul us over to Ontario, but first they figured we should stand around LAX for two hours, I guess to make us all the more grateful for that shuttle van when it did arrive.

Maybe you think two hours would be enough time for them to find our luggage and return it so we could take it on the van with us. If you think this, you have obviously never dealt with an airline. The shuttle showed up, but we couldn’t go because we were all huddled around a baggage carousel, waiting for our suitcases to appear. Finally, the woman in charge of the dozen of us — it was beginning to seem like a field trip now — told us we’d just have to go to Ontario and fill out a lost-luggage claim form, and the airline would deliver our bags to our homes later that day.

Now, I have a rather fertile imagination, but I cannot think of anything less likely to actually occur than what that woman told us. The airline would bring the bags to our homes? THAT SAME DAY? They couldn’t even get them from the airplane to the baggage carousel inside of two hours, but we’re supposed to believe they could get them to our houses before the day was over? Not even in a parallel universe, where apes evolved from men and horses ride on people, would that happen.

Fortunately, the bags showed up just as we were getting on the shuttle, and we didn’t have to trust the apparently soon-to-improve luggage-handling capabilities of United Airlines.

By the time I actually reached my parents’ house, it had been seven hours since I left my apartment in Provo — two hours less than it would have taken if I’d driven my car. A nine-hour drive is all it is, and there’s no Shatner involved. Next time, that’s how I’m going.

No Time for Sergeants

0

The lead role in the 1950s fish-out-of-water comedy “No Time for Sergeants” was originated by Andy Griffith, and you can picture him saying the lines in his gentle Southern drawl.

Those are big Air Force boot to fill, especially with the main character, Will Stockdale, acting as narrator and appearing in every single scene.

The Hale Centre Theatre West Valley’s production is double-cast, but the Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday crew is led by David Stensrud, who proves himself unquestionably up to the task. Wide-eyed and belly-voiced, Stensrud is a large and imposing figure — a perfect fit for the hayseed Stockdale who gets drafted into the Air Force and rises to the top despite rarely having a clue what’s going on. Stockdale isn’t dumb; he’s just naive and backwards. Stensrud plays the role with full vigor, making standard lines and situations funny again with an occasional effortless twist on the delivery.

In the beginning, Stockdale is drafted away from his hound dog and his house-bound father and sent off to be classified. Without meaning to, he runs afoul of swaggering hot-head Irvin Blanchard (Rusty Bringhurst), and becomes defender and friend to bespectacled nerd-boy Ben Whitledge (Eric Armstrong).

Sgt. King (Kevin Cottam; normally played in this cast by Ron Johnson), who seeks to make no waves with his superiors, puts Stockdale on latrine duty. Unfamiliar with military ways, Stockdale sees this as an honor and gets King in trouble when he tells the captain (Will Phillips) that he’s been working on the toilets all week. The captain threatens to strip King of his rank of Stockdale, now a week behind the other recruits, doesn’t pass the classification tests.

Then there’s more comedy with Stockdale breezing his way through the various psychological and physical exams without even trying, leading up to the first-act finale, which has him unintentionally ruining things for King and Whitledge, his only two friends.

The second act, oddly, takes a different turn. The conflict set up before intermission is more or less ignored, as the three go on to gunnery school and people wind up being decorated heroes without actually doing anything.

It’s an uncluttered comedy, very straight-forward in its plot and free of preaching or moralizing. It’s not a satire of the armed forces, though it could be played that way, what with Stockdale becoming a mover and shaker without knowing what he’s doing. It’s just a comedy, pure and simple, and an enjoyable one at that.

Art

0

The 1999 Broadway hit “Art” makes a grand regional debut at Pioneer Theatre Company, easily demonstrating why the show was so popular in New York.

It’s a deceptively simple comedy about a well-off Frenchman named Serge (Ian Stuart) who spends 200,000 francs on a painting that is nothing more than a white background with some diagonal white brushstrokes across it — not much of a painting, it would seem, and certainly not worth $200,000.

That’s what Serge’s good friend Marc (William Whitehead) thinks, anyway. A classical thinker not fond of the modernist movement, he bluntly calls Serge’s purchase “[excrement].” This leads to an argument: Serge is pretentious for pretending to love a painting simply because it’s a status symbol, and Marc is narrow-minded for refusing to accept the possibility that Serge might actually like this painting.

Marc goes to their mutual friend Yvan (Craig Bockhorn), a pudgy, newly engaged nebbish whom Marc is certain will agree with him about the painting. Yvan, predictably, straddles the fence, but tends to land more on the side of thinking the painting is at least somewhat valuable.

So there are the three positions: worth $200,000, OK as a modernist work, and [excrement]. From this simple Seinfeldian set-up stems a vast array of personal and interpersonal conflicts. They range from the fancy — how do we decide whether we like a work of art or not? — to the down-to-earth — how do we decide whether we like a person or not?

After a particularly lengthy battle that brings up Yvan’s fiancee (a “gorgon,” someone calls her), Marc’s wife and Serge’s pretensions, something startling occurs to the trio: They’ve been friends for 15 years, but with no apparent reason WHY. What drew them to each other? Why do they stay together? Do they have anything in common? Do any of them have traits which the others admire or respect?

From a simple thing like a debate over a painting come some thought-provoking issues. What is the nature of friendship? Do we have to “get” something out of it, or can we just enjoy one another’s company? How do you call a friendship off? It’s not like a marriage, where you can get divorced and make it official.

The play maintains a high level of intellectual (and occasionally sophomoric) humor throughout, even while addressing the weightier matters. All three actors show aplomb and grace; the characters come to life in all their petty, unlikable glory, snarking at each other in a way that is uncomfortable in real life but highly entertaining onstage (when we’re not the ones being snarked at).

Yvan is the only likable character of the lot. His lengthy and hysterical monologue detailing the woes of writing wedding invitations serves to establish him as the one whom we can most relate to. Most of us share something in common with Marc and Serge, too, but we’re not liable to be comfortable admitting it. One of the show’s strengths, in fact, is that even though Marc and Serge are both snippy, unforgiving, mean-spirited and picky, pulling apart every word and cynically searching for hidden meanings, we’re still sympathetic. We still want their friendship to work out. After all, we’d work hard to repair our friendships, too, no matter how unlikely those friendships may be.

The Best and Worst Movies of 2000

0
The Best and Worst Movies of 2000

For once it’s not just the whiny critics: This actually HAS been a bad year for movies.

Critics’ 10-best lists are as different from one another as they could be, with no films dominating. And the box office is down, too, suggesting audiences have also been underwhelmed.

Films that looked good or had good potential turned out bad. Sure-fire blockbusters — think “Hollow Man” and “Pay It Forward” — misfired.

Fortunately, November and December delivered on the goods, as the studios trotted out their Oscar hopefuls at a point when they would still be fresh in voters’ memories.

Each of the films on this list is a 2000 release, eliminating films like the great Chinese epic “The Emperor and the Assassin” and the Oscar-winner “All About My Mother” because, though they didn’t play in most cities until 2000, they were released in other cities in 1999.

By that same criteria, some of these movies haven’t been released everywhere yet, but have opened in Los Angeles and New York.

1. “Requiem for a Dream” Darren Aronofsky’s harrowing story of four drug addicts and their parallel descents into pharmaceutical-manufactured hell is one of the most gripping, powerful, disturbing films ever made. More than just a cautionary tale against drugs — though it’s mighty effective in that regard, too — it’s about the reasons for addiction, the loneliness, lack of self-esteem and other factors that lead to it.

Ellen Burstyn, as a New York widow hooked on diet pills, should win an Oscar for her fearless and devastating performance, but she probably won’t. The film’s initial NC-17 rating and subsequent unrated release will scare away conservative voters. It’s not a film to be taken lightly or shown in high-school classrooms, but for those who appreciate brilliant filmmaking techniques (shooting up heroin has never been portrayed so vividly yet unappealingly) and great acting, not to mention storytelling at its most effective, it’s an unforgettable experience.

2. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” It’s an attractive love story, it empowers women, and it has beautiful scenery. It’s a chick flick, right? No, wait: It also has the most spectacularly exhilarating martial-arts sequences ever filmed. Characters leap from rooftop to rooftop and sometimes even fly, and even though the logistics of how they’re able to do this are not explained — it’s something to do with a top-secret Oriental warrior school — the audience is too busy being astounded to ask questions. Forget how the fictional characters are doing it; how did the filmmakers pull it off?

3. “Bring It On” First we thought this would be another lame teen comedy. Its subject matter (cheerleading) and three-word title (“She’s All That,” “Never Been Kissed,” “Whatever It Takes,” “Down to You,” Freddie Prinze Jr.) made us fear the worst. Then we saw the first scene — in which a cheerleader sings a song with lines like “I’m hot, I’m cute/I’m popular to boot” — and we knew we were in for something more.

“Bring It On” succeeded by having snappy, quotable dialogue (“Cheerleaders are dancers who have gone retarded”) and a refreshingly realistic ending, but also by going against all teen-comedy rules and treating its subject matter with no more importance than it actually deserves. In most movies, the entire universe revolves around The Big Game or The Big Dance, or whatever, and the obligatory side-plot romance is The Most Important Relationship Ever. In “Bring It On,” The Big Cheerleading Competition is important to the participants, but everyone knows it’s still only cheerleading — and the romance is kept unsentimental (which actually makes it kinda sweet in its own way).

It doesn’t treat cheerleading like a life-or-death situation, but it doesn’t fall into farce or parody, either (that opening sequence turns out to be a dream). In short, it’s the funniest, smartest comedy of the year, and hopefully a harbinger of things to come in the genre of teen comedies.

4. “Billy Elliot” A feel-good movie that doesn’t make you feel guilty for feeling good, “Billy Elliot” doesn’t manipulate our emotions; it earns them through honest acting, honest situations and honest sentiment. Jamie Bell, destined to be a star with his raw talent and slightly goofy good looks, plays an 11-year-old boy in a tough English mining town who wants to be a ballet dancer. His dancing becomes a metaphor for whatever makes us happy in life, and the sweet earnestness of the film is contagious.

5. “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” The Coen Brothers (“Fargo”) return to their loopy “Raising Arizona”/”Hudsucker Proxy” roots with this whimsical comedy about three escaped convicts in 1930s Mississippi. Literate, twisty and full of delicious dialogue and dorky characters, “O Brother” may not be the deepest movie ever made, but you’ll rarely have this much fun in a movie theater.

6. “State & Main” Writer/director David Mamet’s satire of Hollywood’s excesses and illogical behavior has the same attitude as “Bring It On”: Make fun of the subject without lapsing into MAD Magazine-style farce. It’s no inside-joke film; anyone with even a passing knowledge of how Hollywood operates can enjoy the good-natured jabs “State & Main” takes at it. Eminently smart and memorable, and featuring bravura performances by William H. Macy and Philip Seymour Hoffman, among others.

7. “Frequency” A man sinking into despair tries his dead father’s old ham radio — and somehow contacts his dad back in 1969. Part science-fiction, part suspense (he has to help his dad catch a killer before his mom becomes a victim), “Frequency” is also a gentle story about father-son love. It uses baseball, action and unforced sentimentalism to create something men can enjoy for emotional reasons as well as aesthetic ones. The sappy Garth Brooks song at the end merely serves as a contrast to how unmanipulative everything had been before that.

8. “Gladiator” Unlike almost every other movie of its length (2 1/2 hours), “Gladiator” doesn’t have a single extraneous moment. Every scene is important, every performance spot-on. In particular, Russell Crowe — never anyone’s guess as a potential action hero — gave the title character depth and personality, almost single-handedly bringing respectability to the long-scorned action flick genre.

But that overlooks the work of Joaquin Phoenix, whose weaselly Roman emperor is what every villain should be: at once fearsome and pitiful, loathsome and cowardly, and with his own cool catchphrase (“That vexes me. I am sorely vexed”).

9. “Chicken Run” From the makers of “Wallace & Gromit” comes this delightfully daft clay-animation story about a group of chickens trying to escape the henhouse. You can sit there in awe of the painstaking work that went into the film, or you can ignore that and just enjoy the bad puns, good puns, endearing characters and sly satire.

10. “Gigantic” (not officially released) And finally, the best movie you didn’t see is “Gigantic” (“Absolute Giganten”), a German film that played at the Sundance Film Festival (thus making it eligible for my “released somewhere in this country” stipulation) but never found a U.S. distributor. It’s too bad, because it’s one of the most sublime, wistful movies I’ve ever seen, examining with great insight the dynamics of friendship. In sort of a German “American Graffiti,” three teen-age boys spend one last evening together before splitting up to go out into the world. There is comedy (including probably the most exciting Foosball sequence ever filmed) and typical German angst, not to mention three stand-out performances. Hopefully it will find its way into this country in 2001.


The Worst Movies of 2000

1. “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2” It was a tight race, but this ill-conceived sequel to the 1999 curiosity emerges victorious in the Worst Movie of the Year category. Aside from being an obvious attempt to milk a few more dollars out of the Blair Witch craze without putting any effort into the script-writing or directing, “Book of Shadows” also commits the cardinal sin of filmmaking: It’s deathly boring.

2. “Pokemon: The Movie 2000” “Hey, you know how ‘Pokemon’ was popular a year or so ago? Well, let’s make another movie and squeeze whatever we still can out of the phenomenon! We don’t have to make it interesting or entertaining or put any effort into it. We can just throw some Pokemon up on the screen for a couple million dollars and turn a $60 million profit!”

3. “Battlefield Earth” Why isn’t John Travolta’s vanity project at the top of the list? Because it was actually so bad it was entertaining. We laughed all the way through it. The idea that anyone ever thought we’d take it seriously is what killed it; this, like most bad movies, suffers from extreme hubris (plus a bad script and bad acting).

4. “The Next Best Thing” Madonna and Rupert Everett star in a preachy, heavy-handed movie about a gay man who accidentally gets his best (girl)friend pregnant and they decide to raise the kid together. It was targeted directly at gay audiences — who found it dour and unfunny. Everett, who is gay in real life, failed to accurately play a gay man, don’t ask me how.

5. “Who Gets the House?” A Feature Films for Families production about a group of kids who, upon hearing of their parents’ impending divorce, convince a judge to let THEM keep the house and force the parents to take turns living in it with them. Never mind the stupid premise: This is a stupid movie, appealing to people who decide a movie is “good” based on its absence of profanity and sex. Sure, it’s wholesome. It’s also lame, unamusing, poorly acted and badly written. It is possible to make a movie that’s both clean AND of high quality. Could someone please pass that on to Feature Films for Families?

Shadow of the Vampire

0

“Shadow of the Vampire,” about the filming of an old movie, itself has several qualities we associate with old movies: a too-long opening credit sequence, a simple premise without a lot of depth, and over-the-top acting, for example. You may have noticed that these are not good qualities. To be fair, though, “Shadow of the Vampire” overcomes the handicaps it gives itself and turns out to be a rather entertaining picture.

The film explores a giggly “what-if?” conceit: What if the man who played the vampire in the legendary silent film “Nosferatu” really WAS a vampire? This is an audacious thing to make a movie about; after all, these are actual, historical people here, and we’re assigning attributes to them that have no basis in fact (or even in urban legend).

The man in question is Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe), who in “Shadow” is recruited by egomaniacal director F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich) to play Count Orlock (Bram Stoker’s estate wouldn’t let them use “Dracula,” so they lifted the story and changed the names).

Cast and crew know that Schreck is mercurial and odd, so immersed in his character that he only allows filming at night and never appears in front of others except in full makeup and costume. We and Murnau know that he’s an actual vampire who doesn’t need makeup, doing the work of an actor because Murnau has promised to let him liquidate leading lady Greta Shroder (Catherine McCormack) when it’s all over. (So much for the film-plugging talk-show circuit.)

There is some devilish humor in having a monster working as an actor — finding his marks, standing still for measurements, and so on. The other people working on the film take delight in asking Schreck teasingly about the life of a vampire, and he answers truthfully — which amuses them no end, as they don’t realize he’s not just playing a character.

Though to my knowledge there were never any rumors about Max Schreck being a vampire, I think I may start one about Willem Dafoe. His malevolent grin borders on the cartoonish, and he skulks around in a most impressively creepy manner. I suspect Dafoe knows he’s over-acting most of the time, and he’s having so much fun doing it that it’s hard to complain.

If you’re not careful, you might not realize until the end that the real main character here is the director, Murnau. His drive to complete the film no matter what is where the movie’s heart is; Schreck’s behavior is just comic-book window-dressing.

The movie is better than the sum of its parts. Dafoe, Malkovich and Cary Elwes (as the cinematographer brought in after Schreck sucks the first one dry) are all top-notch in their roles, and the black-and-white footage used when the camera is rolling adds authenticity. Forget “Dracula 2000” (if you can); Dracula 1922 is where the real action is.

The Claim

0

“The Claim” is a gripping, 90-minute emotional drama packed into two hours. Director Michael Winterbottom apparently is not one to rush things, though in many instances here, it would have been better if he had.

The setting is Kingdom Come, a gold rush town in 1867 California. Daniel Dillon (Peter Mullan) owns the town and governs it strictly but fairly. It’s a harsh, primitive place, full of whores and outlaws. It appears to be in a permanent state of winter, and not the pleasant kind you see on postcards, either.

Dillon did something dreadful a long time ago, which is shown to us in a flashback without much explanation who it’s a flashback of, or even that it IS a flashback. At any rate, his past comes back to haunt him in the form of two women: Elena Burn (Nastassja Kinski), who is dying, and her winsome young daughter Hope (Sarah Polley). He is currently seeing a throaty gal named Lucia (Milla Jovovich), who also seems to have some connection with the Burns.

Coincidental with their arrival is Mr. Dalglish (Wes Bentley), a surveyor for the railroad company whose job is to determine where the line will run. Obviously, putting it through Kingdom Come would be good business for Dillon, who does whatever he can to persuade Dalglish to see that it happens. Dalglish, meanwhile, starts to fall for Hope Burn, who says she’s from pioneer stock and can handle the rough wilderness through which Dalglish is constantly required to travel.

Dillon is not forced to reckon with his former misdeeds until well into the film. Indeed, the first hour is often frustratingly vague. Scenes are shot in snow, with characters bundled up, making it difficult to tell who is who. Relationships are not always clearly established. The plot is kept secret from the audience, when that’s normally the group of people you’d want MOST informed of what’s going on.

When the film finally gets to its point, it’s a fine one, full of wrenching drama and some depressing ideas. The question is whether it’s worth the effort to get to it. The performances are good throughout, though it’s unfortunate Wes Bentley isn’t given something meatier to handle as his follow-up to “American Beauty.” The cold isolation of the scenery and the matching detachment from the movie itself make this a hard film to warm up to.

The Best of ‘Snide Remarks’: 2000

0

Excerpts from some of the less unmemorable “Snide Remarks” columns in 2000.

Jan. 7: I rang in the new millennium in Evanston, Wyo. I figured if all technology was going to fail at the stroke of midnight, I should be in a place where there WAS no technology. (Many of the people there already think the year is 1900 anyway.)

Jan. 21: A suggested storyline for “Family Circus”: Social Services is called when a bleary-eyed Mommy is caught trying to trade baby PJ for crack.

Jan 28: Narrowly beating out Payson’s Onion Days celebration, the Sundance Film Festival is Utah’s greatest cultural event. This is especially true if by “cultural” we mean “featuring a lot of movies about gay people.”

Feb. 18: There is now a Web site dedicated to helping people arrange sessions of NCMO — Non-Committal Make-Out. Whom do we have to thank for this bold step forward in the area of lust? Why, BYU students, of course! Seems like those plucky go-getters are always curing a disease, creating new technology, or finding a way for strangers to grope one another.

April 21: In deep-tissue massage therapy, the therapist slices open your back, physically removes the muscles from your body, pounds them with a tack hammer, then shoves most of them back inside, leaving some as scraps for the dog to chew on (all chiropractic clinics are equipped with a dog). It’s a guerrilla-style attack on your muscles, roughly equivalent to a dentist removing your tooth by shoving a live grenade up your nose.

April 28: Graduation is a two-day process at BYU, the logic being typical of Mormon culture: Why have one meeting when you can have two?

May 19: Stores that take up half their parking lots with huge summer-oriented displays: Honestly, Sam’s Club. Are you selling enough of those $2,300 children’s playsets to make up for lost business from people who can’t find a parking space and therefore don’t shop in your store? How many of those splinter-infested deathtraps do you have to sell before it all balances out in the quarterly report? And why put them in the parking lot anyway? Are children’s playsets a big “impulse item”?

May 26: The current sensation in New York is Tim Rice and Elton John’s new collaboration, “Aida.” According to the program, it was “suggested by the opera” of the same name. (“Hello, Mr. Rice? This is ‘Aida.’ Listen, I don’t want to tell you how to do your job or anything, but I would strongly advise that you and Mr. John write a Disney-fied pop version of the classic tragic opera, me.”)

June 30: Perhaps you’re thinking, “This topic is nothing new. Comedians are always talking about the differences between men and women. Come on, Snider” — or perhaps you’re thinking it “Snyder,” like many of you spell it when you write me angry letters — “come up with a new topic.” I will address this concern later (that is, if by “later” we mean “shut up”).

July 21: I have the utmost respect for the Mormon Pioneers who trudged across the plains and established something that very closely resembles a civilization, here in the uninhabitable wasteland full of sagebrush and Idahoans. I certainly could not have done it. I can barely go two days without my cell phone, let alone without food. I dislike walking to the point that I scoot around the office on my rolling chair, and even then I’ll get someone to push me if I can. And if I were the guy who had to count the wagon wheel revolutions to determine how far we’d traveled, I would go insane. (“Well, we’re not there yet,” I would say, “so we must have traveled approximately NOT FAR ENOUGH!”)

July 28: “Pokemon: The Movie 2000” grossed $20 million in its first weekend. In a related story, I’m going to kill myself. “Pokemon” is the story of some Japanese people, and how they’re not very good at animation. In fact, the Japanese word for animation, “anime,” literally means “lousy animation.” They have no word for “good animation,” or “animation in which the objects actually move,” because those concepts are unknown in Japanese culture.

Aug. 4: BYU’s Honor Code specifically prohibits cohabitation, even when students are away from school. Julie Stoffer knew that the Honor Code prohibited cohabitation; she said as much before she went on “The Real World.” Then, after she cohabitated, she was tossed out of school for cohabitating. Apparently, this came as quite a shock to her.

Aug. 4: I’m hoping for more Daily Herald stories telling me that it was really hot yesterday, because when it hits the upper 90s in a desert climate in August, well, THAT’S news.

