2001 / 111 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Heist” is something of an immense disappointment. Especially since it comes from one of the allegedly best of Hollywood screenwriters: David Mamet. Strange, since the script seems to be the biggest stumbling block of the whole movie.

“Heist” is (big shock) a heist film. It’s got the usual cliches firmly in place. There’s the small heist at the beginning. There’s the guy who is retiring from the line of work after one last score (Gene Hackman). There’s the big heist that is the centerpiece of the film. There’s the preparation for the heist. There’s the aftermath, in which things go wrong. It’s all pretty standard, really. In a great heist movie, each of these has its own wonderful sort of thrill. Each of them is fun. And, in a great heist film, the preparation and the gathering of materials and training is almost as cool (if not more so) than the heist itself. For example, “Ocean’s Eleven” (the new one) was interesting every step of the way. The preparations were more of a treat than the big heist itself. And each character was fun to spend time with. Each of them brought their own specific gifts to the caper. A great heist film establishes itself like this.

“Heist” starts off very well. Hackman’s face is videotaped during a heist of a diamond store and he decides that this is an omen that he should retire. The only problem is that he has already agreed to do another job for an easily agitated fence (Danny DeVito) who will not let him go without it, or give him his share from the current job. DeVito also insists that his worthless nephew (Sam Rockwell) goes along for the heist. The heist in question involves stealing a lot of gold from a plane. Simple, right? Not necessarily.

For the first hour, the only problem this film has is its dialogue. The dialogue isn’t necessarily bad. It’s just…. strange. Lines like “I’m going to be as quiet as an ant pissing on cotton” may be unique. But they sure as shit aren’t the sort of thing that a real person would say. They’re too showy. All the dialogue seems a bit too showy. And the characters are only given thumbnail sketches of character development. Which is okay, since I figured that there would be more shading later on. And even with such threadbare characters to work with, DeVito, Hackman and