Aug. 11: At my Mormon-themed restaurant, The Steak Center, the main menu items will be the Porterhouse Rockwell Steak, the Primary Rib and the Poor Wayfaring Pan of Beef (all garnished with Parsley P. Pratt), but we’ll also have, when it’s in season, Eliza R. Snowcrab, and a whole line of “And It Came to Pasta” (including Kraft Moroni & Cheese). Additionally, we’ll have breakfast items (including Pearl of Puffed Rice and Frosted Minivans, as well as Adam-ondi-Omelettes) and “In Our Lovely Desserts” (including Fast Sundaes, Gadianton Cobbler and the sinful Laman Meringue Pie). (If someone sent you an e-mail with all of this in it, they stole it from me, by the way.)

Aug. 25: LaVell Edwards announced he will retire after this season. This makes him the first person ever to leave the BYU football team for anything other than Honor Code violations.

Sept. 1: I can understand why we have to register our cars. Cars are dangerous, and we want to know who owns them. In fact, there should be a five-day waiting period on cars to prevent people from rushing out and buying one in a mad rage of having to get somewhere, and then tragically getting to that place before anyone can stop them.

Sept. 8: My friend Josh dresses almost exclusively in Banana Republic clothes, and he was recently told that he “dresses like a model.” Note that this compliment is not directed toward him, but toward his clothes. The full statement could have been, “Josh smells like a homeless man, and I’ve filed a restraining order against him, but he dresses like a model.” So Josh’s clothes are doing very well for themselves. One of his polo shirts is seeing someone, and he has a pair of trousers that are engaged to a nice girl from Idaho.

Sept. 15: I’m surprised I’ve lived as long as I have, considering I eat nothing but garbage. Del Taco has something called the “Big Fat Crispy Chicken Taco,” apparently aware that “big,” “fat” and “crispy” are my three weaknesses when it comes to food. It could be “Big Fat Crispy Raccoon Faces” and I would still buy several of them a day.

Sept. 22: We made out in a tree, and this old guy sat and watched us.

Sept. 29: I was going to start a store in the mall called PriestCrafters, with the motto, “We’ll sell you the gospel in about an hour.” But then I realized Missionary Emporium was already doing that.

Oct. 13: I recently bought a new iMac, and I encountered only one problem with it: In an act of atheistic stubbornness, it refused to acknowledge the existence of my printer. My old iMac not only believed the printer existed, but in fact worked quite cooperatively with it. The new iMac, however, was more obstinate. I called it atheistic a minute ago; more accurately, it was agnostic, or perhaps dogmatic. It didn’t deny that there COULD be a printer; it just wouldn’t accept that the printer I was using was the correct one. As a result, it refused to even speak to the printer, possibly due to some age-old grudge the details to which I am not privy. (“How could a true printer allow dot-matrix to exist in the world?”)

Oct. 20: Next thing I knew, I was being woken up by an airbag that had deployed the instant I hit the guard rail, and that was occupying every square inch of space between me and the dashboard. Since airbags are nuclear-powered, there was also a cloud of noxious smoke filling my lungs and burning my eyes. I’ll tell you, ricocheting off a wall, being smacked in the face by an airbag, and choking on radioactive smoke: These are things that will wake you right up. I was bright-eyed and bushy-tailed as I careened across three lanes of freeway, hit a construction barrel, and bounced back to the right shoulder again.

Nov. 12: The skeleton track looks like an ice-covered waterslide and is the same one used for the luge and bobsled events. Apparently, they just build a track and then think of weird stuff to throw down it. Next it’ll be kids on garbage-can lids, or fat guys doing somersaults.

Nov. 24: FLORIDA OFFICIAL, WHO IS WEARING A PAIR OF OVERALLS AND HOLDING A LIVE PIG: We’s still countin’ th’ votes. They’s a big pile of ’em, out back to the shed. We was doin’ the hand count, only ‘cept our hands only goes up to nine or 10, so we had to start usin’ our toes, too.

Fifty-two columns of equal quality are scheduled for 2001. You’re welcome.

Traffic

0

Steven Soderbergh’s “Traffic” is a searing indictment of the so-called “War on Drugs” — a war which, the film says, cannot be won. It’s not a very cheerful prospect, to be sure, and the film’s insistence on keeping us at arm’s length from the characters’ emotions prevents it from being truly great, though the thought-provoking narrative makes it a pretty electrifying experience nonetheless.

Three concurrent storylines are presented, each intriguing and each some way related to the others. Ostensibly the main character is Robert Wakefield (Michael Douglas, finally allowing himself to look middle-aged and fatherly in a rich-guy sort of way), an Ohio judge recently appointed as the U.S. drug czar. His credibility is jeopardized somewhat by his daughter Caroline’s (Erika Christensen) addiction to an array of drugs, which she does with her fellow upper-class private-school snobs (including one played with amusing know-it-all rebelliousness by Topher Grace from TV’s “That ’70s Show”).

Meanwhile, Mexican police Javier (Benicio Del Toro) and Manolo (Jacob Vargas) are drifting somewhere between mild unethical behavior and outright corruption. (Purely honest law enforcement seems to be a myth in Mexico.) They become involved with Gen. Salazar (Tomas Milian), Mexico’s new equivalent of a “drug czar,” who is intent on destroying the Obregón cartel that runs drugs through Tijuana and into the states. The competing cartel, Juarez, wants the same thing, and Javier — basically an honest man caught in the middle of some very desperate circumstances — tries to play all sides equally.

More meanwhile, San Diego socialite Helena Ayala (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is suffering embarrassment and financial ruin after her successful businessman-husband Carlos (Steven Bauer) is arrested for drug trafficking. He was fingered by Eduardo Ruiz (Miguel Ferrer), who ratted him out as a means of saving himself when DEA agents Montel Gordon (Don Cheadle) and Ray Castro (Luis Guzman) nailed him in a bust. With Ruiz as the only one who can send Carlos Ayala to prison, it falls on Mrs. Ayala to do what she can to stop him, and the DEA guys have him in protective custody just in case.

The characters from the three stories interact occasionally, making the film come together as a whole literally while the theme unites everything figuratively. Wakefield meets Gen. Salazar; Helena Ayala consults with Mexican drug lords; a Mexican assassin is brought into the states to do some dirty work.

It’s an ambitious film with some elements of true greatness. Its massive scope and gray-area “heroes” lend it respectability, as does the fact that all the scenes in Mexico are in Spanish with English subtitles.

It’s full of real events and real situations — but, unfortunately, no real characters. Michael Douglas’s character should be the example of how drugs affect individuals, but his behavior seems rote.

His wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones (who shares not one second of screen time with her real-life spouse, by the way), plays a character in much the same boat. Helena Ayala is in dire straits, and we get some sense of her frustration, but precious little of her emotions. Everything is dehumanized. It could be argued that dehumanization is the effect of drugs (and, indeed, of the “War on Drugs”), but that doesn’t help “Traffic” seem any more engaging. As it stands, one is interested to know how things will turn out, but one is rarely put in suspense over the fates of the characters or their predicaments.

All the Pretty Horses

0

Billy Bob Thornton’s deliberately paced film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s novel “All the Pretty Horses” at first seems like the sort of movie that was probably a very good book but isn’t transferring well to the big screen. It seems too introspective and too unplotted to be made into something as literal as a movie.

At some point along the way, “All the Pretty Horses” gels, the viewer settles into it, and it becomes a transfixing movie experience on a par with some of the best.

The setting is Texas in 1949. America has not yet completely entered the modern age, and in the ranchlands of Texas, especially, things are still very much the Old West. Horses are the primary means of transportation. The time seems so far distant from 2001 that when things like cars and telephones are mentioned, they seem anachronistic. We have to remind ourselves that yes, those things DID exist at the same time as these cowboys and roughriders.

It was an unusual moment in our history: We were on the brink of complete modernization, but still clinging tentatively to our old-fashioned roots.

Personifying this general trend is John Grady Cole (Matt Damon), a young Texan whose grandfather’s death means the imminent loss of the ranch that has been in the family for generations. John can’t imagine doing anything other than living on the ranch; however, circumstances are about to force him to do more than just imagine it.

He and his life-long buddy Lacey Rawlins (Henry Thomas) head to Mexico to get work as cowboys, sort of a last hurrah in the remaining few months before this part of their lives is gone forever. On the way, they meet 16-year-old Jimmy Blevins (Lucas Black), a tough kid running hastily from an abusive stepfather. The three make it to Mexico, where Jimmy’s horse and gun are stolen. John and a slightly more reluctant Lacey are willing to help him get his property back, but Jimmy impetuously rushes the place, drawing attention and forcing John and Lacey to take off, leaving him to settle his own mess.

The two wind up working for Mexican millionaire Don Hector Rocha y Villarael (Ruben Blades), doing the sort of cowpoking and bronco-busting they’d always dreamed of. To make it even better, John manages to catch the eye of Rocha’s beautiful daughter Alejandra (Penelope Cruz).

Here is where the film stumbles a bit, changing from a drama about a man searching for his soul into a fairly standard forbidden-love thing. Rocha and his matronly aunt disapprove of the relationship, you see, and the situation resembles any one of dozens of dirty jokes about traveling salesmen who stay at the farmer’s house overnight and are warned to stay away from the farmer’s buxom daughter.

Through intrigue and deceit, John and Lacey run afoul of the law, causing yet another shift in tone for the film: No longer a sizzling romance, it’s now a psychological thriller.

Amazingly, everything becomes cohesive as the film moves toward its finale. It’s a movie about a young man’s rite of passage, the long, dark night of his soul, the hero’s journey, whatever you want to call it. It’s nothing obvious — no Herculean tasks, really — or sentimental or preachy. John is simply a moral character in a moral movie, doing what moral people did. In those days, you risked your life just to get your horse back. It’s just how it was.

Thornton’s directorial style is one of careful, loving devotion. Many devices and scenarios recall the old Western movies, and the fantastic musical score is evocative of a thousand emotions associated with the Old West specifically and the loss of innocence generally. He gives us a lot of sweeping panoramic views, but also quite a few tight close-ups of people’s faces and eyes — the windows to the soul, you know, and a key in deciphering the inscrutable emotions of a stoic cowboy.

Matt Damon is at times too pretty to be believed in a role this rugged, but we’ll forgive him that because his good-guy persona is perfectly suited to the quiet meritoriousness of John Grady Cole. He seems as capable of carrying the film as John is of making mistakes, finding himself, and returning home sadder but wiser — and with his horse still under him, to boot. I haven’t walked out of a theater feeling this good in a long time.

Thirteen Days

0

An Australian-born director (Roger Donaldson) and a Canadian-born actor (Bruce Greenwood) are the driving forces behind a taut, enthralling film depiction (“Thirteen Days”) of a tense moment in American history (the Cuban blockade of 1962).

It’s a brilliant film that can make little-considered pieces of real life out to be the most important moments in history, and “Thirteen Days” is close to being brilliant.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is a well-known incident, perhaps mainly because it’s one of only a handful of administrative episodes we have for our most romanticized president, John F. Kennedy. (Without this, there’s just the Bay of Pigs and the assassination.) “Thirteen Days,” however, makes the point that we should know about the event not out of a desire to remember JFK, but because we darn near went to war over it.

At the height of the Cold War, in October 1962, American spy planes discovered missiles being prepared for use in Cuba — something the Soviets promised they would never do. Missiles that close, well, they could kill Americans; the U.S.S.R. now had first-strike capabilities.

Kennedy (Bruce Greenwood), Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (Steven Culp) and adviser Kenny O’Donnell (Kevin Costner) are the three men on whom it falls to figure out what to do — but especially JFK, whom Greenwood plays as a passionate dramatic hero, his large, young-looking blue eyes filled with both worry and strength.

Plenty of guys in suits and military uniforms give a number of options, none of which seems likely to work. If we try diplomacy, the missiles become operational in the meantime. If we sneak in and destroy them, Russia retaliates by attacking Berlin. If we make a deal with the Soviets, we look like we’re willing to trade others’ safety in exchange for our own.

It comes down to two decisions: an all-out air strike, which will almost certainly lead to World War III; or a blockade, which will stop new ships from entering Cuba without necessarily getting rid of the missiles already there.

JFK goes with the blockade — but since a blockade is an act of war, he calls it a “quarantine.” And it still doesn’t solve the problem, which is going to take unflinching strength, diplomacy and a little compromise.

Adlai Stevenson’s (Michael Fairman) U.N. dialogue with the Soviet ambassador is straight from the transcript, and there is actual footage of people reacting to the news of the blockade, as well as a few reassuring but cautious words from Walter Cronkite. This goes a long way toward establishing the film as real history and not some made-up drama with a labyrinthine plot. (Historical crises are allowed to be twisty-turny and never-ending; we prefer fictional ones to be a little neater.)

Director Roger Donaldson and screenwriter David Self make some other wise choices, too. O’Donnell’s family is only in a few scenes; this is NOT a film about how Kevin Costner’s movie relatives were affected by a national crisis. Kevin Costner is kept to a minimum, too. His character probably should be a bigger figure in the action, but Costner is so devoid of screen presence these days that even though he’s almost always in the scene, you often forget he’s there. (He’s too overshadowed by the dynamic duo of Greenwood and Culp, anyway, and his Boston accent is laughable. The actors who play his kids do a better job.)

Also admirable is the noticeable lack of Beach Boys songs on the radio or other “this is 1962” bits of nostalgia. Those things are fine for a movie meant to evoke a particular time period. But “Thirteen Days,” while firmly entrenched in 1960s Cold War politics, is more a timeless example of courage under fire than anything.

Few films over 140 minutes in length justify their massiveness, but this one does. No scenes are wasted. A large cast of stellar actors make even one-scene characters come to life, from Karen Ludwig as a saucy White House operator to Madison Mason as a U.S. pilot saddled with the responsibilty of taking more spy pictures of a now-dangerous Cuba.

One questions Anderson’s apparently arbitrary use of black-and-white, and the few scenes we do see with O’Donnell’s family take away more than they add. But those turn out to be minor complaints about a movie that is, overall, absolutely electric.

Malena (Italian)

0

Giuseppe Tornatore, whose “Cinema Paradiso” was everyone’s favorite Italian film before “Life Is Beautiful” came along, returns to his nostalgia roots with “Malena,” a charming and vulgar story about a woman whose beauty enraptures an entire town.

The Malena in question (played by Monica Bellucci) is a smoldering beauty, the daughter of an elderly Latin teacher and wife to a man who has just gone off to fight for Mussolini. Men ogle her, women gossip about her, and all the adolescent boys fantasize about her.

Our hero, the narrator, is 13-year-old Renato (Giuseppe Sulfaro), a quiet, mid-pubescent lad eager to wear long pants and sit in the grownups’ barber chair. He, too, dreams of being with Malena, and he comes to resent the leering and coarseness with which everyone else treats her. She is HIS, after all; he loves her, and how dare these foolish boys speak so crudely about her!

Renato’s obsession with Malena is cute, in its way, and should be familiar to anyone who has ever had a childhood crush. Sometimes it’s sexual, sometimes he’s heroically rescuing her, sometimes he sees the two of them together in the movies he watches. He spies on her, alone in her house, and buys the record (“Ma L’amore No”) he hears her listening to.

After Malena’s husband is killed in the war, she must take desperate measures to keep from starving. This leads to the film’s most startling scenes as depth is added to the character of Malena, who is made even more mysterious by having only a handful of dialogue.

“Malena” has the same warm, whimsical, slightly sophomoric tone of “Cinema Paradiso,” and is full of rich, funny characters. Renato himself is pleasant and real-looking — not one of those primped teen-age pretty boys you see in Hollywood teen flicks — and has an understated acting style that carries the film well.

His parents (Luciano Federico and Matilde Piana) are hysterical caricatures of Italian mamas and papas, communicating mostly by slapping and screaming. (At one point, Mom’s piercing shriek fades into an air-raid siren, and you’d be hard-pressed to tell when one sound stops and the other starts.) Such an outrageous portrayal would be dismissed as an unkind stereotype, were the writer and director of the film not an Italian himself.

This is one of those films that conveys a feeling more than an idea. But nothing this amusing and charismatic could ever fairly be dubbed “pointless.”

The Family Man

0

Don’t be misled by the title or the wacky-looking advertisements: “The Family Man” is not a family film. The language and sexual content are too strong for children, and the movie is more drama than comedy anyway.

Aside from that, the poky little film has a certain amount of humor and charm, though the jokes are infrequent and the romance unconvincing. It is Christmas Eve 2000 and Wall Street tycoon Jack Campbell (Nicolas Cage) is working harder than ever. (His employees all complain about it being Christmas Eve; no one points out that it’s Sunday, too, for crying out loud.) A multi-billion-dollar merger is about to take place, and he’s got no time or sentiment for things like Christmas, not when there are anonymous women to be slept with.

While walking home, he quells a potentially dangerous situation at a liquor store (Question: Why would he do this?) and winds up talking to the bad guy (Don Cheadle). He turns out to be some sort of angel or something (the movie is rather cryptic on this point) and he casts a spell, or whatever angels do, so that when Jack wakes up the next morning, he’s in the life he DIDN’T choose — the one where he married his college sweetheart, Kate (Tea Leoni), has two kids in suburban New Jersey, and works at his father-in-law’s tire store.

Boy, if there’s anything that will make you break out in a cold sweat, it’s waking up to find yourself in New Jersey. At any rate, the movie’s most amusing turns come in this chunk, as Jack suddenly has to adjust to a life that, as far as the people around him are concerned, he’s been living for 13 years. Still, there’s something mildly disquieting when most of the jokes center around such trite things as having to change a diaper, or the fact that a middle-class lifestyle is so beneath the New York playboy. Can’t we think of anything better?

It’s safe to assume that if you were going to create a modern Scrooge and didn’t want to think too hard about it, you’d make him a Wall Street whiz. And how do you convey that a man has no soul? Make him rich, of course! Wealth and soullessness are synonyms!

And why is it that when a film blatantly steals from a classic — “It’s a Wonderful Life,” in this case — the characters almost never acknowledge it? Are we to assume Jack has never heard of that movie and therefore doesn’t recognize how it parallels his situation? Or is the movie afraid of pointing out the similarities, hoping we won’t catch it if they don’t mention it? One can only assume this is the logic behind only vaguely hinting at Don Cheadle’s character being an angel, rather than stating it outright.

Nicolas Cage is his usual combination of hyper-crazy and just plain off-center, which is either good or bad, depending on your Nicolas Cage views. That said, he is merely serviceable in a domestic role: not great, not bad, just OK. He seems to be playing the part the way he plays most of his parts, forcing his square quirkiness into a round hole.

Tea Leoni is much better as Kate, displaying an earnestness and likability that buoys the film a great deal. Don Cheadle is good as whatever he is, though he disappears for most of the movie. In the end, everything turns out precisely the way you’d expect — the film gets no points for originality (we won’t even mention the early-2000 Australian film “Me Myself I,” which had the EXACT same plot) — except that it hasn’t entertained you nearly as much as you wish it had.

State & Main

0

Movies that make fun of the movie-making process are not particularly rare, but ones that are funny without being farcical are as precious as diamonds. David Mamet’s “State & Main” is exactly that, hitting the Hollywood mentality with deadly accuracy, without resorting to aiming at the broad side of the barn.

In the film, Hollywood director Walt Price (William H. Macy) and company descend on quintessential American small town Waterford, Vt. to film a movie. Their budget having already been wasted in New Hampshire (from which they were run out of town on a rail), they are delighted to find that Waterford has a fire station and an old mill, thus saving them the expense of building sets.

Alas, the historic old mill burned down in 1960, so Walt tells screenwriter Joseph Turner White (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to write the old mill out of the script. And this is where “State & Main’s” first great joke comes in, when we find out the name of the film they’re working on: “The Old Mill.”

To any sane person, not having an old mill for a film centering around an old mill would be an insurmountable problem. For Hollywood folks, though, it’s a minor setback. A few quick rewrites, and we’re back on track.

Joseph starts to become disillusioned over this; he alone realizes the futility in hoping to fix such a serious problem with a few script changes. Supporting and inspiring him is local bookstore-owner and amateur theater-director Ann (Rebecca Pidgeon), who is engaged to local politico Doug (Clark Gregg), who is jealous of her friendship with Joseph and seeks to thwart the film somehow.

Also in this ensemble comedy, in which the several plot lines get almost equal weight, is Walt and producer Marty Rossen’s (David Paymer) attempt to keep cocky leading man Bob Barrenger (Alec Baldwin) from hitting on the local under-age girls, especially Carla (Julia Stiles), who knows of Bob’s penchant for youthful lovers and goes after him full-speed. Walt and Marty also have woes with Bob’s co-star, Claire Wellesley (Sarah Jessica Parker), who signed a contract agreeing to appear nude in the film but has since found religion and refuses to exploit herself.

There’s also a windbag mayor (Charles Durning) and his socialite wife (Patti LuPone), a dangerous pothole on Main Street, and a local obsession for the town’s football team, the Huskies.

Full of crackling, vibrant dialogue, the film skewers Hollywood without becoming a pie-in-the-face exercise in absurdity. We learn that an “associate producer” credit in a film is “what you give your secretary instead of a raise.” We hear Walt insist he will not allow product placement in “The Old Mill” and then, a few scenes later, characters walk past a soda machine on which the Pepsi logo has been greeked out, thus preventing product placement in “State & Main,” too.

More darkly, it dawns on the viewer as the film progresses that integrity — both moral and artistic — is almost unheard of in this environment, as nearly everyone sells out or settles. It’s a dim (though probably fairly accurate) view of Hollywood, but so what? It’s only Hollywood. It’s not like we’re saying the government or our religious leaders are corrupt; we’re just saying movie people can be bought and sold. That’s more funny than disheartening.

This is a dream cast, with Macy, Hoffman, Paymer, Parker and Baldwin all playing their roles with zeal and intelligence. It takes a certain kind of actor to pull off Mamet’s stammering, realistic dialogue; ironically, his wife, Rebecca Pidgeon, is one of the worst at this (yet she continues to appear in all his movies). Macy, who has known Mamet since their college days together, is an old pro at it, making it sound exactly as natural as it’s supposed to.

It’s full of great one-liners, amusing plot twists and whimsical performances. And by the end, you’ll wish they’d actually made a movie called “The Old Mill,” because seeing what went behind the scenes will have completely intrigued you.

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

0

Filmmaking brothers Joel and Ethan Coen live in an interesting little world. It’s a world where everyone, even the one-line characters, has a distinctive face and an unmistakably Coen method of deadpan delivery. It’s a world where dialogue that is unimpressive when spoken once becomes hysterically funny when repeated a few times. It’s a world where you shouldn’t be surprised to hear people at the bottom of the socio-political ladder speaking in erudite language and using the most imaginative sentence constructions.

The Coens, who co-write and co-direct their films (though only Joel is officially credited in the latter capacity), are also extremely divisive. In my opinion, “The Hudsucker Proxy” is every bit as funny as “Raising Arizona,” yet there are many who don’t like it at all. I consider “Fargo” overrated and largely unamusing, but legions of people disagree — and many of those people don’t like “Raising Arizona” at all.

Whatever your opinions on their previous films, it can be said with some degree of objectivity that their latest, “O Brother, Where Art Thou?,” hearkens back to “Raising Arizona” in tone and style. Both films feature outlaws from the South with grand schemes; both have John Goodman and Holly Hunter; and both are marked by controlled, deliberate zaniness, a feeling of pandemonium as constructed by two careful, highly intelligent filmmakers.

Set in Mississippi during the Great Depression, “O Brother” focuses on three escaped convicts: Everett Ulysses McGill (George Clooney), a fast-talking, well-spoken man obsessed with his hair; Pete Hogwallop (John Turturro), a rather ordinary criminal; and Delmar O’Donnel (Tim Blake Nelson), a complete idiot. They’ve escaped in order to retrieve a huge stash of money Everett hid before his capture, money that will be gone forever in a few days when a new dam is finished and the valley it’s buried in is flooded.

In order to get some money, they stumble into a radio station and cut a record. They head out on the lam again immediately, unaware that their record has become a verifiable hit. They also run afoul of a one-eyed swindler (John Goodman), three “sirens” who apparently turn Pete into a frog, and occasionally the local law enforcement.

Meanwhile, there’s a bombastic fathead of a governor named Pappy O’Daniel (Charles Durning), up for re-election and losing to newcomer Homer Stokes (Wayne Duvall), who has a well-run campaign, utilizing a midget and a broom to convey that he’s a friend to “the little man,” and that he wants to make “sweeping” reforms.

There’s also malicious criminal Babyface Nelson (Michael Badalucco) and a talented bluegrass guitar player (Chris Thomas King) who sold his soul to the devil at the crossroads.

What do the election, Babyface or the devil have to do with anything? The great thing is that they’re irrelevant (and just funny) for a long time, becoming important in a pleasant little way as things progress. The plot is fantastically imaginative but unobtrusive. Rather than focusing on surprises or twists, it satisfies just by being original and loopy. We’re inclined to think that Delmar’s theory about Pete being turned into a frog is incorrect because it’s so absurd, but as time goes on, it starts to seem like that’s actually what happened — and we’re OK with that. The movie has taken us for such a joyful wild goose chase that we’re inclined to believe anything it tells us.

Clooney, Nelson and Turturro are outstanding as the leads, each memorably funny in his own right and thoroughly entertaining as a trio, too. There is palpable disappointment anytime the three are split up.

The film claims to be based on Homer’s “The Odyssey,” but remember these are the same guys who said “Fargo” was based on a true story, too. Elements of “The Odyssey” pop up — John Goodman’s “Cyclops,” the names of Ulysses and Penny (Penelope, played by Holly Hunter), and a man’s wife marrying someone else while he’s away — but the film more strongly resembles Preston Sturgis’s 1940s classic “Sullivan’s Travels” (whence comes the title “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”). It even more strongly resembles a crazy delusional fantasy as conjured by an English professor.

While the movie is as light-hearted as you please, it has a few moments of darkness, too. The entire thing is filmed in washed-out Dust Bowl colors, the bleakness contrasting the good humor — except when situations grow tense and the movie turns, if not entirely serious, at least weirdly moody. I can’t say I found these moments to be entirely effective, but I can say that as a whole, I haven’t just sat and enjoyed myself in a movie this much in quite some time. You might disagree; just don’t try to tell me “Raising Arizona” isn’t funny, because I won’t listen.

Cast Away

0

Something we’ve long suspected turns out to be true: You really COULD put Tom Hanks on a desert island, film it, and wind up with an entertaining movie. He’s JUST THAT GOOD.

I’m being facetious, but the fact is, 60 of “Cast Away’s” 140 minutes feature no humans besides the genial Mr. Hanks — and that hour is the best part of the movie. You put him back with the people, and things get weak.

Hanks — who has now officially perfected the role of Everyman — plays Chuck Noland, a bigwig in the Federal Express organization whose life is dictated by the clock. Everything is on time, on schedule, and according to plan. He travels so much with his work that he barely has time for his girlfriend, Kelly (Helen Hunt, making literally her fourth film appearance in two months), though their relationship is strong and mature nonetheless. (Kudos to director Robert Zemeckis and screenwriter William Broyles, Jr., for painting this crucial detail in just a few short strokes.)

On Christmas Eve, Chuck is called away on business, and after a truly harrowing plane crash — the air-and-ocean equivalent of the marvelous train-wreck sequence in “The Fugitive” — he finds himself the sole survivor of the disaster, and alone on an island in the Pacific.

Thus begins a remarkable hour of filmmaking. Putting anyone by himself for that long is risky, even if the guy is as likable as Tom Hanks. Zemeckis ups the ante, though, by including no underscore music and very little dialogue. Chuck isn’t a guy who amusingly talks to himself; he speaks only when it would be logical to do so. Much of the time, he is silent, figuring out how to build shelter, start a fire, nurse his wounds.

FedEx packages from the plane crash wash up on shore, providing him with the elements of a few necessities (he uses an ice skate blade as a knife, for example). The FedEx angle in the plot is truly ingenious, as it not only provides a schedule-oriented contrast to Chuck’s timeless isloation on the island, but it also allows for things like ice skates to show up without seeming like incredible conveniences.

One of the FedEx packages includes a volleyball, which Chuck names Wilson (after the ball manufacturer) and on which he paints a face with his own blood. Wilson becomes Chuck’s only friend — a pet, really — and as loony as that sounds, nothing could be more logical in that context. Chuck needs to connect with someone, and the volleyball gives form to what would have otherwise been an imaginary friend; it’s likely Wilson preserves Chuck’s sanity (more or less: He does argue with the ball a few times). My friend commented that the volleyball should get a Best Supporting Actor nomination and in this bleak year of filmmaking, I’m inclined to agree. (The ball showed more life than Freddie Prinze Jr. does in any of his movies, for example.)

As the trailers for “Cast Away” have already told you, Chuck gets off the island. After four years there — during which time he undergoes an extreme physical transformation that alone will probably get Hanks an Oscar nomination — he finds a way back to civilization. And that’s when, the film would have us believe, his REAL struggle begins. How do you pick up the pieces of your life when as far as everyone is concerned, your life ended four years ago?

Chuck and Kelly have a very good scene together, tightly written and well acted, that elicits some emotion. Aside from that, we really just see a lot of Chuck looking at things we take for granted, like ice cubes and cigarette lighters, and not taking them for granted anymore. We are told, in so many words, that sometimes you just have to keep going and never give up, because you never know what the tide will bring in the next day.

Chuck’s eyes are distant here, evidence of a profoundly traumatic experience and a reminder that Tom Hanks, aside from being a guy we really like, is also a guy who is a very sensitive actor. Unfortunately, there is not enough surrounding Chuck’s eyes to give the experience he’s been through much resonance.

In an instance of none-too-subtle symbolism, Chuck winds up at a crossroads. What will he do next? What would YOU do, if you were essentially reborn and got to start over again? “Cast Away” aims at providing insight into these and other weighty issues, and winds up scoring a direct hit … a little way off from the bullseye. Maybe Tom Hanks should have stayed on that island. Things only got worse when he came home.

Chocolat

0

Director Lasse Hallstrom’s last project, “The Cider House Rules,” was so desperately overrated that it’s good to see his latest film, “Chocolat,” turn out so light and frothy there’s no way it can suffer the same fate. It will be more or less enjoyed by audiences, and then quickly forgotten.

Based on a novel by Joanne Harris, “Chocolat” is a fable set in 1959 in the picturesque little French village of Lansquenet. It’s an old-fashioned place where everyone goes to church on Sunday and where the mega-pious nobleman Comte de Reynaud (Alfred Molina) wields more power than the town’s priest (Hugh O’Conor). (In one amusing sequence, the Comte ghost-writes the priest’s sermons.)

Everything is calm, serene and inordinately Catholic until one Sunday, when a “clever northern wind” blows a woman and her young daughter into town. The woman is Vianne Rocher (Juliette Binoche), a pretty woman of mystical original; her daughter is Anouk (Victoire Thivisol), a girl tired of living a gypsy’s life with her rootless mother.

Vianne rents a shop from the town maverick, an independently minded old woman named Armande (Judi Dench). The shop becomes a chocolaterie (its decor described as “early Mexican brothel”), which proves to be ill-timed, due to the town’s universally enforced observance of Lent. But once the days of abstinence are over, it’s every bit the local hangout.

Predictably, this disturbs the Comte, who is opposed to anything new on the grounds that it will corrupt the people. Indeed, Vianne has a mysterious ability to divine people’s favorite confections, and one chocolate even acts as a libido-enhancer. The Comte tries to turn the people against the shop, and also against the boat full of wanderers including one Vianne has a thing for, played by Johnny Depp) that floats by.

On the Comte’s side is Armande’s estranged and prissy daughter, Caroline (Carrie-Anne Moss) and oafish bartender Serge (Peter Stormare). On Vianne’s side is pretty much everyone else, most notably Serge’s abused wife Josephine (Lena Olin).

I don’t know whether it’s intentional, but the basic plot is extremely reminiscent of “Mary Poppins,” of all things. A strange woman of unknown origins literally blows in on the wind and instantly charms everyone she meets in a repressed society. She performs little acts of magic without fanfare and noses her way confidently into everyone’s business, fixing marriages, repairing relationships and helping everyone see the light. Her chocolates, I’m guessing, each contain one spoonful of sugar.

The story is not meant to be taken literally, which one must keep remembering lest one be annoyed at the absurdity of certain events. Not quite as forgivable, however, is the film’s over-simplified devices. When Serge roars that Josephine doesn’t even know how to use a skillet, it is only a matter of moments before she conquers him by whacking him in the head with one. Since the film has a candy that increases your sex drive, and since the film also has a dog, one may predict with great certainty that one of them will eat the other.

That simplicity leaks into the film as a whole, too, which proves to be a good thing in the succinct way platitudes are spoken. “We can’t go around measuring our goodness by what we DON’T do,” someone says, tying everything up pretty nicely.

The performances are strong. Alfred Molina gives his Comte character more depth and complexity than the film deserves, and much more than the main character gets (though Juliette Binoche admittedly is an appealing star). Judi Dench (love her!), one of the great experts in making a supporting role seem like the lead, seems perfectly suited to play the rebellious senior citizen who doesn’t care for the town’s stick-in-the-mud attitude any more than Vianne does.

And let’s not forget young Victoire Thivisol, who plays Anouk. At the age of 4, Thivisol played the title role in the French film “Ponette,” a beautiful and uplifting story about a girl whose mother has died. (It was the “Life Is Beautiful” of the mid-’90s.) She became the youngest person ever to win the Best Actress award at the Venice Film Festival that year, and while her work in “Chocolat” is not extraordinary, it is better than most child actors can muster. The rest of the movie, well, it’s nothing great. But keep an eye on those performers, because they’re the best reason to keep watching.

Miss Congeniality

0

This movie has William Shatner. In a perfect world, that would be enough of a review right there, and we could go home.

Alas, the world is not yet perfect, as evidenced by the continued proliferation of limp, muddled comedies like “Miss Congeniality.” Remember how everyone loved Sandra Bullock a few years ago? She’s still plenty likable — she’s the major bright spot in this little fiasco — but she’s got to start choosing better scripts. (She produced “Miss Congeniality,” too, which just makes her more culpable.)

Bullock plays Gracie Hart, a slovenly FBI agent with the manners of Homer Simpson who chews with her mouth open and snorts when she laughs. When a terrorist who calls himself The Citizen threatens the upcoming Miss United States pageant (once again, the folks at Miss America are apparently too humorless to let their name be used in a film), cocky Agent Eric Matthews (Benjamin Bratt) asks Gracie to go undercover as a contestant.

Gracie flatly refuses at first, on the grounds that beauty pageants are full of bimbos who set the women’s movement back several decades. She changes her mind, though, when … um, well, for no reason, really. She changes her mind because if she didn’t, the movie would be over before it even started.

She’ll take some work, though, so fey pageant consultant Vic Melling (Michael Caine) is called in to prettify her. With only two days before the pageant, he has to work extremely fast … but he does it! And she’s good to go with just moments to spare.

Gracie infiltrates the pageant pretty well, becoming friends with the contestants and trying to figure out if The Citizen has an insider working the job for him. In the process, she comes to respect the girls and to see the value in beauty pageants.

And there’s the film’s No. 1 problem: It can’t decide if it wants to make fun of beauty pageants or celebrate them. Most of the movie takes potshots at the so-called “scholarship programs,” with standard jokes about all the contestants wanting world peace and throwing up everything they eat. Then, in the last couple reels, all of a sudden these are real people, not just two-dimensional cut-outs, and the plot gets derailed in order to show us a whole bunch of the pageant. What’s the point? That pageants are OK after all? Maybe that’s true, but even if it is, so what?

Also, the plot is extremely questionable. It’s one thing to be far-fetched — we’ll put up with a lot in a broad comedy — but it’s quite another to be so absurd as to render the film utterly unbelievable. The FBI tells the network and the pageant officials that there’s been a bomb threat, but they refuse to cancel the event. That in itself is unlikely, but then there’s the fact that nothing about this danger leaks out to the media or to the contestants.

It’s pretty convenient, too, that Miss New Jersey had to drop out of the pageant just in time for Gracie to take her place under a false name. (And no publicity around that? No media scrutiny on this new woman from out of nowhere who becomes the new Miss New Jersey? Shouldn’t there have been a runner-up who would take the real beauty queen’s place?)

The aforementioned William Shatner gets a few laughs as the fatuous pageant announcer; Candice Bergen, as his high-strung sidekick, does not fare so well. Caine has some amusing lines — “I haven’t seen a walk like that since ‘Jurassic Park,'” he says upon seeing Gracie move — and it’s nice to see him doing something at his level (i.e., mediocre), rather than films that are too amateurish (“Get Carter”) or too hoity-toity (“The Cider House Rules”). Benjamin Bratt stands around in order to be Gracie’s reluctant love interest.

Sandra Bullock herself continues to be affable; in fact, she seems entirely above the mawkish proceedings in the film, like she never fits in with the rest of the cast. If anyone deserves the “Miss Congeniality” award, it’s her. Too bad the movie she’s in doesn’t even rank as a finalist.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Chinese)

0

Director Ang Lee could have had himself a nice little chick flick with “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.” It has an appealing love story, some heartfelt sentiment, and lush cinematography. Women are heroes. Even the villain is a woman. It’s a woman’s movie.

And then Lee decided, what the heck, why not add the most spectacularly, jaw-droppingly amazing martial-arts sequences ever committed to film? Why not, as long as we’re making a movie, blow everyone away with scenes of unbelievably fantastic movement that will amaze viewers without drawing attention to themselves? Why not just rewrite movie history?

Part of the cleverness of this Chinese-language film is that it is structured like a traditional kung fu movie for its first hour, with the fight sequences occurring in exactly the right spots — and then it shifts gears for the second half and turns into quite a strong little love story.

Through it all, of course, are those fights. More on those later.

The story is of Wudan warrior Li Mu Bai (Chow Yun-Fat) who wants to hang it up after years of fighting. He feels he has failed, as his master was killed by the devilish Jade Fox (Pei-pei Cheng) and he has never been able to avenge him; furthermore, he’s felt unsettled during his meditations lately. His sword, the Green Destiny, has spilled the blood of many foes, and now he wants to give it to his friend Sir Te (Sihung Lung) as a symbolic gesture.

He sends the sword to Sir Te by way of Yu Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh), a fellow Wudan warrior with whom he has an unspoken and unresolved love interest. The sword is promptly stolen from Sir Te by a masked figure whom we discover to be wealthy young Jen Yu (Ziyi Zhang), who is about to be married against her will and seeks the kind of action and adventure that one cannot have as a tied-down housewife. Her mentor is none other than the Jade Fox.

Soon Li Mu Bai and Shu Lien are both on the trail of Jen and the Jade Fox. Jen, meanwhile, is trying to continue her forbidden romance with desert highwayman Lo (Chen Chang), and Jade Fox seems to have nothing but evil on her mind.

Part of the Wudan training is that it teaches its warriors to defy the laws of gravity; indeed, this behavior is the principal way of identifying that someone is a Wudan. Our first glimpse of it is when the sword is stolen, and Shu Lien sets out in pursuit of the masked figure who took it. It starts simply enough, with characters running up walls in a manner that gets our attention but doesn’t seem completely beyond the realm of possibility. Next, they’re leaping from one rooftop to another, their feet barely touching anything solid. A spectacular scene takes place later in the film, with Li Mu Bai and Jen fighting in the treetops, occasionally holding on to branches. By the end of the movie, they are literally flying.

Does it make sense? Of course not. Compare it to the Force in “Star Wars,” if you want, as the similarities are hard to miss; see it as a metaphor for freedom and happiness; do whatever it takes to help you buy into it. Or you can just sit there and wonder how Ang Lee pulled it off.

You’d expect a director to do a special effects shot and then seamlessly cut to another shot, allowing the actor to work with wires or a green screen as necessary and then to interact with other humans. Not Ang Lee, though. He’ll have Jen fly through the air, spin around like a top, land on the ground and immediately start beating someone up, all in one shot. The flying and spinning clearly involve some movie-making trickery; how, then, is he able to do that and regular non-magic things without cutting away?

I suspect a lot of the appeal here will be to people who notice things like that and are interested in the mechanics of film-making. Even for regular folks, though, it would be hard not to notice the effort that went into making it all seem so effortless. And even without the exhilarating action sequences, Michelle Yeoh’s powerful, stoic performance is a wonder to behold in itself. How fitting that, in a year of mediocre American films, a Chinese filmmaker would come along and remind us how it’s supposed to be done.

Dracula 2000

0

The official title of this thing is “Wes Craven Presents Dracula 2000,” a bit of gimmickry designed to fool us into thinking the man who directed “A Nightmare on Elm Street” and the “Scream” movies was responsible for this one, too. Surely the combined forces of the modern master of horror and one of the most terrifying creatures in all of literature should result in some big-time fright.

But like a reflection-less vampire, “Dracula 2000” has no soul. Wes Craven, it turns out, is merely executive producer — one of five people credited with that title. (Why not call it “Harvey Weinstein Presents Dracula 2000”? At least that wouldn’t give audiences any false impressions.) “Dracula 2000” was directed by Patrick Lussier, Craven’s favorite film editor taking his first legitimate stab at directing.

The directing, actually, is one of the better points in this foolish little piece of Goth trash. There are no obvious signs of incompetence, and it’s even a little stylish in places. Were it not for the script, which breaks standard vampire rules and even makes up a few new ones (which it also breaks), you’d think this was actually a pretty good movie.

Mysterious, vaguely European Dr. Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer) is an antiques collector in London with a strange fascination for things vampiric. One night a group of bumbling crooks, led by one of Van Helsing’s employees, Solina (Jennifer Esposito), busts into his safe and steals the only artifact they can find: a coffin.

While en route to the Cayman Islands, the coffin is opened by one of the stooges and is revealed to contain … nothing. Kidding. It contains Dracula (Gerard Butler), a handsome fellow with stylish hair and a come-hither smile who proceeds to vampirize everyone on the plane, which crashes in a swamp near New Orleans.

Meanwhile, Van Helsing, flanked by his do-gooder assistant Simon (Jonny Lee Miller), has come to New Orleans as well, looking for his estranged daughter Mary (Justine Waddell). Mary hasn’t seen Dad in years and doesn’t know about his fondness for vampires, but she’s been having dreams about Dracula lately and is mighty freaked out by them.

Van Helsing, it turns out, is actually a very old man, having captured Dracula in 1897 only to find that he’s some kind of Uber-vampire who can’t be killed, even by traditional vampire-killing methods. (He doesn’t seem to have tried cutting of his head, which it seems to me would kill pretty much anyone, or at least make it hard for them to suck people’s blood.) He’s vowed to stay alive as long as Dracula, in order to protect the world from him, and has been injecting himself with Dracula’s blood (filtered through leeches, don’t ask me why) to gain this immortality.

Unfortunately, having Dracula’s blood running through his veins has resulted in his daughter having a psychic connection to the blood-sucker. And now Dracula believes it is his destiny to hook up with Mary.

Strip away the Dracula plot, and this is essentially just a stupid slasher movie. Characters walk into dark rooms alone, and no one ever behaves rationally or logically. Several things just don’t make any sense at all, like the fact that the only people on the scene at the plane crash are one local news crew — no emergency personnel, no other news teams, nothing.

Lussier has fun making things happen suddenly, forcing us to jump when the film doesn’t really deserve that kind of reaction. There’s very little to be scared by here — except maybe the ludicrous explanation near the end of who Dracula really is. If you’re not frightened by the fact that someone actually thought this was a good idea for the movie, then you’re impervious to horror.

Finding Forrester

0

Director Gus Van Sant, apparently still reeling over the misguided disaster that was his 1998 “Psycho” remake, has decided to play it safe with “Finding Forrester.”

What could be more sure-fire? It has a feel-good, seize-the-day story, solid performances by a venerable screen legend (Sean Connery) and a daring new-comer (Rob Brown), a dastardly villain who gets his come-uppance, and a message of triumph against adversity.

What it doesn’t have is a single idea that is original, newly conceived, or even smartly repackaged. “Finding Forrester” is sneaky about its theft from every other movie that runs along these lines — that is, nothing smacks you in the face as being too recognizable — but when it’s over, you’re left with a sense of, “Haven’t I seen that before?”

Not any of this will matter, and maybe it shouldn’t. Despite being unoriginal, the movie is polished and intelligent, and there’s no denying it pleases the crowds.

The story is of 16-year-old Bronx resident Jamal Wallace (Brown), whose test scores indicate he’s much smarter than he lets on in class. He doesn’t find acceptance among his peers by being smart, after all; he finds it by excelling on the basketball court, which he does.

On a dare, he sneaks into the apartment of a guy they call The Window. The Window is a recluse whose flat overlooks the playground Jamal and his friends play at; his moniker comes from his habit of peering down at the boys through his curtains. Jamal is startled by The Window and flees the apartment, leaving his backpack behind. (Why did he takes his backpack in the first place? So he could leave it behind, apparently, as it figures heavily into the plot.)

When his bag is tossed down from the window the following afternoon, Jamal discovers that The Window has read his notebooks and critiqued his creative writing. Seeking further insight and glad to have someone who knows what he’s talking about as a mentor, Jamal ventures to the apartment, in the daylight this time, and soon the two are friends.

It isn’t long before Jamal discovers who The Window is: He’s William Forrester (Connery), the author whose first novel, in 1954, won the Pulitzer — and who hasn’t written since then. Forrester promises to help Jamal with his writing if Jamal promises not to tell anyone about Forrester, or pry into the details of his former life.

Jamal gets a scholarship to a fancy-pants private school in Manhattan, where a saucy and mildly cynical girl named Claire (Anna Paquin) shows him around, and where he runs afoul of snobby literature professor Crawford (F. Murray Abraham), who thinks Jamal’s work must be plagiarized to be as good as it is.

It’s all well and good. The scenes in which Forrester rhapsodizes about writing technique should stir the blood in any would-be author’s veins, and Connery and Brown have a surprisingly good rapport. (The old man hasn’t been this likable and vulnerable in years.)

But darn it, where’s the imagination? Forrester’s reasons for becoming a hermit are so predictable and dull as to be laughable, and the tacked-on post-script to the film is entirely pointless. For a movie in which plagiarism is so important a plot point, it sure doesn’t score too highly on the creativity scale.

The Gift

0

When I settled in to watch “The Gift,” the new thriller from director Sam Raimi, I was told it was 140 minutes long. Thus, when we reached the 105-minute mark and the film seemed not just to be ending, but to be ending in an extremely disappointing and fraudulent manner, I thought, “Oh, good. Raimi and his fine troupe of thespians have treated me right so far, what with the excellent performances, engrossing story line and smart directing. Surely this hokey ending I’m seeing is meant to throw us off, to make us THINK the movie is ending like any generic thriller would, when really there’s still another half-hour in which to turn the genre on its ear and wrap things up in a manner more befitting the high quality of this motion picture.”

Turns out the person who told me 140 minutes was wrong. It’s 111 minutes, and that awful ending — the one that’s anti-climactic, rushed-at and laughably predictable — well, that’s the ending.

Up to that point, “The Gift” is a superb, tense film marked by subtlety (except when it’s creepier to be unsubtle) and moderation. The incomparable Cate Blanchett plays Annie Wilson, a young Georgia widow with three little boys who is still trying to put the pieces back together after the tragic death of her husband a year earlier. She lives hand-to-mouth, earning some money by using the titular gift: She has E.S.P. The little town of Brixton is full of superstitious folk, and they gladly pay a few dollars here and there to have Annie give them “readings” with a deck of cards designed for that purpose.

One of her clients and friends is Valerie Barksdale (Hilary Swank, looking like white trash for the new millennium), who is constantly being roughed up by her brutish husband Donnie (Keanu Reeves). Donnie, a good Christian fellow (except for being a racist and a wife-beater), insists Annie has the devil in her; Annie encouraging Valerie to leave Donnie just makes him madder, and he threatens pretty much everyone.

Meanwhile, the local school principal, Wayne Collins (Greg Kinnear), is about to marry slutty debutante Jessica King (Katie Holmes), who in turn is already cheating on him. Jessica goes missing, and the local authorities reluctantly ask Annie to use her powers to help them find her. She does, and she leads them to a pond near Donnie Barksdale’s house. Jessica’s body is found in the pond, and Donnie is put on trial for the murder.

Obviously, it can’t be that cut-and-dried, and it isn’t. Annie continues to have dreams and visions — which Raimi directs with a keen eye and ear for what images and sounds will scare the pants off of us — and comes to the realization that she may know more about the killer after all. It’s great to see the horrible Donnie incarcerated, of course — but what if he didn’t do it?

Alongside all this is a story with Annie’s simple friend Buddy (Giovanni Ribisi), who trusts her psychic advice to the letter and who has some serious family problems. It was during a particularly dire and disturbing scene with Buddy that I realized this subplot probably was not going to tie in adequately with the main story. And I was right, though not because the movie didn’t try to force a connection.

This is one of the best-acted films I’ve seen in a while. Reeves does an unusually adequate job, and even Greg Kinnear, who is normally too smarmy and oily, hands in an impressive performance. Blanchett is right up there, as are Ribisi and Swank. Kudos to Raimi for coaxing nuanced, careful performances from all of them; if you listen, you’ll catch clues to what will happen next based just on how certain characters say things.

But oh, that ending. It’s amazing how much impact a few minutes can have. The movie stays on a straight, true course right up until the end, when it detours into Generic Land. Too bad Annie couldn’t have foreseen that disaster and acted to prevent it.

The House of Mirth

0

“The House of Mirth” begins with Lily Bart (Gillian Anderson) walking through a train station in New York. She has missed her train and will have to wait another two hours. Yet she is not distressed. She has money, social status and time on her hands. She is the very picture of gentility, composure and dignity

By the end of the movie, when she’s making hats in a factory and swilling prescription medication like it’s chocolate milk, we get a sense of how far she has fallen. Credit Gillian Anderson for making this heartbreaking transformation, but credit director Terence Davies for making the film too long and too slow to be worthy of Anderson’s efforts.

Set in 1905, “The House of Mirth” is about Lily’s dilemma. Society has no place for unmarried women, but Lily doesn’t particularly want to get married. Yet she knows she must, and is perceived by many as one who will get her hooks into the first man she can find — which makes the men nervous, which makes it even harder to find a husband.

She remarks on the double standard of marriage — “A girl must (get married), and a man, if he chooses” — but she’s not exactly a feminist. She realizes the unfairness of it all, but has little notion of trying to effect social reform. This makes her even more stuck, of course.

Matters are worsened by some gambling debts she acquires, and by her decreasing income. Bachelor Lawrence Selden (Eric Stoltz) seems her best option for marriage, but they prefer a cat-and-mouse thing. Wealthy businessman Rosedale (Anthony LaPaglia) proposes, but Lily finds him loathsome. Friend Gus Trenor (Dan Aykroyd), who is married, makes an indecent proposal which she declines.

The intrigue, such as it is, comes when Lily finds a series of letters her married friend Bertha Dorset (Laura Linney) wrote to Lawrence, making it clear they had an affair. If she’d use these letters for blackmail, she’d be set for life. But Lily has principles … to a point, anyway.

The film vividly re-creates a world most of us are unfamiliar with: the world where manners and money (and nothing else) are important. People sit around idly, engaging in banal chit-chat, having tea and saying things like, “If obliquity were a vice, we should all be tainted.” Rumors of an unmarried woman spending time alone with a married man are as damning as if she actually slept with him. Two of Lily’s actual lines, spoken when she is in absolute desperation, are: “I am at the end of my tether!” and “I am on the rubbish heap!”

And therein lies the film’s major problem: It’s so mannered and discreet that it’s dull. Without a doubt, the characters are painted the way socialites in turn-of-the-century New York actually behaved. That doesn’t make them interesting to a modern viewer, though. It makes them an artifact.

This has always been, I maintain, the trouble with the Merchant-Ivory genre of movies, of which this may be called a somewhat dark example. It’s quaint, for a while, to look at these people’s little lives. But a movie about idleness almost can’t help being idle itself. A movie about people who are shallow and vapid is bound to share those characteristics.

Anderson, though, is excellent as Lily Bart. Where the film’s muted tone works to its advantage is that when Lily finally does break down and cry, it’s such a change from what she’s been doing that it’s extraordinarily effective.

TRAX Is for Kids

0

The TRAX light-rail system opened to much fanfare in 1999, and before the month was over, it was scissoring people in half almost daily. I believe it carried some passengers, too, though that’s hard to verify.

I don’t know why more people don’t ride TRAX. We tried it the other night as part of an evening of fun and merriment in Salt Lake City, and the trip from Sandy to downtown that takes 15 minutes in a car took only an hour on TRAX. What could be more convenient? Perhaps it’s all the killing that drives people away.

There was relatively little death in our experience, which is actually unfortunate, as there were several 14-year-old girls on our train who were screaming Christmas carols at the tops of their lungs, and we would like to have seen any or all of them sawn asunder by a train. These girls are at the age where any activity they think of on their own is sheer brilliance, and anything suggested by their parents is stupid, even if it’s the same activity. (You can bet if their parents had suggested they sing Christmas carols on a crowded train, the girls would have looked at them like they had pea soup spurting out their ears.)

So sing they did, and annoyed we were, and a long time the train ride took. But finally we arrived downtown, and my group — Becky, Lindsay, Josh, Chanel, Chris&Lisa and their two kids whose names escape me, and I — detrained and headed toward Temple Square. Our plan was to see the Christmas lights and enjoy the special peace and happiness of the season, but instead we went to Crossroads Plaza and ate mall food.

I had something from a place called Lotsa Hotsa — I admit, the name is the only reason I went there — and we sort of watched George W. Bush accept the presidency on a big TV while we also watched Chris&Lisa’s older son, who is, I don’t know, 2 or 6 or something, fall off his chair not once but twice. Chanel suggested Josh use his Banana Republic scarf to tie the lad to his seat, but that idea was quickly discarded, as the scarf was valuable.

We made it to Temple Square eventually, and my, is it ever a beautiful place, what with the temple and the square and all. Chris pretended not to be a Mormon, speaking in a New York accent and loudly saying things like, “What are these Mormons all about? I wonder if there’s someone around here who could tell me about them.” Meanwhile, Becky and I figured the thing to do would be for me to propose to her — not because we wanted to marry each other, but because we wanted to give the other Temple Square visitors a nice story to tell their friends when they got home. Alas, we couldn’t find a suitable moment, and Becky and Josh pretended to be a couple for a few minutes (they pretended awfully well, too, their friends will be intrigued to know) while Chanel, believing Lindsay’s glove to be a tarantula, stomped on the thing. There were lights, too.

But the evening was all about TRAX, really. On the way back, Lindsay, Chanel and I struck up a conversation with an adorable little boy who informed us that it was a good thing they didn’t allow horses on the train, because “they would poop.” This seemed logical to us, and I remarked that I would like to have an adorable little boy someday. In fact, I decided I wanted this particular adorable little boy, as the chances of my own offspring turning out that cute are slim. Much to my dismay, the boy’s father indicated he was not for sale, and then they backed away slowly. People are always backing away slowly from me. They should really watch where they’re going, lest a train run them over.

The Emperor’s New Groove

0

Disney’s new ultra-hip cartoon “The Emperor’s New Groove” is clearly the product of a world-weary, post-Nickelodeon era. It’s not enough anymore to make the kids laugh while slipping in some satire for the grown-ups; kids are so savvy nowadays, you have to give THEM something to bite on, too.

Set roughly in the age of the Incas, the film centers on Emperor Kuzco (David Spade), who in turn centers on himself. He’s a brash young ruler who cares only for himself. He’s not cruel or despotic — he just doesn’t think about anyone else.

He gets mad at his adviser, an emaciated Cruella De Vil type named Yzma (Eartha Kitt), and fires her. For revenge, she plots to poison him with the help of her beefy, dim-witted assistant, Kronk (Patrick Warburton). Kronk screws it up, though, and instead of being killed, Kuzco is turned into a llama.

He accidentally winds up with a llama herder named Pacha (John Goodman), whose village Kuzco was planning to destroy to make room for his new swimming pool. Against what might have been his better judgment, Pacha agrees to help Kuzco make it back to the palace, even though Kuzco refuses to change his mind about the whole leveling-the-town thing.

And so we have a breezy little buddy picture in which the unlikely pair has to work as a team, and in which Kuzco has to learn to love someone other than himself.

Where Disney’s other animated films of the last decade have generally had that “classic” feel about them, this one seems a bit more tossed-off, like it will be all but forgotten 10 years from now. Even movies that were more about humor than message — “Aladdin” and “Hercules,” for example — still had an “I’m gonna make it someday” musical number and a soft heart. “The Emperor’s New Groove” has neither. The message is no more or less deep than, say, “Beauty and the Beast’s”; it’s the manner in which it’s presented that makes it different. Kuzco’s personal journey seems like a necessary evil, something that’s there because fables are supposed to have morals, and the movie keeps it at arm’s length. Emotionally speaking, “Emperor” is a typical male: more interested in cracking jokes and being snide than in expressing its feelings.

With its lightning pace, 78-minute length and no sense of timelessness about it, it would be easy to dismiss the film as a thrown-together attempt to make a few dollars. I don’t think that would be fair, though, as it is very well-animated, tightly plotted, well-acted and extremely funny. If it’s a quickie, it’s a pretty good one.

David Spade is, well, David Spade as Kuzco. If his smarmy, superior manner bothers you normally, don’t expect it to be any different here. John Goodman is likable as always, but it’s Patrick Warburton — David Puddy on “Seinfeld” — who makes the picture soar. His Kronk character is more than just a well-meaning moron. He’s actually kind of smart, and good-natured enough in his subservience to Yzma that you root for him all the way. His delivery is reminiscent of the Marx Brothers or Bugs Bunny, loopy and energetic, even while maintaining his tough-sounding deadpan.

Will you be rewatching this again and again a decade from now? Unlikely. But will you laugh quite a bit now? Probably so.

What Women Want

0

Men and women are very different, and each gender often doesn’t know what the other is thinking! That’s the earth-shattering message expressed so cutely in “What Women Want,” a soft romantic comedy focusing on a man, but made for women.

Directed by Nancy Meyers (who I think might actually be Nora Ephron, especially with this film’s reliance on Sinatra-era music), “What Women Want” stars Mel Gibson as Nick Marshall, a sexist Chicago advertising wizard who suddenly finds himself with the ability to hear women’s thoughts.

This comes after an electric shock, which comes when Nick, depressed and drunk over a woman getting the promotion he wanted, tries on a bunch of women’s products he’s supposed to come up with ad campaigns for and then falls into the bathtub while holding a hair dryer.

Is it funny to see Mel Gibson in panty hose? Well, certainly. Is it funny to see Nick Marshall wild-eyed and blithering when he realizes that every woman he knows thinks he’s a chauvinistic pig? For a minute or two.

The real comedy is after that, when Nick realizes how great a power this can be. If he knows what women want, he can have sex with all of them. (Of course, if he knows what women want, he’ll know that sex isn’t the only thing on their minds.) He’ll also be able to come up with ideas for ads for lipstick and women’s running shoes — ideas that actually belong to the aforementioned man-eating executive, Darcy McGuire (Helen Hunt). He starts undermining Darcy’s career at the ad firm, while also falling in love with her.

His sabotage is so subtle, though, that not only is Darcy unaware of it, but the audience seems to be left out, too. We see the scheme occur to him, and a few brief instances of him employing it … and then nothing. That and a few other details (like Nick’s office buddy, Morgan, played by Mark Feuerstein, who disappears suddenly after the first half-hour) get lost in the shuffle.

The result is that about half-way through the film, you realize there’s no conflict. The novelty of Nick’s fun super-power has worn off, and you start trying to focus on the plot instead … and you realize there isn’t one. Keeping Nick from being too vicious in his plan to steal Darcy’s job keeps him from being a despicable character, but it also waters down a lot of potentially good conflicts, plot twists and dilemmas.

A lot of comic potential goes untapped, too, right up to the the last minute, when the film ends with a kiss rather than a joke. A woman smokes pot in Nick’s presence. What will her drug-impaired thoughts be? The movie skips it. A woman calls Nick on the phone. How will he know the difference between what she’s saying and what she’s just thinking? He is mildly confused twice, and then she apparently doesn’t have any more thoughts after that.

(One joke that is great is when Nick encounters his two fawning and vacuous secretaries. They say a few things, and then he waits, listening for their thoughts. And there are none. Just as you would guess from looking at them, they really ARE just standing there, absolutely nothing on their minds.)

Mel Gibson is altogether charming as Nick. He’s not the least bit convincing as a politically incorrect cad; fortunately, he only has to do it for a few minutes before he gets zapped. The rest of the time, he’s affable and friendly. He’s entirely too old to be a swinging bachelor, and the film has its flaws, but darned if you don’t like him and it anyway.

Helen Hunt, elegant and smart as always, holds her own with the powerhouse that is Mel Gibson. I’m guessing what women want is this movie, and men won’t mind it too much either. We critics, well, we have to point out its shortcomings. But that doesn’t mean we didn’t mostly enjoy ourselves.

Dude, Where’s My Car?

0

“Dude, Where’s My Car?” is a triumph in filmmaking, a masterful blend of brilliant characterization, engaging storytelling, and pure human emotion.

Never have I seen such a penetrating examination of the intricate and fragile creation that is humanity, and never shall I see again the old shell of my psyche that was shattered and born anew upon viewing this elegant masterpiece.

In the story of two stoners named Jesse (Ashton Kutcher) and Chester (Seann William Scott) who awaken after a night of reveling with no memory of the events and no idea where Jesse’s car is, we are amused and intrigued. As their Yoda-like friend Nelson (David Herman) lets his dog smoke pot, we catch glimpses of insight into what it is that makes us human. As the stoners’ girlfriends (Jennifer Garner, Marla Sokoloff) are angry with them for having forgotten their anniversary, we are reminded of our own foibles. In the dudes’ constant use of the nonsense word “shibby,” we are reminded of all the times we have attempted to introduce new slang into the vernacular, hoping to become the next “whassup?” or “schwing!”

I gave it another chance:

8/24/2011: Re-Views: ‘Dude, Where’s My Car?’ (2000)

The film causes us to wonder: If your premise is this flimsy to begin with, why would you stretch credibility even further by having the forgotten night’s activities include extra-terrestrials? Why not keep it within the realm of reality? Why turn it into a big, ridiculous cartoon in which none of the jokes are funny, sex is referred to far too often, and Seann William Scott’s acting is beyond the pale? Why give the dudes’ boss at the pizza place the name of “Mr. Pizzacoli,” instead of a legitimate one? Why, indeed. Have these questions any answers?

To examine the film’s excellent pop-rock soundtrack, its amusing “Bust a Move” music video, and its funny-stupid sequence involving Fabio at a stoplight, we must examine our own souls. Are these the lone islands of quality in an otherwise tempestuous sea of mediocrity, idiocy and jackassery? The film asks us — nay, implores us — to look within ourselves.

Dude, where’s my car, indeed. Have all the philosophers in 6,000 years of human history asked a nobler question? Its answer is metaphorical of the answers to all of mankind’s queries. So much the better are we for having asked it.

Pollock

0

The trouble with biopics is that people’s lives don’t often have “plots” in the conventional sense of the word. Where stories have beginnings, middles and ends, real life has a beginning and an ending, but there’s no guarantee anything in between will go anywhere.

So “Pollock,” in which Ed Harris directs himself as modern artist Jackson Pollock, does well to address not the painter’s entire life, but just the part from when he met his wife, up to his death.

His wife turns out to be Lee Krasner (Marcia Gay Harden), a Brooklyn girl who takes note of Pollock’s talent. An artist herself, she knows he has potential. It falls upon her to light a fire under the unmotivated drunk: Pollock is almost the quintessential “artist” in that he is a moody, insecure voluptuary.

They meet in Greenwich Village in 1941. Soon after, she arranges for him to meet renowned art dealer Peggy Guggenheim (Amy Madigan). His career takes off from there, hampered by his drinking, shiftlessness and general orneriness. (The first words we hear from Pollock’s lips are “[expletive] Picasso!”)

Harris does well playing a weary artist. His eyes are expressive, and the scenes of him painting are entrancing.

As a director, Harris also impresses. His style is too use lingering, unhurried shots. One might call this “slow,” but it doesn’t drag. Admittedly, if one is bored by the idea of watching an artist create, one would be bored with “Pollock.” But the movie is not for those people. It’s an intriguing portrayal of genius, and of the creation process.

A Bowl Full of Telly

0

Unless you’re some kind of atheist or communist, you’ll no doubt be spending thousands of hours this holiday season with your fat butt parked in front of the TV. The television wizards have cooked up enough Christmas programming to make you as cheerful as a crack whore at Robert Downey Jr.’s house.

First, many regular series will have Very Special Episodes to warm your heart and fog your brain. On a Very Special Episode of “ER,” for example, they’ll be injecting you with 10cc’s of holiday merriment — stat! — when Santa Claus himself stumbles into the emergency room with congestive heart failure. Ho, ho, ho … CLEAR! Then, on a Very Special Episode of “The X-Files,” Scully’s search for Mulder leads her to the North Pole, where a vicious, man-eating elf devours Scully’s new partner, whatever his name is. “Saturday Night Live” will show for the 750th time that clip of Bill Murray introducing Santa Claus as his co-host, the characters on “Friends” will become involved in a hilarious imbroglio over a parking space at the mall (many are injured), and in the most Very Special Episode of them all, on a truly touching “Touched by an Angel,” the entire episode will be spent manipulating the emotions of all 12 viewers.

But don’t fill up on the regular TV shows, because there are plenty of holiday specials, too! Yule be glad you have nothing better to do than sit like a loser in front of the TV when CBS premieres “Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Are Denied Entrance into the Boy Scouts.” There’s so much holiday warmth in this animated program that if Frosty came near it, he would immediately convert from solid to gas form, bypassing the liquid stage altogether! (This process is called sublimation.) And if you’re wondering whether there’s yet another version of “A Christmas Carol” this year — admit it, you were — you can chop up those worries and stuff ’em up a Christmas goose, because there are SIX new versions of “A Christmas Carol” this year! Scrooge will be played by Michael Caine, Patrick Stewart, Wilford Brimley, the sea captain from “The Simpsons,” Ruth Hale, and the reanimated corpse of George Burns. Christmas was never merrier, at least not before Prozac was invented! But there’s more! Jerry Seinfeld teams up with Woody Allen in “A Very Jewish Christmas,” Jimmy Stewart murders children in their sleep in “Freddy Krueger’s Christmas,” and Richard Paul Evans’s unbearable five-page novel “The Christmas Box” is turned into a hammy two-hour movie that will make you want to sleep in heavenly peace … FOREVER!

What’s that you say? You want music with your Christmas? Coming right up, Hector! Britney Spears’s new special, “All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front … Um, Teeth,” will perk you up on even the nippiest of winter nights, and she’ll be joined by her friends from *NSync, who will *nsing “Silent *Night.” *Ncredible, that’s what we call it now, as a result of the accident. And don’t forget the world premiere of Utah artist Michael McBestor’s “Forgotten Holiday Carol Concert Extravaganza,” with special guests Janice Kapp de Azevedo and Kenneth Cope Oaks Baker! It’s sure to fit your holiday plans as perfectly as an article that is exactly the length of the left-hand column of a newspaper page!

A Little London Christmas

0

For an evening of Christmas carols and quaint yuletide cheer, you won’t do much better than “A Little London Christmas.”

Eight carolers in 19th-century garb sing with unwaveringly strong voices and tight harmonies about the Christ child and related subjects. There’s not a Rudolph or a jingle bell in the whole show, which alone makes it unusual. This is a show that celebrates Jesus Christ, not the accoutrements we’ve come to associate with the season.

The leader is Nicholas (Davison Cheney), who tells us we’re taking a journey through Christmases past back to the very first one. Accompanying him are seven people whose personalities are summed up in a line or two: Lucy (Sarah Broberg) wants to hear an angel sing; Agatha (Lynne D. Bronson) is selfish and worldly; you get the idea. (The remaining five are Elijah Cardon, Mary Hall Drinkwater, Jared Pulham, Rob Roxburgh, and Juliet Joy Hall double-cast with Katy Worlton Pulham.)

The pageant-like dialogue, written by Marvin Payne, serves mainly to get us from one song to the next. There is no plot to speak of, and the acting tends to be over-dramatic. Essentially, it’s a concert of Christmas songs that pretends to be more than just a concert.

This is problematic: Either give us a story and characters or don’t. This half-way business just makes the audience expect more than it’s going to get. If we knew from the outset that we were at a caroling concert, we’d be fine with it. But setting up characters who then don’t go anywhere changes our expectations.

Much of the music is extremely beautiful, and several less-familiar works are included along with traditional carols. “Badgers and Hedgehogs” is a jaunty, utterly charming little number about various animals praising the Lord. “No Room in the Inn” and “This Little Babe” also stand out, though placing too much emphasis on them might detract from the many other gorgeous songs that could be named just as well.

Nuncrackers: The Nunsense Christmas Musical

0

The loopy musical “Nunsense,” about a group of sisters trying to raise funds to bury some nuns who were accidentally poisoned, benefitted from an original concept and irreverent attitude. Plus, seeing nuns sing and dance is automatically funny.

The Christmas sequel, “Nuncrackers,” can’t live off the originality anymore, the attitude is a little more relaxed and sometimes even schmaltzy, and if you’ve seen “Nunsense,” convent choreography will no longer amuse you.

That said, the show is pretty entertaining, even if, as with most sequels, it’s not much more than a rehash of what’s gone before. The Little Sisters of Hoboken have turned their convent basement into a TV studio and are producing their first Christmas special, for which we are the audience. Things go awry, of course, and what we see is a mixture of their prepared program and some of the shenanigans that go on during the down time.

Scatter-brained Sister Mary Amnesia (Robinne Booth) gives out door prizes. Sister Mary Regina (Pat Sumsion), the Reverend Mother, recalls with fondness the Christmases of her youth spent with a traveling carnival. Tough-talking Sister Robert Anne (Debbie Allred) sings about how all she wants for Christmas is a one-night stand — at Carnegie Hall, that is. Several of the nuns’ students enact adorable little Christmas-themed plays and pageants. And Father Virgil (Lon Keith), in a skit stolen from the days of burlesque, gets progressively drunker as he explains how to make holiday fruitcake.

In the midst of all this, Sister Mary Leo — who would be the world’s first nun ballerina — busts her leg backstage, and the convent’s Christmas presents are stolen.

Though some of the show gets more sentimental than its predecessors, writer Dan Goggin’s trademark wit and verbal agility are still present. (“To make your Christmas merry, we’ve got Marys by the score,” goes one of the songs.) The best nun-oriented jokes have already been made, but there is new territory explored with their version of the Home Shopping Network (from which you can buy two new perfumes: “Confession” and “Absolution”).

Probably the funniest number is a recruitment song called “In the Convent,” a parody of the Village People’s “In the Navy.” Their version of “The Nutcracker Ballet” is a hoot, too, as is pretty much the whole thing — especially if it’s your first exposure to this habit-forming little troupe.

Farley Family Xmas

0

The longer I live in Utah, the more I enjoy “Farley Family Xmas.”

James Arrington’s one-man show is a loving send-up of the large, bumptious families Utah is famous for. We’re never told specifically that they’re Mormons, but it’s clear they are, from Heber J. Farley’s gratitude for everyone’s “sparts” (read: “spirits”) to Aunt Pearl’s frequent exclamations of “Oh my heck!”

The setting is the annual Christmas gathering, and Heber is master of ceremonies. This is more or less by default; Arrington’s best, most vivid character has no public speaking skills, but as acting patriarch of the clan, the responsibility falls on him to introduce each of the speakers and quasi-talented performers who will entertain us Farleys (audience members are considered family) on this special occasion.

Heber is Every Mormon Grandfather, a perfect snapshot of post-middle-age verbosity and simplicity. Arrington plays him with delibrate anti-charisma: The guy’s so un-charming, he’s charming. (My favorite joke, three years running now, is when Heber accidentally refers to genealogist Aunt Pearl as a “gynecologist.” “She knows this family inside and out,” he says.)

So there’s “O Holy Night” as caterwauled by Aunt Viola (“When she sings a song, it stays sung,” Heber says), some holiday decorating tips from Aunt Beatrice, a plea from Boy Scout Eugene Farley for help with his Eagle project, and several other diversions.

Some characters, like little Delbert the drummer boy, while more or less accurate, don’t add much to the show; it’s the grown-ups who are most recognizable and therefore funny.

There’s also an out-dated reference to MTV’s “Beavis and Butthead” (the show hasn’t aired for a few years now), and during Aunt Pearl’s presentation of chintzy awards, Arrington used the opportunity opening night to make a million cheap and predictable Florida election jokes.

When he sticks to the good stuff, the show is hysterical, whimsically sweet and dead-on accurate. Utahns, Mormons, and everyone else will find themselves and their relatives in the people created by the inventive, plastic-faced James Arrington.

Farley Family Xmas

0

There’s a gentle nuttiness about “Farley Family Xmas,” James Arrington’s one-man show in which he plays several different members of that fictional but oh-so-real family.

The multiple characters have personality and verve, but none are completely off-the-wall or hyper. There’s the wealthy Parley Farley, whose heavily fortressed home is the site of the gathering; sweet old Aunt Viola, whose sings “O Holy Night” in that kind of quasi-operatic caterwaul that will sound all too familiar if you’ve ever been to church around Christmastime; and old grandpa Asa Farley, who staggers around and can barely speak above a hoarse whisper.

These characters and the several others presented are amusing, but never hysterical. The show doesn’t drag — and it’s only 105 minutes long — but it never really bursts out, either. If ever a show could be described as “moseying,” this is it.

The MC of the Farley family get-together is Heber J. Farley, who rattles off his relation to everyone else very quickly in the beginning. This is Arrington’s best character, and by far the most real. (I’d swear that was own grandfather up there!) From his opening line of “Merry Christmas and Caesar’s greasings” to his final “for heck’s sake,” he’s full of post-middle-age verbosity and rural Utah simplicity. Arrington’s accent here is great, making the character a memorable one.

In general, “Farley Family Xmas” is cute and amusing, good for a family outing. (In fact, while BYU shows normally don’t run on Mondays, this one does, in order to make it a potential Family Home Evening activity.) While funny in parts, it’s rarely gut-bustingly hilarious. You chuckle, you smile, you generally enjoy. You’re not sorry you saw it, but it doesn’t really stick with you the next day, either.

There are moments, however, when you can tell Arrington, who also wrote the show, has a clever, mischievous streak in him. Parley’s home security system includes attack dogs, which we are admonished to keep the kids away from, because “they don’t know the difference yet between a dwarf and a child.” A character recalls breaking a Christmas tree ornament and having it cut his hand, “and there was blood, but it was the color of Christmas.” And most memorably, Heber introduces the family historian as being an expert in gynecology, instead of genealogy. (“She knows this family inside and out,” he says.)

These lines and a few others hint at the impish recklessness that lies dormant at the bottom of the show. If there were more of them, the show would be more cutting-edge, more insane. As it is, it’s gentle, good-natured and silly — and that’s fine. But watch young Utahnna, dressed as an enormous snowman, doing a destructive dance around the stage, and see if you don’t wish there were more of that kind of loopy anarchy elsewhere in the show.

Dungeons & Dragons

0

Ironically, while Dungeons & Dragons was an inventive role-playing game that many subsequent games ripped off, the movie “Dungeons & Dragons” is a huge rip-off of “Star Wars,” “Star Trek,” “The Hobbit,” “Harry Potter” and countless other sources. It contains not one single character, line of dialogue or plot development that is original.

It also has rather little to do with the game, though it does feature a number of dungeons and a few dragons. Set in an ancient civilization in which the inhabitants have modern haircuts and speech patterns, the film introduces us to the evil Profion (Jeremy Irons), a magical fellow who seeks to gain power over the red dragons. It seems if you control the red dragons, you pretty much control the world. Fortunately, there is a complicated set of maps and task lists one can follow in order to acquire this power.

Opposing him is Empress Savina (Thora Birch), a Queen Amidala-like character who wants to end the prejudice that exists between Mages (the magical folks) and non-Mages. She also, needless to say, doesn’t want a bad guy controlling all the red dragons, so when Profion’s bald, blue-lipped henchman Damodar (Bruce Payne) kills the headmaster at a magic school and steals an important map, she is on the case.

Budding young sorceress Marina (Zoe McLellan) is framed for the murder, and she winds up on the lam with two non-Mages, a couple of thieves named Ridley (Justin Whalin) and Snails (Marlon Wayans). Seeking to clear their names as well as stop Profion, they also set out in search of the magic rod that will control the dragons.

It is fun to see magic used in a “Harry Potter”-ish way, but instances of it are few and far between, and serve mainly to make us look forward to the “Harry Potter” movie due out in 2001. The film also gets bonus points for killing off the Jar Jar Binks character (I won’t spoil it by telling you who it is, but you’ll recognize him and hate him the moment he Steppin Fetchits it onto the screen.)

This film is an all-you-can-eat buffet of bad acting, and Jeremy Irons is going back for seconds, chewing up the scenery with utter shamelessness. Giving him a run for his money is … well, everyone. Thora Birch seems to forget her lines several times, and Zoe McLellan is the worst actress this side of porn. It’s pointless to list them all, because they’re ALL bad.

“Dungeons & Dragons” is exactly as intelligent as a Saturday morning cartoon, no more and no less. Its problem is that it’s 105 minutes instead of only 30. It might be a reasonable so-bad-it’s-funny camp flick were it not for that excruciating length. But if your idea of fun is to hear Marlon Wayans scream like a girl several thousand times, then this film has a strength factor of 10. Otherwise, it has a crap factor of a million.

Proof of Life

0

Russell Crowe gained notoriety for his nuanced turn in last year’s “The Insider,” then got the accompanying popular vote as an action star — something no one thought he would ever be — in this year’s “Gladiator.” His latest, “Proof of Life,” shows more of his range, mixing the best elements of both previous characters: Here’s a butt-kicking action star who’s also calm, cool and dignified.

Crowe plays Terry Thorne, an Australian native who was once a British soldier but now works for an organization that negotiates for hostages and kidnapping victims. This profession has consumed his life, at the expense of his family.

He’s called into action when Peter Bowman (David Morse) is kidnapped by rebel mercenaries in the fictitious South American nation of Tecala. (What, they couldn’t think of a REAL South American country with an unstable government and drug-trafficking guerrillas? Or were they afraid Colombia would sue them for defamation?) Peter was really just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he turns out to be valuable: He’s an engineer working on a dam that would help an American oil company build a pipeline, which the terrorists are opposed to — once because it went against their politics, but now because it would disrupt their cocaine crop.

Peter’s wife, Alice (Meg Ryan) is left to sit and worry back at the hacienda with Peter’s sister, Janis (Pamela Reed). When Peter’s company goes belly-up at the most inopportune of moments (just as Peter is kidnapped) and therefore won’t be using any insurance money to help with the ransom, Terry steps in to help out on a free-lance basis.

The trailer hints at a reason for Terry’s generosity that would complicate matters considerably, but not only does this element not develop until the film is well more than half-over, but it turns out not to be a sizable factor anyway — which makes the trailer rather deceptive, in my opinion. The emphasis really is on the negotiations for Peter, and only slightly on Terry’s personal motives and home life.

David Morse is an enormously sympathetic actor who makes Peter into more than a hapless victim. Peter is brave and noble even under the most adverse of circumstances; many actors would let him just sit in the guerrilla camp and become bearded, but Morse keeps the fire burning.

Meg Ryan, who should be prohibited from saying the F-word as much as she does in this movie, uses a husky voice and smokes a lot to remove the patina of innocence that usually radiates from her perky little face, but it is to little avail. Her character is not required to do anything more than sit at home and look worried. If Alice develops an attachment to Terry Thorne, it hardly shows.

Director Taylor Hackford keeps things moving at a brisk pace, resulting in a film that, despite being more than 2 hours in length, maintains a level of interest and excitement throughout. Much of that can be ascribed to Crowe’s magnetism, but credit also goes to the action sequences, which, though few in number, are extremely satisfying. And underneath them is a film with unexpected layers and resonance.

Vertical Limit

0

In a film chock-full of events that range from the unlikely to the physically impossible, probably the most unbelievable moment in “Vertical Limit” is when the main guy and the sort-of main girl kiss. By itself, it doesn’t mean much. But it goes a long way toward reminding us that this movie is made from an action-movie template.

First, we have the Haunted Hero. Peter Garrett (the handsomely bland Chris O’Donnell) and his sister Annie (Robin Tunney) were rock-climbing in Southern Utah a few years ago when an accident resulted in the death of their father. Annie blames Peter for it (she has a point, by the way), and Peter hasn’t climbed since then, immersing himself instead in his job as a National Geographic photographer.

They are reunited at K2, the mountain that is second-highest but hardest-to-climb in the world. He’s there taking pictures of playful wildcats; she’s there to accompany blithe billionaire Elliot Vaughn (Bill Paxton) on a deadlined climb to the top. Vaughn is launching a new airline, and as a publicity stunt, he wants to be at the summit when the inaugural plane flies overhead. He fills the Person Who Treats Mother Nature Lightly role, setting out to the top with little regard for possible bad weather.

Annie is there with him, as are expert climber Tom McLaren (Nicholas Lea) and Expendable Characters whose names I forgot. Wouldn’t you know it, the weather turns bad, and more wouldn’t you know it, there’s an avalanche that sends the Expendable Characters to meet their maker(s) and lodges the three characters with names inside a big snow cave.

Back at base camp, Haunted Hero has to face his fears and become Unlikely Hero. They reckon the trio only has 36 hours to live, so they hurriedly set out to find them. They bring Grouchy Old Guy Who Knows Everything (Scott Glenn), a woman named Monique (Izabella Scorupco), a Character of Diversity (he’s Muslim!) and a couple of Australians to act as comic relief. They also bring a lot of nitroglycerin, hoping to use it to blast open the cave when they get there, but instead using it primarily to accidentally blow each other up along the way.

Is this the kind of movie where everyone makes it out safely? Heavens, no. With the shot of Peter and Annie’s dad hitting the ground setting the precedent, we know the death toll will be high; the only question is who will live and who won’t.

As a boiler-plate action movie, “Vertical Limit” is quite good, featuring as it does some splendidly terrifying moments that play on everyone’s natural fear of heights. Director Martin Campbell (“Goldeneye”) knows how to set up a suspenseful action sequence, and the movie has several of them, including an utterly unbelievable but nonetheless compelling back-and-forth between Annie crossing a ledge in the cave and two other characters trying not to fall off a cliff.

We could do without the skullduggery that emerges — you know, the obligatory “it turns out so-and-so is a bad guy, and someone else has a grudge against him” thing. It doesn’t make the suspense any greater; the cliffs and avalanches don’t need any help there, thank you very much. The acting is passable, the dialogue is serviceable and occasionally clever, and darned if it’s not an adrenaline-booster all the way around.

Totally Awesome Angry People

0

Well, I reckon it’s about time to dip into the ol’ Snide Remarks mailbag to see what’s gotten folks up in a dither the past few months. We do this in the spirit of giving that permeates this season so that everyone can enjoy the hate and vitriol that bursts out of my e-mailbox like so much e-vomit.

A few months ago, I said the guy on the Totally Awesome Computer commercials was so annoying, I would sooner smash him in the head with a computer than buy one from him. This resulted in an exchange of e-mails with the guy himself — Superdell, he’s called — which included him sending me approximately 1,000,000 pages of positive feedback he’d received from satisfied customers who apparently bought a computer from him AND hit him in the head with it (I don’t see how else they could have been 100-percent satisfied). I told him if he did lots of business, fine, but as for me, his commercials annoy me to the point of wanting nothing to do with Totally Awesome Computers.

That’s when the friendly stopped. He wrote (and this is just how I received it):

I can’t believe someone educated to your level would have such a weak mind! Why would you not want to save $100, get a better computer and better service simply because your emotions are stronger than your common sense. I don’t care if you are a total [vulgar expression], I would buy from you if you had the better deal. … Suggesting that people should get all emotional, and boycott a product is unwise. You should be charged with malpractice [’cause I’m a doctor, you know] or fired for having such a ridiculous opinion! [If columnists got fired every time they had a ridiculous opinion, would Ann Landers still be writing? Trick question; Ann hasn’t expressed an opinion, ridiculous or otherwise, in well over 30 years.] Are you having that female time of the month by chance? Sounds very childish! [And that female time of the month crack was the picture of maturity. What is the female time of the month, anyway? I didn’t realize the month was divided into genders like Spanish nouns.] What next? Not buying from people because they are black? Or not of your religion? Just because people are different doesn’t make them bad. [No, it’s being annoying that makes them bad.] Use your brain mister IQ! I still love you but you should grow up so you don’t have to avoid every business of whom you didn’t like their ads for the rest of your life.

(Before you ask, no, I don’t know why he loves me. We’ve never even met, at least not that I remember. I met “Weird Al” Yankovic once, and they look and sound the same, but I doubt even Al would say he loves me, at least not in public.)

But we have wasted too much time here, as there is another column that made people even angrier. It was one in which I expressed dismay when a waitress at the Orem Village Inn said they don’t serve shakes after 10 p.m. This turned out to be untrue; the waitress simply didn’t feel like making shakes. After the column, I received this voice-mail:

I think you’re a [swear word] punk. That’s one of my favorite waitresses that you were regarding, and you know what? She doesn’t look nearly as bad as you. You look like you had a condom wrapped over your head and hung out [swear word] wet.

I don’t know what that means either, but rest assured, I will think twice before regarding another waitress in my column. I knew my rampant waitress-regarding would get me in trouble someday.

I also got an e-mail from the very waitress I regarded, no doubt having recognized herself from her description in the column (I said she was surly). She said, in part:

I am that waitress [swear word] that waited on you and your wonderful friends. … Let me tell you, you are a joy to wait on. I make 2.13 an hour. I deal with [swear word that only needs two S’s but that she spelled with three] all day long. You are just one of those people I guess. …Thank You, you four eye [swear word]nose loser.

It is grand, this intelligent discourse and exchange of ideas, is it not? It makes me proud to be an American, especially at this female time of the month.

A Christmas Carol

0

With the technical marvel that is the new stage at the Hale Centre Theatre in West Valley, you can’t blame them for using it to its full extent, even for non-spectacle shows like “A Christmas Carol.” If I had a toy like that, I’d use it every chance I got, too.

And so people plunge into trapdoors as if descending into bottomless pits, gravestones pop up when you least expect it, and Scrooge’s bedroom window descends from the sky for the 90 seconds the script requires it, then vanishes again.

But technical wizardry aside, this production is as touching as ever, with some extraordinarily human touches that bring the show down to earth and right into the audience’s collective heart.

Richard G. Wilkins, playing Scrooge for the 15th consecutive year (which is also as long as the Hale Centre Theatre has been doing the show), is a fine Scrooge indeed. He’s not the stooped-over, arthritic Scrooge we often expect. He’s rather robust, in fact, which makes him all the scarier. He’s sarcastic and biting, too, rather than just being a grumpy old man. Wilkins’s Scrooge is a force to be reckoned with.

From the haunting “God Rest You Merry Gentlemen” that opens the show, right through the ending “Joy to the World,” the show’s music tends toward Christ-centered carols, rather than songs about decking the halls and having sleigh rides.

In one telling scene, Scrooge is particularly touched to see a past Christmas in which old Fezziwig’s family trimmed the tree while singing a simple hymn about the Savior’s birth.

Little elements like those, in which Scrooge is reminded not just of the spirit of Christmas but of the spirit of Christ Himself, outweigh all the moving platforms and atmospheric stage fog a theater could use. This is perhaps the most religious “Christmas Carol” I’ve seen.

Will Swenson’s adaptation of Charles Dickens’s novel is good, allowing Dickens himself (played by Bruce A. Bredeson; double-cast with Mike Williams) to serve as narrator and occasionally even instruct the characters directly (though that convention does get a bit over-used, especially when Scrooge keeps glaring at him for telling him what to do, a joke that is only funny a couple times).

This is a spiritually uplifting production, inherently human and touching, with some nifty stage tricks added for fun. So convincing and cathartic is Scrooge’s redemption (and his redemption seems more real here than I’ve seen it anywhere) that when Wilkins comes out for the curtain call and declares “Merry Christmas!” to each section of the audience, you feel like he — and Scrooge — really mean it.

A Christmas Carol

0

When a perfectly good version of “A Christmas Carol” is already being performed at the Hale Center Theater in Orem, why would a Utah County resident drive to West Valley to see another one?

Last year, one might have done this because the Hale Centre Theatre West Valley’s version was better: more special effects, more emotion, more humanity. This year, the opposite is true, and no one has to drive too far.

The West Valley production is certainly bigger, with that fabulous revolving stage and state-of-the-art sound and lights systems. You can practically feel Jacob Marley’s chains rattling, and the scene changes are remarkably fast.

It is the show itself that is slow and lumbering. Adapted by Richard G. Wilkins (who also directs and plays Scrooge), the play is wordy and has too much narration. Perhaps my opinion was colored by having seen the Orem version 10 days earlier, but at West Valley I was constantly reminded of how much more efficiently the story was told in Orem. I said in that earlier review that much of the narration is superfluous, but now that I’ve seen how bogged down West Valley gets, I should retract the statement. There’s extra dialogue, too, going on and on about things that should be arrived at much more quickly. (The scene with the people dividing up dead Scrooge’s belongings matches this description in particular.)

Wilkins is a spry, clownish Scrooge, instantly lovable even when he’s still a miser. The rest of the cast works earnestly to bring the play’s many words to life, from Tom Stam’s jolly Christmas Present to Tyler McGettigan’s adorable little Tiny Tim.

And for as unspectacular as the whole show generally is, the change-of-heart finale still has power to move audiences. I think there is something in the play’s message — which is much more than just “money isn’t everything” — that stands on its own, regardless of what surrounds it. As long as it is presented sincerely, as this production no doubt is, the sublime spirit of Christmas comes through loud and clear.

A Christmas Carol

0

The Hale Center Theater in Orem performs “A Christmas Carol” every year. It’s a tradition. Many people make it part of their annual celebration to see this show at this theater. The play’s feel-good tone and gentle message of redemption and hope are a fine way to kick off the holiday season.

So the most irrelevant thing in the world is whether the show is actually GOOD or not. Good or bad, polished or sloppy, well-acted or dreadful, “A Christmas Carol” will continue to be popular no matter what any critic says, and no matter what the voice in the back of any audience member’s head says.

(In fact, I would venture to guess that if anyone ever said anything disparaging about this show, he would be dismissed as a cynic — as a Scrooge himself. How can it be bad? It’s about Christmas!)

Well, not that it matters, but “A Christmas Carol” actually IS pretty good. Chris Brower plays the role of miserly humbugger Ebenezer Scrooge with gusto and vigor; everyone else is double-cast, meaning you get one group on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and another on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. This review is for the Tu-Th-Sat cast, though I have every reason to believe it makes little difference which cast you see in terms of the show’s quality.

You know the story. Scrooge loves money more than anything else, and he’s a bitter old man. Christmas Eve night, he is visited by the ghost of his old partner Jacob Marley (Cory Sackett), who warns him of the chain-filled afterlife that awaits him if he doesn’t straighten up. To beat the point into his stingy head, the ghosts of Christmas Past (Bryce Ashdown), Christmas Present (Merrill Dodge) and Christmas Future (Garrett Smit) harass him all night, showing him what was, what is, and what will come if he doesn’t get himself into the Christmas spirit but quick. Scrooge does so, buying a huge turkey for his much-abused clerk Bob Cratchit (Mark Pulham) and causing Tiny Tim (Cody Whitlock), who previously had one crippled foot in the grave but now will live thanks to Scrooge’s munificence, to remark: “God bless us, everyone.”

God bless us, indeed. The show is sweet and good-natured, with a particularly solid performance by Brower as Scrooge. Alan Sackett and Mike Sackett are pretty good, too, as a teen-age Scrooge and his friend Dick Wilkins. The two have a couple fight scenes that are impressively choreographed and performed (albeit a bit long).

There is much Christmas caroling and rejoicing amongst the townspeople, played by a cast of a couple dozen or so. All are in delightful holiday costumes, and the lights and sound for this show are dynamite, especially during Jacob Marley’s clattering entrance.

I could mention the structural problems with Ted Lehman’s adaptation of Charles Dickens’ classic novel. We see only a two-dimensionally mean Scrooge, and only for about five minutes. After only a few moments with the first ghost, he’s learning the error of his ways, and by the time Christmas Present shows up, he’s downright humble. This is the life-long, hardened miser? A guy who quakes as soon as a ghost shows up and changes his entire outlook on life at the drop of a chain? One would think he would be a bit more stubborn and resistant to change.

I said I COULD mention this. But it doesn’t matter. “A Christmas Carol” isn’t so much a play anymore; it’s a pageant. It’s enough to merely be TOLD that Scrooge is mean. We don’t need to be shown nuances and subtleties of his psyche. We already know the story and half of the lines. What we need is a warm, enjoyable, family-friendly evening, and on those counts, “A Christmas Carol” delivers.

Hymns for Him

0

With the Christmas season in full swing, as it has been since last Dec. 20 — I’m sure you recall as I do how the stores all took down their 1999 Christmas decorations five days before the holiday and replaced them with the 2000 Christmas decorations, which have stood since then — I am reminded of the part of the holiday season that brings me the most joy and good cheer: the opportunity to take advantage of suckers who are not nearly as trusting the rest of the year.

I kid, of course. When I think of Christmas, the first thing I think of is the music. As an LDS Mormon, I am well-acquainted with the Christmas hymns in the LDS Mormon hymnbook, and as a piano-playing LDS Mormon, I am quite tired of several of them. There are only a few weeks in the year when we can sing them, and so we wind up singing some of them several hundred times. I love “Silent Night” (#204) because it’s beautiful and peaceful, but is there any hymn more boring to play? Yes there is. It’s called “Ye Elders of Israel” (#319). If you have spent more than five seconds in an LDS Mormon priesthood meeting, you have sung this song. It is apparently the default hymn for any gathering of men in the church: Unless someone specifies something else, “Ye Elders of Israel” will be sung, and with manly gusto, at that. Our current Elders Quorum President, who says the word “awesome” at least five times per Sunday, is infatuated with the song, so we sing it about every other week, though I have adopted a position of civil disobedience and won’t sing it anymore; I figure I only had so many singings of that song in me, and I’ve used them all up. (I have a short supply of puttings up with the word “awesome,” too, I might add.)

“Ye Elders of Israel” consists of the same two lines of music repeated three times per verse for three verses, and it makes you address Babylon directly, in the context of bidding it farewell, which seems like an odd thing to do. I mean, if you’re really going to leave Babylon, why would you bother to tell it goodbye? It seems like the only reason you’d say farewell is that you’re kind of hoping, in the back of your mind, that Babylon will convince you to stay. “Oh, come on, Elders of Israel,” Babylon would say soothingly. “I’m sorry, man. I didn’t mean to offend you. Really, dude, I’m sorry. Just stay a while longer. Please?” And you’d cave in and stay and spend an eternity in hell for it.

The other specific hymn I have an objection to is “In Our Lovely Deseret.” This is a silly children’s song that was included in the hymnbook as a prank to see if people would sing it just because it’s in there. (And they do!) This one has a chorus that makes you say, “Hark! Hark! Hark!” It’s no wonder people think we’re weird.

One trend in hymning that amuses me is when they try not only to make “heaven” and “given” rhyme, which they clearly don’t, but also to turn them each into one syllable: “heav’n” and “giv’n.” Replacing the “e” with an apostrophe does not make the word any shorter. If I change my last name to “Snid’r,” that doesn’t change the pronunciation of it. The writers should just admit that their lyrics are one syllable too long to fit with the music and deal with it. There’s no shame in that.

Also: “Lord” and “word” do not rhyme. I’m always tempted to pronounce it “Lerd” just to make it work, but I know that would be wrong.

Also: While “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet” (#19) is a great hymn, it’s funny how we always sing it on prophet-related occasions, even though, except for that first line, the song has NOTHING to do with prophets. Similarly, “Prayer of Thanksgiving” (#93) is traditionally a Thanksgiving hymn, even outside of LDS Mormon culture. But look at the first line: “We gather together to ask the Lord’s blessing.” This is no prayer of thanksgiving! It’s a regular old prayer of askin’ for stuff! Do you think we’re fooling Him, calling a song a prayer of thanksgiving and then slipping in some requests instead, hoping the title alone will trick Him?

Oh, right, Christmas. A cold winter’s night that was so deep? What does THAT mean? I didn’t realize there were varying depths of nighthood. Seems like either it’s night or it’s not. Anyway, I’m confused and out of time. Catch ya later, Babylon. I’ll be dwelling in the mountains of Ephraim if you need me.

Annie

0

With fun songs, a live dog and lots of stage time for child actors, the Villa Playhouse’s “Annie” is a near-perfect family activity this season.

In case you’d forgotten (the movie version skips it), the play takes place at Christmastime, making it all the more timely.

Ruth Jensen plays the red-headed little girl who is rescued from her Depression-era orphanage/sweatshop by the bald and wealthy Oliver Warbucks (Kenneth Jensen). Ruth has a powerful voice for a youngster and will no doubt appeal to little girls in the audience who admire her strength and optimism. Kenneth Jensen tends to yell everything flatly as the blustery Daddy Warbucks, but since this is “Annie” and it’s Christmas, we’re not going to make an issue out of it.

Lara Z. Wells vamps it up big time as the evil and physically agile orphanage mistress Miss Hannigan, earning great laughs with her “Little Girls” song.

There is a lot of dancing; in fact, one could say the show is a bit over-choreographed, as people dance in nearly every single song, even when it seems illogical to do so — and when the song requires staying in one place, they make up for it by using a lot of hand gestures. But it’s impressive just to arrange 16 young girls into an intricately choreographed dance number, and so, as with the use of a live orchestra, one credits the theater for even attempting such a feat, even if it doesn’t always work out 100 percent.

The story, which has Annie searching for her real parents with Daddy Warbucks’s help, is a simple one; conflicts arise and are dealt with relatively quickly, and no one kills anyone else. The optimistic outlook of songs like “Tomorrow” is infectious, and the show, while technically imperfect at times, is sure to bring cheer to anyone who sees it.

Joyful Noise

0

Tim Slover’s* “Joyful Noise,” which premiered at BYU in 1998, is a fine play. Using an almost-bare stage and a straightforward storytelling style, it relates simply and effectively the true story of the politics and scandal behind Handel’s masterpiece “Messiah.”

The first-ever professional production of this play, at Pioneer Theatre Company, unfortunately is not a stellar one. The quality of the source material comes through — much of Slover’s witty and insightful dialogue would sound good even if the guy who says “You’ve got mail” were reading it — but the lack of passion from some of the cast members is also apparent.

Chief among the offenders in this area is the man who plays Handel himself, Charles Anatolsky. He is rotund and energetic, but his German accent is often too thick to be understood, and while he rants effectively as the “cantankerous old German bear,” his more human moments seem perfunctory. Handel seems neither larger-than-life nor life-like.

The very catty Kitty Clive, a hilariously bad actress who wants to sing for Handel and who holds a grudge against his other soprano, the scandal-plagued Susannah Cibber, also gets the short shrift. Played by Barbara McCulloh, Kitty comes off as two-dimensionally evil; if she had a moustache, she’d twirl it. This makes her hair-pulling slap-fight with Susannah (Gloria Biegler) seem entirely unrealistic, a trait I don’t recall associating with that scene in either of BYU’s two productions.

On the other hand, there are some very good performances among the supporting cast. Libby George (who was one of the highlights at this year’s Utah Shakespearean Festival) plays Handel’s most dedicated friend and fan Mary Pendarves with uncommon likability. Full of flowery language (she describes Susannah as having a voice “like the rustling of doves’ wings) and sincere praise for “the master,” she’s an entertaining character and a scene-brightener whenever she appears.

Max Robinson, consistently one of Pioneer’s best actors, shines as King George II, who supported Handel’s efforts when his wife was alive but is now being persuaded by the stuffy Bishop Henry Egerton (Matt Loney) to believe it’s blasphemous to put scriptural words to secular music. Robinson lends the king believability and humanity, particularly in his ruminations on the queen’s death two years prior.

The finale of the play did, in fact, move me; however, it was because Handel’s “Hallelujah Chorus” was being played, not because of what was happening in the play. Ideally, it should be a combination of both, a culmination of what the narrative has been leading to mingled with the jubilant strains of Handel’s masterpiece. This production goes by rote, and only occasionally rises above that.

*Tim Slover was pressured to resign from BYU after having an affair with a fellow professor’s wife, an affair with a student, and at least one attempted affair with a student that was rebuffed and reported. The BYU Theatre Department shamefully kept all of this quiet and allowed false alternate explanations for Slover’s departure to spread. Slover never suffered professional consequences for his actions and continued to teach at the university level for many years.  

A Christmas Carol

0

The Hale Center Theater Orem performs “A Christmas Carol” each year with little variation, I hope you’ll forgive me for writing a review that is not much different from the ones I wrote in 1999 and 1998.

The play, now a tradition for many families, is more a pageant than anything else. Little attempt is made to develop depth of character. Most of the narration is superfluous, as whenever he tells us something, we then see the characters enact that very thing anyway. (“Scrooge is mean.” Then, a scene in which Scrooge is mean.) There is much Christmas caroling that is narratively ineffective, but perfect for setting the mood.

And that’s the key here. The point is not to make audiences walk out saying, “That’s the most thought-provoking, exhilirating theater experience I’ve ever had.” You want them to walk out saying, “I have never been as full of the Christmas spirit as I am now!” By the end of the show, when a repentant Scrooge is distributing gifts with great giddy delight, it would difficult not to be swept up in at all. The show is joyful and unabashedly heartfelt.

Merrill Dodge (also director) is a rather buffoonish Scrooge, not so much fierce as he is grumpy. His beleaguered clerk, the weak, simpering Bob Cratchit, is played by Gavin Grooms (the only role not double-cast).

We will also mention Josh Romney as Young Scrooge, seen during the “Ghost of Christmas Past” segment, who exhibits quite a bit of talent as a charming young man who is on the verge of becoming miserly. He and Sam Dodge as Dick Wilkins have a very enjoyable scene together in which they fight the way a couple teen-age friends would — another pointless excursion, plot-wise, but awfully fun to watch nonetheless.

Mike Gray is a treat, too, as Christmas Present and a few other roles. His booming laugh and infectious energy are a highlight of the show.

Do you want to make this a yearly tradition for YOUR family? Theatrical shortcomings aside, it gets a lot of things right, too, like fantastic costumes and effective use of sound. And if your aim is just to get into the Christmas spirit, then you couldn’t do much better than this.

The Big KSL Holiday Broadcast

0

Provo Theatre Company’s quaint little revue “The Big KSL Holiday Broadcast” is an uncynical look back at the Golden Age of Radio (1926-1948, roughly).

For old people, it’s nostalgia, with re-enactments of classic radio shows like “Fibber McGee & Molly” and “The Jack Benny Show.” For everyone else, it’s a glimpse into a time when entertainment was much simpler and comedy wasn’t really very funny. (Maybe Jack Benny’s skits were funny then, and maybe people were just delighted at the prospect of having entertainment beamed into their own homes.)

Performed by three men, three women, a pianist and a sound-effects guy (Josh Gubler, who makes the noises live on stage with various props), the show focuses on the music of the era. Shane Wright sings a whammo “Tain’t Nobody’s Biz-Ness,” and Jen Ballif’s sultry “Stormy Weather” is a heart-melter.

While most of the songs feature two or more singers in near-perfect harmony, everyone gets a solo, too and everyone sells these classic songs with great talent and energy. The beautiful Amy Ashworth cheers up the troops with “He’s 1-A in the Army” and “Accentuate the Positive” (she also has powers to make an ad for catsup — pronounced “cat-sup” — sound sexy); Dianna Graham belts out “Blow Gabriel Blow” like nobody’s biz-ness; Daniel Law is used more in the comedy bits (he does Will Rogers and Jack Benny) but solos in “Go Tell It on the Mountain”; and a charming Spencer Barnes sings “Brother Can You Spare a Dime.” Even the pianist, Ross Boothe — who is amazing in that capacity, making the piano sound as rich as a full band — strums guitar and sings “Pastures of Plenty.”

All of this makes me jealous of how great popular music was in the first half of the 20th century. They had Gershwin, Porter and Berlin, whose songs had catchy melodies and whose lyrics actually rhymed, and I’m stuck hearing the same infernal Red Hot Chili Peppers song over and over again on the radio.

Where the show stumbles — nay, falls flat on its face — is in the dramatic re-enactments. As we’re whisked through time from 1927 to 1946, we hear radio news reports of Charles Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic, the start of the Great Depression, and the end of World War II. We also, unfortunately, are subjected to some weird melodrama, watching onlookers react to seeing the Hindenberg explode, for example, while we hear the actual “Oh, the humanity!” radio clip. The transition is too abrupt: “We’re swing-dancing and having fun! And, oh, whoops, the Hindenberg exploded, hundreds are dead. And now we’re dancing again!”

Even more dreadfully maudlin is the scene in which Dianne Graham is a mother being informed that her son has died in the war. She breaks down and sobs, as you might expect — but again, with no clue who these characters are, no connection to their lives, and no warning that we’re about to go from upbeat nostalgia to depressing melodrama, the whole scene is embarrassing and unwatchable.

A little retooling, though, and collaborators Tim Threlfall and Dean Hughes will have a new Christmas tradition well worth visiting again and again. Close your eyes during the awkward parts, and enjoy the music.

Hysteria

0

OK, so it’s about Sigmund Freud, and he’s in London, trying to rest, and this girl shows up and it turns all farcical, but then later it’s a psychological drama, and the clock melts because Salvador Dali is there.

Terry Johnson’s “Hysteria” is an interesting piece of work, to say the least. It’s based on a few historical incidents (Freud and Dali really did meet once, briefly) and employs broad farce for much its storytelling. It also becomes deathly serious as it raises provocative questions about the nature of psychology.

Freud (Gene Pack) is a dying man, hoping for some peace and quiet in London in 1938. In the middle of a rainstorm, a girl named Jessica (Kristin Kahle) shows up, sopping wet, insisting she must speak with him. When Freud’s doctor, Yahuda (Tony Larimer), shows up, Freud keeps her locked in the closet to avoid the awkwardness of explaining what’s going on; the arrival of surrealist painter Dali (Joe Pitti) just complicates things.

Eventually, we learn why Jessica is there: She wants Freud to re-enact some sessions he had with a woman, someone in whose life Jessica has a vested interest. Emotionally blackmailed by her, Freud goes along with it, hoping to get rid of her but leading himself to examine his psychological theories and teachings.

The first act drags, and is uneven in tone. The farce tends to seem overly buffoonish, simply because it’s in such stark contrast to the intellectualism of the rest of the play. Still, you have to give Johnson credit for even trying such a strange combination, even if it’s not entirely successful.

Those provocative questions mentioned earlier do not come into play until the second act, and the show ends very well. It’s an unusual theater experience, perhaps not to everyone’s tastes and certainly not for the casual theatergoer, but something to chew on, anyway.

Kissed by an Angel: ‘Tis the Season to Get Your Jollies

0

Despite its mildly filthy title, the Desert Star’s “Kissed by an Angel: ‘Tis the Season to Get Your Jollies” is as family-friendly as all of that theater’s shows. Unfortunately, where it differs is that while most DSP shows are funny farces, this one tries to be serious, too — and winds up being neither very funny nor very touching.

I’ve seen the last 23 shows at the Desert Star, and this is the first one I can think of in which a character has died. Even their “Hamlet” parody kept everyone alive, for crying out loud! And a death would have been fine here, or in any show, if it had been played for laughs, and I’m certainly not opposed to the theater trying something a little different from its usual routine. But it’s too hard to go from having the audience literally boo the cheesy villain in one scene to wanting them to cry at a character’s death in the next one. The context is all wrong. All the comedy is broad and superficial; how can they expect the drama to be any different?

The show is a parody of “Touched by an Angel,” with heavenly assistants Roma (Mary Parker Williams) and Tess (Scott Holman, also writer and director) trying to help old Grandpa George (Jack Drayton) keep his toy store from being bought by the evil Peter D’Jerc (Steven Fehr) and his dumb-blonde girlfriend Mary (Arika Schockmel).

Grandpa’s granddaughter, Sarah (Diana Dayley; double-cast with JulieAnn Christensen), meanwhile, is falling for the third angel — the Angel of Death, Joe Black (Paul Thomas Murphy).

Most of the laughs come from Scott Holman wearing a dress and playing the Della Reese character. (His parody of Aretha Franklin’s “Respect,” called “Repent,” is hysterical.) Paul Thomas Murphy, normally a great help in these shows, is stuck making a lot of strained jokes about being Mr. Death.

The rest of the cast does its best with the material (newcomer Arika Schockmel is particularly good as the dim-witted girlfriend), but alas, the script is merely average to begin with.

Come on, Desert Star: If we wanted schmaltz, we’d go watch “A Christmas Carol.” In fact, we ARE watching “A Christmas Carol,” at least twice this year. That’s why we counted on Desert Star to give us something a little lighter.

Every Vote Re-Counts

0

BERNARD SHAW: This is Bernard Shaw for CNN. As we enter our 236th consecutive hour of non-stop election coverage, we have a late-breaking development: Election officials in Florida have announced that they still don’t know who won. All of the major television networks have interrupted their regular programming to allow the officials to make this statement, the seventh such statement in the last 24 hours.

VIDEOTAPE OF FLORIDA OFFICIAL, WHO IS WEARING A PAIR OF OVERALLS AND HOLDING A LIVE PIG: We’s still countin’ th’ votes. They’s a big pile of ’em, out back to the shed. We was doin’ the hand count, only ‘cept our hands only goes up to nine or 10, so we had to start usin’ our toes, too.

BERNARD SHAW: Both campaigns have reacted to this statement by filing several dozen lawsuits, some of which, having been prepared in apparent haste, name O.J. Simpson as defendant.

We now go live to political analyst Wolf Blitzer, who has nothing new to add.

WOLF BLITZER: I once had a layover in Florida.

BERNARD SHAW: Thank you, Wolf. The American Humor Council announced today that jokes about the confusing ballots in Palm Beach are no longer funny, and that people should stop e-mailing them to each other. Please resume the practice of sending blonde jokes to your friends and co-workers, the council urged. The council also mentioned that Jay Leno is not funny, and that old people should stop laughing at him. The old people, however, confused by the baffling television remote control, continued watching Leno, despite actually wanting to see Nightline.

We take you now to a man-on-the-street interview, where an anonymous moron is saying something stupid.

ANONYMOUS MORON: I didn’t vote, but if I had, I would have voted for Ralph Nader, because he smokes weed. Wooooooo!

BERNARD SHAW: This just in, CNN is projecting … flickering lights on a white screen. We’re calling it a movie. Now to Wolf Blitzer, who has something unenlightening to add.

WOLF BLITZER: Florida is where Jerry’s parents lived on “Seinfeld.”

BERNARD SHAW: Thank you, Wolf. The Associated Press reported a few minutes ago that, contrary to popular belief, news has continued to occur elsewhere in the world. For example, the entire continent of Africa was swallowed up by the sea several days ago. The Associated Press is projecting the inhabitants as dead, but CNN is exercising caution.

This just in: Florida election officials have an important announcement to make.

FLORIDA OFFICIAL: Gov’nur Jeb done blowed off one o’ his countin’ fingers whilst makin’ moonshine out back to the state capitol.

BERNARD SHAW: Governor Bush and Vice President Gore filed 14 lawsuits between them before the election official had even finished speaking.

CNN is projecting … its voice, to be heard across the crowded room.

In other news, Panama reports that it has misplaced the Panama Canal. It was just here yesterday, the Central American nation was heard to mutter.

We go now to Wolf Blitzer, who will kill a few seconds while I relieve myself into this cup under the desk at which I have been sitting for 236 hours.

WOLF BLITZER: Florida was the name of the mother on “Good Times.”

BERNARD SHAW: I’m not done yet.

WOLF BLITZER: She was played by Esther Rolle.

BERNARD SHAW: There. Thank you, Wolf. We’ve just received word that no one cared about this election in the first place and that the ongoing controversy has made people even less interested. We will stay with this story until our ratings no longer justify it.

CNN is projecting … its childhood insecurities onto its spouse. CNN regrets this and promises to see a counselor.

Florida is a backwater state full of Elian Gonzalez-kidnapping crackers. This is not a quote; it is merely an observation. More election coverage when we return from this commercial break.

Ragtime

0

E.L. Doctorow’s novel "Ragtime" makes for a first-class musical drama, thanks to Stephen Flaherty’s rag-inspired score and Lynn Ahrens’s poetic-but-functional lyrics.

The show has a massive plot and numerous characters, yet is easy to follow, is thoroughly enjoyable, and is ultimately profoundly touching.

Set in New Rochelle, N.Y., in the early 20th century, the story mixes real-life people and events with fictitious ones. Entertainer Harry Houdini, capitalist J.P. Morgan and anarchist Emma Goldman all play significant parts from the sidelines, representing the changing face of America.

Meanwhile, the story focuses on fictional characters who represent the same thing, and the musical style known as "ragtime" symbolizes change, modernization and a loss of isolated innocence. Ultra-white Father (Joseph Dellger) and prim Mother (Victoria Strong) live with their son, Little Boy (Ricky Ashley) in an ultra-white neighborhood, having little contact with the folks in Harlem or the dirt-poor Russian immigrants coming over by the boatload. When a black servant girl named Sarah (Lovena Fox) has a baby fathered by musician Coalhouse Walker (Lawrence Hamilton), the family takes her and the child in, eventually helping her to reconcile with Coalhouse.

Coalhouse and Sarah have a strong love, shattered when an act of racist cruelty leads to Sarah’s death. Coalhouse seeks revenge, and everyone’s lives are changed.

Mother and her Younger Brother (Sam Samuelson) are particularly strong characters amidst the larger-than-life historical ones. Younger Brother is a rootless young man seeking his identity, and his pursuit of vaudeville performer Evelyn Nesbit (Jacqueline Bayne) is poignant and sad, as he tries to cling to anything he can in his ever-changing world.

Mother, meanwhile, is a remarkable figure, demure and wife-ish in her behavior, yet unafraid of the societal changes around them.

The cast is excellent, and the show is virtually flawless, from music to staging to the performances. It doesn’t have the flash of "Phantom" or the name recognition of "Les Miserables," but "Ragtime" is easily as good as either of them.

Unbreakable

0

M. Night Shyamalan, writer and director of “The Sixth Sense,” has followed up that breakthrough film with one that is a mere shadow of it in some ways, but a little better than it in others.

“Unbreakable” is a darkly exhilarating story about David Dunn (Bruce Willis), a Philadelphia security guard whose marriage is on the rocks and who is considering a move to New York. On the way back to Philly after a job interview, his train wrecks. He’s the only survivor — and, what’s more, he doesn’t have a scratch on him.

Enter Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), a man with a brittle-bone disease that makes him the opposite of the seemingly “unbreakable” David Dunn. Elijah has spent many hours in hospital beds with nothing to do but read, and has so become a comic book aficionado. Seems it’s gone to his head, too: He thinks the reason David wasn’t hurt — and indeed, the reason David can only recall having been injured once in his life — is that David has super powers.

It’s a laughable idea, and the plot as described so far would make a fine comedy. Amazingly, however, Shyamalan plays it very straight, though he allows his trademark deadpan humor to lurk around the edges — and it works. Just as “The Sixth Sense” managed to be a horror movie that gained legitimacy by also being a touching psychological drama, “Unbreakable” is essentially a superhero movie that goes deeper than men in tights flying around and saving the world.

“The Sixth Sense” — to which this will inevitably be compared, so I’m not going to fight it — was a more impacting film, thanks largely to Haley Joel Osment’s extraordinary performance and the movie’s intrinsic poignancy. “Unbreakable” is a lot more inconsequential than that, though its themes about a person’s place in society and calling in life are interesting, as is David’s relationship with his wife (Robin Wright Penn) and its parallels to his personal journey.

“Unbreakable” is probably better-filmed than “The Sixth Sense” was, as Shyamalan — obviously trying to be the antithesis of what you’d expect from a superhero movie — uses few cuts from one shot to another. The camera will either sit there or move from one character to another, often for minutes at a time, bringing the audience right into the scene, as it feels like we’re an observer standing next to the action. The pacing is methodical and unrushed; much of the film is quiet; and yet it doesn’t feel slow or dull.

“The Sixth Sense” suffered a little from people who had heard there was a twist and who watched it with that in mind, hoping to figure it out themselves. If you’re going to watch either that film or this one with a goal like that in your head, you’re going to miss out on what the movie has to offer. There either is or isn’t a twist at the end of “Unbreakable”; just watch it and see.

I will say this, though: The only downfall this movie suffers is in its last 20 seconds. The movie is over, essentially, and then title cards appear, telling us what became of the characters. This nearly destroys what Shyamalan has very beautifully established; a far more effective conclusion would have been to leave things hanging. It’s hard to believe that 20 seconds of a movie could do so much damage, but that’s what these 20 seconds do. And maybe it shouldn’t surprise us. This is the filmmaker, after all, who is famous for pulling the rug out from under audiences. Too bad he used that power for evil this time, instead of good.

102 Dalmatians

0

One thing is certain about “102 Dalmatians,” the live-action sequel to the 1996 live-action version of the Disney classic: They didn’t do it because they had a great idea for a story.

How do I know that? Because the story in the sequel is exactly the same as the story in the original: Cruella De Vil wants to make a coat out of Dalmatian fur, she steals puppies from our hero family as well as from several other London families, the dogs save themselves and each other with little help from any humans, and Cruella falls into a vat of something.

Since a sheer desire for quality storytelling was not the motivating factor, one has to assume it was made for the reason most sequels are made: money. It will probably make a fair amount, but it won’t deserve it. It’s a limp, tiresome movie, the equivalent of eating a lot of vanilla ice cream: It tastes good enough, I guess, if that’s all there is. But isn’t there something else?

As the film opens, Cruella De Vil (played again with delicious campy villainy by Glenn Close) has been cured of her insatiable desire to kill animals and make fur through the use of shock therapy. A reformed woman, she is let out of prison and promptly adopts an animal shelter.

Her parole officer, Chloe (Alice Evans), is skeptical. “People like Cruella don’t change,” she says, not even giving her a chance. Her cynicism is fueled by her ownership of Dipstick (who was a puppy in the last film) and Dotty, who have just had three puppies. Dipstick seems to mistrust Cruella, too, mainly because this is a movie where the animals all have supernatural intelligence. (In one particular stupid scene, Cruella says she recognizes Dipstick from a few years ago, even though Dipstick was a puppy then and is now fully grown, plus all Dalmatians look about the same, plus her involvement with the puppy lasted only a few seconds.)

Chloe gets involved with the owner of the animal shelter, Kevin (Ioan Gruffudd), a kind-hearted fellow so trusting he never even counts his change after buying something, because who would ever intentionally rip him off? He believes Cruella has changed.

But, sure enough, she hasn’t changed. The shock therapy wears off after a while, and she’s back to her old designs of murdering a lot of puppies and wearing their fur.

The message? People CAN’T change. The guy who innocently believed her turns out to have been wrong; the cynical parole officer was right. Also, all fur-makers are inherently cruel and evil and run sweatshops. These are the take-home messages from this movie; be sure to help reinforce them in your kids’ brains by taking them to see the movie again and again. (“See, honey? Chloe was right. People don’t ever change. You shouldn’t trust them.”)

Where the last movie at least had a lot of cute puppies, this one is short on pictures of animals doing adorable things. The preview audience I saw it with seemed moderately entertained, but as I’ve said before, you could give a kid a pair of socks and he’d find a way to amuse himself with them. It’s such a bland, mediocre piece of work, this movie, that it makes me truly fearful of having to sit through “103 Dalmatians,” which will be an inevitability after this one makes another $100 million. Do us all a favor and just say no to “102.”

Quills

0

Geoffrey Rush gives a brilliant performance as the Marquis de Sade, the famed pornographer for whom the term “sadism” was coined, in Philip Kaufman’s “Quills.” He’s portrayed as a tortured (literally) genius whose drive to keep writing is almost as strong as his sex drive, and Rush plays up the deviltry and undignified desperation with inspired madness.

Good acting is probably the best thing to glean from “Quills,” written by Doug Wright and based on his play. Aside from the performances, it’s a depraved, lurid flick about a depraved, lurid man and all the depraved, lurid things his stories inspire others to do. It’s the rare instance in movie reviewing when we have to go beyond asking, “Did the film accomplish what it set out to do?” and also ask, “Was it even worth doing?” Personally, I can see no good coming of this film.

It’s set in the Charenton Asylum in early 19th-century France. The most famous inmate is the Marquis, imprisoned after committing some rather nasty and violent crimes; it was only due to the influence of his wife that he was committed rather than imprisoned (a crazy husband is less damaging, socially, than a convict husband).

The Marquis is granted a lot of lenience by Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), the flawed priest in charge of the place. Seen as much less a threat to the general public than the pyromaniacs or cretins who also inhabit Charenton, the Marquis is given a regular bed instead of a straw mat, and is allowed to continue writing. Coulmier sees writing as therapeutic — so long, of course, as none of the smut he writes is actually published.

Score one for the Marquis, though: Thanks to the help of Madeleine (Kate Winslet), a laundress who is a fan of his work, the Marquis’s latest book “Justine” is published anonymously. The lack of a byline doesn’t do much good, though; everyone knows by the style who the author is, and Napoleon promptly has the book banned and sends noted psychologist Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) out to Charenton to fix the Marquis once and for all.

Royer-Collard has some rather unusual methods, including dunking a man’s head under water for several seconds on regular intervals for a period of weeks. Of course, some would see this is nothing but sadism — but ah ha! You’ve caught on.

Coulmier convinces Royer-Collard to let him keep the Marquis from writing without resorting to drastic measures. He takes away everything that could possibly be used as a quill — and then the Marquis uses broken glass from his mirror to cut himself, then writes on his clothes with his own blood.

Meanwhile, Royer-Collard has a scandal brewing in his own life when he marries an extremely young orphan named Simone (Amelia Warner) who has grown up in a convent and who doesn’t love the good doctor for even a moment. His treatment of her, particularly in the department of her “wifely duties,” might be described as … I don’t know, SADISTIC?!?!?

One major obstacle the film never overcomes is the fact that the Marquis is writing pornography. Replace that with actual literature or art, and we’d be on his side all the way. But we tend to be somewhat reluctant to go to the wall for a pornographer, and it doesn’t help that the film never tries to convince us that the Marquis’s work is anything else. No defense is made of the stuff’s artistic merit, much less of one’s inalienable right to free speech (this is France in the early 1800s). It’s just a guy with an unstoppable impulse to write dirty books.

In fact, the best they can come up with for the reason Madeleine risks her life to help publish the Marquis’s tawdry little tales is that, at the end of a hard day of washing crazy people’s sheets, she likes to unwind with some porn. Hardly an inspiring example of fighting for the right to express oneself.

A much more dangerous aspect of the film is the cavalier attitude with which it dismisses the notion that the Marquis’s writing is responsible for the several dozen things the movie clearly shows him to be responsible for. People — and not just the weak-minded inmates — do things inspired by the stories they’ve read, leading up to an insane nightmare of debauchery when fire and all hell break loose at the asylum. When Coulmier accuses the Marquis of being responsible for this, he retorts by saying that if one of the loons had drowned while trying to walk across water, Coulmier wouldn’t blame the Bible for it, would he?

That’s it? That’s the only response to this very serious accusation? Rather glib, considering there’s a list about a mile long of things people do in the movie as a direct result of reading the Marquis’s work.

So the Marquis is wrong, right? His words really do have an effect on people, don’t they? But if that’s the case — which it clearly is — then what’s to be said for a movie that revels in showing us the Marquis’s handiwork as much as he reveled in creating it? If books can influence people’s behavior, for better or worse, then can’t movies about those books do the same thing, provided they show enough of the details?

A movie about the life of the Marquis de Sade could probably tell the story without delving too much into the specifics of what he penned. But this isn’t a biography: It’s a bibliography. Passages from the Marquis’s books are read aloud frequently, and Kaufman doesn’t shy away from the sexual and sadistic actions of people who are motivated by them.

Perhaps the film is right in its implication that we all have a bit of the Marquis de Sade in us. I sat through the whole thing, didn’t I?

An Ideal Husband

0

Oscar Wilde’s 105-year-old “An Ideal Husband” is produced at BYU with sets, costumes and an air of silly pretentiousness befitting the iconoclastic comedy.

The scene is the “London season,” a time when the upper-class British would spend all their time socializing. It’s a glib, flirtatious society full of “beautiful idiots and brilliant lunatics,” as one character puts it, who seek nothing more than shallow conversation and entertainment.

One such evening is at the home of politician Sir Robert Chiltern (Ary Farhnakian) and his wife, Gertrude (Hailey Smith). They’re a perfect couple, by all accounts, and indeed they seem to think so, until the arrival of Mrs. Chevely (Colleen Marie), a conniving, twice-divorced woman who tries to blackmail Sir Chiltern. She wants him to come out in support of a dishonest venture concerning an Argentine canal; in exchange, she will refrain from producing evidence that Chiltern’s own fortune came from some shady dealings he had while just getting started in politics. Seeking to keep his wife from knowing of his youthful indiscretion, he agrees to Mrs. Chevely’s terms, but soon Lady Chiltern learns the truth anyway, and her image of an “ideal husband” is shattered.

Assisting them both is their bachelor friend Arthur Goring (Matt Biedel), a suave, carefree man who spouts pithy sayings as though he were a living Oscar Wilde quotebook. He’s also very wise, offering outstanding advice to the Chilterns while avoiding his disapproving father (Daryl “Lance” Ball) and subtly courting Chiltern’s sister Mabel (Amy Addams).

Much of the speech in the production, otherwise smoothly directed by Barta Heiner, is a bit affected. This is clearly intentional in some cases — as with the hoity-toity Lady Markby (Celeste Barrand) and her shrill ramblings — but at other times merely seems like actors letting their vocal patterns get the best of their characters. It’s difficult to follow, let alone find humor in, a play in which the dialogue sounds forced or unconvincing.

Matt Biedel is the show’s greatest asset as Goring, the only character who realizes how pretentious everyone is, yet still associates with them. The robust, ample-chinned Biedel is natural and relaxed, easily pulling the audience into the play; in contrast, Ary Farahnakian’s Chiltern often seems to blurt out important decisions without having thought about them first.

Colleen Marie is coldly beautiful as Mrs. Chevely, and Hailey Smith is the very picture of strong femininity. Earning laughs in their small roles are Joshua Bingham as French dandy Vicomte De Nanjac and Jon Liddiard as Goring’s ghostly manservant Phipps.

Intellectual and wordy, the play requires that attention be paid to it. The reward for this effort is a sunny, mildly thought-provoking show with far more substance to it than many of its characters have.

Bounce

0

The interesting behind-the-scenes story about “Bounce” — in which a man falls in love with the widow whose husband died in a plane crash that he, the suitor, was supposed to be in, too — is that stars Gwyneth Paltrow and Ben Affleck are a real-life ex-couple. We know they have (or at least had) chemistry in real life; will it show up onscreen, too?

The answer is yes — but unfortunately, the easy charm the two have as a couple is about all “Bounce” has going for it.

Affleck is Buddy Amaral, a cocky L.A. ad exec who relinquishes his seat on a delayed flight to airport acquaintance Greg Janello (Tony Goldwyn). When the flight crashes and everyone is killed, Buddy feel tremendous guilt, drinks a lot, and winds up in re-hab. Following the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, he seeks to make restitution, as much as possible, by checking up on Greg’s widow, Abby (Paltrow), and their two kids. What was intended as a one-time favor turns into a romance, with Buddy hiding the truth from Abby and Abby telling Buddy she’s divorced.

Writer/director Don Roos — also responsible for the bitingly funny “The Opposite of Sex” — does a complete 180 here, and not for the better. His characters are generically sainted (Abby, seeing a girl on her way to the prom with toilet paper stuck to her shoe, rushes forward to remove the offending article so the teen won’t be embarrassed), and Abby even has a husky-voiced, wise-cracking neighbor (Caroline Aaron) to confide in. The dialogue is often clunky, though Affleck and Paltrow have enough acting prowess between them to make most of it palatable, and much of the plot is not only predictable (especially if you¹ve seen the trailer), but awkwardly established.

Affleck isn’t entirely convincing as a self-centered jerk, and the character is under-written in that area. But he and Paltrow have a certain amount of magic together that this romantic melodrama would have been wise to make better use of. “Bounce” is a bad title for such a moody, plodding film; “Lumber” would be a better one.

Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas

0

Who would have thought Ron Howard — director of such soft-centered, mushy fare as “Cocoon” and “Parenthood” — could come up with something as imaginative and charming as the new live-action adapatation of Dr. Seuss’ “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”?

Indeed, many wondered why Tim Burton, that quirky king of odd-looking movies, wasn’t directing this, the first live-action version ever made of a Seuss book. Wouldn’t his have been a lot edgier?

Yeah — and it probably would have been too edgy. Howard’s version is a visual treat, from Rick Baker’s extraordinary makeup to Michael Corenblith’s production design, and full of mildly subversive humor (the Grinch, in disguise, hands a hacksaw to a youngster and urges her to “run really fast” with it). But it also maintains a level of charming blandness — the sort of movie you’d imagine Opie or Richie Cunningham concocting, one that’s laugh-out-loud funny with a minimum of smacking you in the face with its own weirdness. We grownups might secretly like to see an even more whacked-out production, and the story certainly lends itself to such a notion, but it never would have been approved by Seuss’ widow, who maintained a great deal of control and didn’t want her husband’s child-friendly work tarnished. Ron Howard is probably one of the best directors for an order that tall: stay true to the original material, update it for the ’00s, and make it appealing to everyone.

Everyone’s familiar with the story, and nothing has been changed, though a few elements have been added. The monster-like Grinch (Jim Carrey) lives high atop Mt. Crumpit, overlooking the town of Whoville and despising the Whos and their exuberant Christmas celebrations. Finally having had enough of it, he plots to steal all of the Christmas accoutrements, only to discover that yuletide cheer doesn’t come from store-bought things anyway, and that it’s impossible to steal the Christmas spirit.

What’s been added is a backstory for the Grinch. Seems he appeared mysteriously in Whoville as a baby, and was raised by two spinsters. As a child (played by Josh Ryan Evans), he was mistreated because of his odd appearance, and subsequently left town to live as a hermit up on the mountain.

This makes the Grinch quite sympathetic, and puts the blame back on the Whos. Little Cindy Lou Who (Taylor Momsen), the cutest little puddin’-head ever photographed, seems to realize this and seeks to bring the Grinch back into polite society. It is after this effort goes awry that he seeks his Christmas Eve revenge.

Jim Carrey is extraordinary as the Grinch. Despite the elaborate costume and makeup, it’s still Carrey under there, cracking jokes and making the role as funny as anything he’s ever done. (Checking his schedule for the day: “Four o’clock, wallow in self-pity. Four-thirty, stare into the abyss. Five-thirty, jazzercise.”) I don’t know how much ad-libbing was done, but a lot of the Grinch’s lines sound like Jim Carrey having fun. The Grinch isn’t just an old grump; he’s a powerfully entertaining figure. Jim Carrey carries this movie.

The aforementioned middle-of-the-road sensibilities of Ron Howard do the film a few disservices, too. The story is drawn out too much, with so much resolution after the Grinch’s change-of-heart climax (kindly do not accuse me of spoiling anything; it’s your own fault for not already knowing this story) that it’s hard to feel much emotion when things finally do end. There’s also a show-stopping (in a bad way), out-of-the-blue song by the adorable little girl, and a couple ill-conceived crude jokes that stick out like sore thumbs.

Still, only a real Scrooge (or whatever) could fail to enoy this tasty little holiday morsel.

Rugrats in Paris: The Movie

0

Those cute little rugrats called “The Rugrats” are back in a second big-screen adventure that is better than the first, with potty jokes for the kids and parodies of “The Godfather” and other films for the grownups.

Stu Pickles (voice of Jack Riley) is summoned to France to help repair the amusement-park ride he created, and he takes his kids and the other rugrats with him. Evil Coco LaBouche (Susan Sarandon), seeking to land herself a husband, tries to get her hooks into little Chuckie’s dad, Chas (Michael Bell). Chas (Christine Cavanaugh) is sad over the death of his mother and would like a new mom, but he knows Coco isn’t the right one.

True love wins out, of course, and the film is sweet in its own giddy way. There is much humor in the toddlers’ view of the adult world, and in the hijinks they get into in France. Fans of the TV show, particularly, will find nothing not to like in this version, and even non-fans may find themselves wondering why they haven’t been paying attention to the show all these years….

The 6th Day

0

Perhaps the makers of “The 6th Day” realized that the fading Arnold Schwarzenegger now has about half the box-office strength he once did, and shrewdly thought to shore themselves up against that liability by putting TWO Arnold Schwarzeneggers in their movie.

Whatever they were thinking, it works. “The 6th Day” is an exciting high-tech action film that’s even a little clever, in its big, blowing-things-up kind of way.

The film — which borrows liberally from Arnold’s own “Total Recall” and “Eraser,” as well as from “The Fugitive” and “The Matrix” (at least they picked some good movies to steal from) — is set in the near future. Arnold is Adam Gibson, a family man who works as a helicopter pilot for an extreme sports company, and he’s a little old-fashioned. Human cloning is illegal and apparently impossible to do correctly anyway, but animal cloning is commonplace, so much so that companies have arisen that will store your pet’s DNA and use it to make a new animal in the event Fluffy should find herself on the wrong side of a set of truck tires. Adam doesn’t cotton to this kind of tampering in God’s domain, and is reluctant to buy a new dog when his daughter’s pooch dies. Instead, he buys her a life-sized doll that walks, talks and grows real hair — the world’s creepiest toy, in other words.

Upon arriving home with Creepy Doll, Adam is startled to see himself inside, celebrating his birthday with family and friends. Before he can react, he is accosted by a couple hired goons who try to kill him, failing in that but succeeding in letting him know what’s going on: Human-organ cloners Weir (Robert Duvall) and Drucker (Tony Goldwyn) — organ cloning is OK; it’s entire-human cloning that’s bad — have secretly been making spare people in their high-security labs. Drucker’s been cloned a couple times himself, in fact, having made a few enemies who occasionally kill him. Due to a mix-up I won’t divulge here, a new Adam was made without the old Adam being dead yet. Since human cloning is against the law, Weir and Drucker have to kill one of the Adams before anyone knows there are two of them.

Director Roger Spottiswoode (“Tomorrow Never Dies”) has manufactured a near-future that is startlingly realistic. There are some goofy elements in it — nacho-flavored bananas and virtual girlfriends, for example — but also quite a few things that are not unreasonable, and that science is heading toward already. (Refrigerators that tell you when you’re running low on items and allow you to order new ones from the store; cars with autopilot and navigation systems.) If everything looked totally space-age, it would lose its immediacy; the point here is that what’s going on may not be far off.

Well, that’s the point to the extent that there IS a point. No one will accuse “The 6th Day” of being an overly cerebral film, though it is relatively free of gaping plot holes. It’s an action movie, and a good one, at that. There’s a thrilling car chase, lots of explosions, cheesy post-mortem one-liners from Arnold, and as many “I’m not myself today” kind of jokes as you can think of (and trust me, you could think of all of them). Schwarzenegger may finally be back to full-strength again at the box office.

You Can Count on Me

0
You Can Count on Me

Sundance audiences loved writer/director Ken Lonergan’s “You Can Count on Me,” and it’s easy to see why. Few films have ever captured quite so accurately the love-hate relationship between siblings.

What could be stranger than a family? People who may be absolutely 100 percent opposites who are nonetheless bound by genetics to love each other. It’s madness!

This dichotomy is something that anyone who isn’t an only child can relate to, yet it is rarely portrayed realistically in film. Movies show us the hate (usually in a comic manner), and they show us the love (usually in a generic manner) — but they hardly ever show us how easily we slide from one emotion to the other, and how they sometimes even overlap.

“You Can Count on Me” does this very well, thanks to an excellent cast and insightful writing.

A melancholy, dramatic comedy, the film begins with a brief prologue that shows us the accidental death of young Sammy and Terry’s parents in a small upstate New York town.

Flash forward to the present. Sammy (Laura Linney) is a loan officer at the local bank, still living in her childhood house and raising her son Rudy (Rory Culkin, brother of Macauley) by herself. Rudy Sr. was apparently a first-class creep, and no one misses him, though Rudy Jr. wonders about his dad.

In the midst of a brewing battle between Sammy and her new boss, the extremely anal Brian (Matthew Broderick), over whether she should be allowed to leave work for 15 minutes every day to pick her son up at school, Sammy hears from Terry (Mark Ruffalo) for the first time in quite a while. He’s coming to visit.

Terry is fresh out of jail on a minor charge and about as irresponsible as they come. (Amusingly, he takes Rudy out late one night to hustle pool at the local pub.) He and Rudy connect, largely because they’re more or less on the same level, and Rudy is glad to have a father figure in his life.

Tempers flare between Sammy and Terry, even as they try to help each other. Terry needs to get his head on straight, and Sammy needs to figure out why she gets involved with men who are no good for her.

Laura Linney gives a wonderful performance as Sammy. She’s pretty and strong; I defy anyone to watch her and not like her. Mark Ruffalo, too, gives Terry more personality than just “The Slacker.” There’s a lot bubbling under the surface with him, and he has buttons that only Sammy knows how to push.

The film has a brooding quality about it, as it frequently breaks out into humor but more often stays in the shadows. The death of Sammy and Terry’s parents permeates the action, which might make the film less appealing than if a more universal subject had been chosen (most people have families; not everyone’s parents have died, though). Regardless, it’s a smart movie with a lot of love behind it.

One Day in September (documentary)

0

“One Day in September” is the slickly told story of the 1972 Munich Olympics, in which Palestinian terrorists took hostage and eventually killed a dozen Israeli athletes.

Director Kevin Macdonald’s greatest achievement in the documentary is getting terrorist Jamal Al Gashey to speak on camera. Al Gashey’s two surviving cohorts were assassinated later, and he’s been in hiding ever since. This is his first interview on the subject, and his brutal honesty (he speaks proudly of the murders he committed) is astonishing.

This is a fascinating story, ripe for telling, and none of that is lost on Macdonald. Germany was eager to help people forget its past intolerance, both in world affairs and in the Olympics: 1936 Berlin was a shameful chapter in the history of sportsmanship, and the hope was that 1972 Munich would undo it. To that end, organizers kept police at a minimum and employed team of security guards instead. They wanted a friendly, peaceful Olympics.

It was not to be, however, as a Palestinian terrorist group took several Israeli Olympians hostage mid-way through the games. Their demand was that Arab revolutionary prisoners in Israel be set free; Israel refused this, fearing that to give in would open the door for future terrorism.

Germany, meanwhile, was panicked that such a crisis was occurring here and now, of all places and times. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, a German law-enforcement agent, even offered himself in exchange for the prisoners — anything to defuse the situation and avoid worsening Germany’s stigma as a land of brutality and terror.

The games continued during the crisis, which upset a number of people; they were eventually stopped. A potential rescue of the hostages from the hotel in which they were being held was ruined by East German TV cameras broadcasting the preparations into those very hotel rooms — where the terrorists could watch.

Everything culminated in a daring airport rescue that also was botched due to lack of communication and some poor planning. Most of the terrorists and all of the hostages were killed.

Macdonald interviews Ankie Spitzer, whose husband Andre was among the hostages, and quite a few others who were intimately involved in the crisis. It’s a thorough, well-balanced documentary.

There is some padding, though, as the film has a few montages of Olympic moments covered with era-appropriate music. What’s the point here? To remind us it’s 1972? To remind us it’s the Olympics? We were clear on both issues already, thanks.

What’s Cooking?

0

The most riveting scene in “What’s Cooking?” comes halfway through it, when we are treated to a baking montage.

Criss-crossing through the four different scenes that have already been established, we see the hands of the main characters as they prepare Thanksgiving dinner. Potatoes are mashed, corn is sliced off the cob, turkeys are stuffed. Real people are getting their hands dirty, creating simple but delicious culinary masterpieces. It’s one of the most mouth-watering scenes I’ve seen in a movie, and I don’t even like half they food they’re making.

“What’s Cooking?” is not really about food, but food is a linking device. It’s about four diverse Los Angeles families and their separate (and occasionally overlapping) Thanksgiving festivities.

The Vietnamese family, the Nguyens, are strict and traditional. The grandparents live with the parents (Joan Chen and Francois Chau). Respect for one’s elders is important. The parents don’t mind too much that their son Jimmy (Will Yun Lee) isn’t coming home from college for the holiday, because “education is the most important thing.”

Jimmy, however, isn’t really staying at school. In fact, he’ll be in his home neighborhood, having dinner with his girlfriend, Gina Avila (Isidra Vega), whose Hispanic family is a little alarmed at her having an Asian boyfriend — but not nearly as much as Jimmy’s family would be if they knew he had a Mexican girlfriend.

The Avila family is already in minor turmoil because dad Javier (Victor Rivers) walked out a year ago after an affair, and now dad-worshipping Anthony (Douglas Spain) has invited him to dinner, even though mom Elizabeth (Mercedes Ruehl) has a new boyfriend (A Martinez).

Then there’s our Jewish friends, Herb and Ruth Seelig (Maury Chaykin and Lainie Kazan). Their lesbian daughter Rachel (Kyra Sedgwick) is bringing home her girlfriend, Carla (Julianna Margulies). Hilarity ensues.

And finally, there’s the Williams family, upper-class African-Americans where the husband (Dennis Haysbert) works for the governor, and the wife (Alfre Woodard) fends us unwanted advice from her mother-in-law (Ann Weldon).

Director and co-writer Gurinder Chadha is British. She said she wanted to do a film about that most American of holidays, Thanksgiving. She got the important details right. The big-table eating scenes are torn from the pages of Americana, even if the specific problems (seems like there was an infidelity in just about every marriage) are a bit heightened for dramatic effect.

There is something truly lovely about four American families praying before Thanksgiving dinner, too. I’m glad Chadha included it.

As has been the case in most Thanksgivings I’m familiar with, the women in this cast are what make the film work. Alfre Woodard, Joan Chen, Mercedes Ruehl — all three are powerful, beautiful women, playing stoic characters with a lot of heart.

None of the four kitchen-sink comedy/dramas is particularly compelling on its own, stellar acting notwithstanding. It was wise, then, to include four of them: Together, they paint a charming picture of a modern family life that is still, in its way, old-fashioned and traditional.

Going Blind

0

Three of my friends recently went on a triple date. That by itself is an ordeal, as it means having to convince three different women all to be ready at the same time, but there was another factor that made it even worse: It was a blind date.

We don’t like to call it a blind date anymore. We don’t even call it a vision-impaired date. We refer to it as “getting set up.” Some person who either pities you (“You can’t get a date by yourself, so I’ll get one for you”) or is absurdly presumptuous (“I know someone who’s perfect for you!”) sets you up on the date. The phraseology alone should tip us off that the idea is destined for failure: The way you normally hear people talk about being “set up” is as a synonym for being framed. They say it in movies all the time, as the police are dragging them away. “You swear word, you set me up! I’ll get you for this, you son of a swear word! Salazaaaaarrrrr!” Being set up is a bad thing in movies, and I’ve seen little evidence that movies are any different from real life.

No one likes blind dates. No one. Not a single person. Anywhere. (Note to people who are about to e-mail me and say they like blind dates: Don’t bother; I don’t care.) (Note to people who are about to e-mail me and say they met their spouse on a blind date: Your marriage will fail.) Yet we not only continue to go on them, but continue to arrange them for our friends, too.

In the case of my friends, they were set up to go with three girls to a church dance. (If you do not have the benefit of living in Provo, you are missing out on some totally raging weekend events.) Upon arriving at the dance, two of my friends were promptly ditched by their dates, whom they saw again briefly at the end of the night. The third friend later bemoaned the fact that his date apparently liked him quite a bit, as she kept dancing very close to him throughout the evening. He must have the patience of Job, this friend of mine, to be able to put up with the hell-spawned torment of having a girl find him attractive.

If you think I’m leading up to a blind-date horror story of my own, you’re so wrong that it makes me laugh at you. I’ve been on only a few in my day, only one of which I can remember with any clarity. (We went to Johnny B’s Comedy Club, and it was Funny Hypnotist night, and I thought the show was more creepy than funny.) To be honest, dates with people I already know have been far more disastrous, like the time a girl named Lucy and I were supposed to go ice-skating with another couple and Lucy announced just moments beforehand that she had a paralyzing fear of ice-skating, so instead we rented a movie and spent the evening resenting each other. (I don’t remember why she resented me, but I’m sure I gave her a reason.)

It’s more the idea of blind dates that makes me uneasy. We all fear the unknown, and any girl going on a blind date with me has a lot of unknown to fear. Should I tell her about The Incident? Is it even possible to bring up The Incident in polite conversation? Hey, who ate all the rolls? These are the questions that bedevil me as I try to enjoy ANY date, let alone a blind one.

So to all my well-meaning friends who for some reason think that even though they all hate blind dates, they should arrange one for me: Relax. I’ll get married on my own someday (well, not entirely on my own; I hope to have a woman involved, at least peripherally). And to the ladies: The Incident wasn’t even my fault. I was set up. Salazaaaaarrrrr!

Rent

0

The touring company of the Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award-winning rock musical “Rent” is back this week after a successful two-week run in 1998. The cast is better this time, and to someone who’s never seen it and is the right audience for it (no one will claim this show is for everyone), it will be an entertaining, powerful drama.

Written by Jonathan Larson, “Rent” is loosely based on the opera “La Boheme” and follows the lives of several young New Yorkers as they struggle with relationships, AIDS and their attempts to live a “bohemian” (that is, either “irresponsible” or “carefree,” depending on your point of view) lifestyle.

At the center is Mark (Matt Caplan), an amateur filmmaker whose actress girlfriend Maureen (Maggie Benjamin) has recently broken up with him to pursue a life of lesbianism with Joanne (Jacqueline B. Arnold). Though he doesn’t have the most stage time, it is Mark who gives the show its moral center, such as it is, and is probably the most sympathetic character, frequently a victim of circumstance as his friends’ situations grow worse.

His best friend and roommate, Roger (Christian Mena), is a an AIDS-stricken songwriter who gets involved with Mimi (Saycon Sengbloh), a dancer and junkie who is likewise afflicted. Their relationship is stormy, as is Maureen and Joanne’s; the only stable romance is between their friend Collins (Mark Richard Ford) and his transvestite boyfriend Angel (Shaun Earl).

Christian Mena has a clear, passionate voice that does Roger great justice; unfortunately, Mena is also too brooding and sulky to allow us access into the character’s thoughts. Maggie Benjamin’s Maureen is a feisty, funny addition, as is Shaun Earl’s silky-voiced Angel.

The songs range from the mundane to the poignant, the music usually all-out rock Å’n’ roll with some nice ballads, too. This is a show for the young, and it appeals to their sensibilities without pandering to them, offering a glimpse into a way of life that is both appealing and appalling.

Rent

0

Jonathan Larson’s Pulitzer Prize and Tony award-winning musical “Rent” is a show that looks to be better than the sum of its parts, a show that SEEMS great, but that actually doesn’t have much substance to it.

It’s an odd dichotomy. As I walked out of the Capitol Theatre, where the show is playing through Dec. 6, I had the impression that the show had been really good. Most of the rock ‘n’ roll score had been catchy and lively, the lighting and stage presentation were terrific, the singing was almost all top-notch, and there were some genuinely engrossing moments.

But as I reflected more and more on the play — and the current condition of I-15 afforded me plenty of time to do that — I realized it has serious flaws. The characterization is rushed, and the second act covers a year’s worth of time, forcing us to simply take the play’s word for it that various people have fallen in love, for example, rather than actually showing it to us. The result is that when people die, we frankly haven’t been involved enough to really care very much. Some of the songs have potential for great emotional effect; there just needs to be more leading up to them to get us in the right frame of mind, rather than saying, “These two are in love; we want you to feel sad now that one of them is dead.”

Then there’s the matter of the lead character, Roger (Christian Anderson). He’s a musician, and unfortunately, so is the actor who plays him. Anderson doesn’t act so much as he struts around like a rock star. He has one of those tough-guy rock-star voices, comparable to Michael Bolton’s, and his facial expressions and physical gestures give the impression that he looks at the show as one big concert. As he sings “One Song Glory,” in which he expresses his desire to write one great song before he dies of AIDS, a light from below casts a huge shadow of him on the back wall. It’s a nifty effect — too bad Anderson doesn’t put anything more than generic rock ‘n’ roll ballad-type intensity-passing-for-emotion into it. That’s all he ever puts into anything, including the scene where he finally sings his “one great song.”

We should also address the message of the play. It’s a retelling of the famous opera “La Boheme,” updated for the ’90s. So instead of a painter dying of tuberculosis, we have a dancer dying of AIDS. In fact, we have several people dying of AIDS. In this play, nearly everyone is gay, and nearly everyone has AIDS, though only a couple people fall into both categories.

What everyone DOESN’T have is a job, or a future, or much direction. These are “bohemians”: artists, slackers, Generation Xers, whatever you want to call them. Roger the musician and his roommate Mark the filmmaker (Trey Ellett) live in a New York apartment with no heat and only occasional electricity. They are surrounded by their fellow bohemians, including gay teacher Tom (Dwayne Clark) and his boyfriend/girlfriend, the cross-dressing Angel (Shaun Earl) — both of whom have AIDS. (I am not being snotty when I call him a “boyfriend/girlfriend” — the characters in the show are often unsure which gender to refer to him as, too.)

There’s also Mark’s ex-girlfriend, the performance artist Maureen (Erin Keaney), who recently dumped Mark and took up a life of lesbianism with Joanne (Kamilah Martin). But they’re all friends, despite their differences, and the whole thing is like a depressing “Seinfeld” where everyone is Kramer.

The ultimate message of the show is a good one, as expressed in the lyrics: “No day but today”; “Forget regret, or life is yours to miss.” In other words: Don’t dwell on the past. Don’t worry about the future. Enjoy life now. Make the most of it. A reasonably good philosophy, as far as it goes.

But as with so much of late-’90s youth culture (and bear in mind I’m a member of the same generation portrayed here), the message is also one of hedonism and self-gratification. There is little in the way of responsibilty or morality. The characters expect us to sympathize with them because of their plights, but as far as we can tell, they are largely responsible for their own plights. The ones without jobs (i.e., Mark and Roger) seem unwilling to do anything other than their art; Mimi (Karen Olivo), who has AIDS, natch, is a drug addict. There are several instances of sexual unfaithfulness. We can feel bad for them for being so screwed up, but one can’t help but realize they brought most of it on themselves. If there’s more at play here — their childhoods, or other extenuating circumstances — the show does nothing to convey that, allowing us instead to assume they at one time had the chance to behave responsibly and merely chose not to.

The sole exception to all this is Mark the filmmaker. Trey Ellett’s performance in that role is the saving grace of the production. Mark comes across as intelligent and fairly ambitious. He was not to blame in being dumped by Maureen, and he has a sensitive soul that inspires genuine sympathy from the audience. In the second act, as he sings about being left alone, wondering why everything has happened the way it has, we feel true emotion for him. He is a victim of fate, a good person caught up into a sad existence. The play wants us to think of everyone that way, but only Mark actually is.

In the end, “Rent” is entertaining and raucous, an anarchic romp with people the likes of which few us have any connection with. Unfortunately, due to some mediocre performing and a script that is under-written in the way of character development, they’re people we continue to have no connection with. The potential is there, but this production, at least, doesn’t live up to it.

It’s All Downhill from Here

0

While the rest of you were out voting Tuesday — and look at the mess THAT made — I was at the Utah Olympic Park, risking my life as I tried out the quasi-sport known as “skeleton.”

Aside from “Tonya Harding,” “skeleton” may be the scariest-sounding name in the Olympics. It involves lying on your stomach on a heavy steel sled and hurtling head-first down a bobsled track, using only your shoulders and the power of prayer to steer. Gravity alone gets you up to nearly 60 mph; the professionals, who get a running start and are apparently made entirely of lead, go as fast as 90 mph.

It’s an interesting sport in that it requires almost no athletic ability — all you have to do is lie there, which is what appealed to me about it — and yet it can kill you. If you lift your head up too much in an attempt to see where you’re going, you’ll mess up your aerodynamics and crash into a wall and die. But if you keep your head down too low, your face will scrape the ground, which will result in the rest of your body flying over the top of you, and you will crash into a wall and die. Also, if you keep your head in exactly the right position, you will crash into a wall and die.

The skeleton has appeared in the Olympics only twice, in 1928 and 1948, after which it was discontinued due to lack of interest. (This may have been for the same reasons that sports like the Arsenic Swallow and the Shoot Yourself in the Head were undersupported.) It’s coming back in 2002, though, and the Salt Lake Organizing Committee has a “wannabe camp” that gives journalists and other flabby non-athletes the opportunity to come crash into a wall and die.

I was joined by Deseret News Olympics sports editor Scott Taylor and four junior-high students from Roosevelt, Utah. (I don’t know where it is, either.) Our instructor was Bob Bills, who directs the youth sports and wannabe camps. Pat Brown — the coach of the Jamaican bobsled team on whom the John Candy character was based in “Cool Runnings” — was on site to give us a push down the track and mop up the blood and entrails afterward.

I was outfitted with a helmet and shoulder pads and a pair of spiked shoes allegedly used to help you stop at the end of the run, though I now find this theory amusing. My sled, I was told, was the same one used by SLOC chairman Mitt Romney. It had been lightened so it wouldn’t go quite as fast, because Mitt had been, quote, “screaming like a little girl.” (That quote is a work of fiction.)

We took a tarp-covered flatbed truck up the hill to a midpoint in the track from which we would launch. The track looks like an ice-covered waterslide and is the same one used for the luge and bobsled events. Apparently, they just build a track and then think of weird stuff to throw down it. Next it’ll be kids on garbage-can lids, or fat guys doing somersaults.

Anyway, the order was determined, and we each got three runs down the track. I freely admit that as it came close to being my turn, I was completely terrified. It seemed virtually impossible that I would NOT be injured, knowing that I would be going at least 50 mph with my head as the only object separating me from everything else.

I got on the sled, half-listened to a few last-minute words of caution from Brown, and with a gentle push from him, I was on my way. I had already decided that, rather than trying to see where I was going, which could only lead to trouble, I would just close my eyes and focus on maintaining control of my bladder. (Because of the visor on the helmet, I couldn’t see more than about two feet in front of me anyway.)

As I rocketed down the track, two thoughts occurred to me: 1) I was picking up speed very, very quickly; and 2) I was going to die without ever knowing true love. Specters of missed opportunities floated past me: jokes untold, women undated, songs undownloaded from Napster. What had I done with my life? How would I be remembered by the–

OW! As I came around the last bend in the track, my head rammed into the wall. I ricocheted from one wall to the other, like an air-hockey puck gliding smoothly and gracefully across the table, smashing into the side, and then floating gently away again, only to smash into the other side. It hurt. A lot.

When I finally came to a stop, I was dazed and disoriented, more so than usual. Not wanting to wuss out in front of the junior-high kids, who were scared at the beginning but were now having fun, I took my second and third runs, too, rather than stopping after the concussive first trip like any smart person would have done.

The whole experience was fun, in its way, and certainly exciting. The only real injuries I received were psychological, and they aren’t really noticeable against the pre-existing ones. And the best part is, when it was over, it was over. Which is more than I can say for certain elections.


[ This was a special edition of “Snide Remarks” that appeared on the front page of The Daily Herald. Our Olympics reporter was invited to try the skeleton, but he couldn’t go due to scheduling problems and his being a wuss. So the editors figured I could go and write a funny story about it. I was flattered to be “on assignment,” like real columnists sometimes are.
The image of fat guys doing somersaults down the bobsled track is very funny to me. Very funny indeed.
Oh, and if the publication date didn’t tip you off, this was published five days after the disastrous 2000 presidential election. ]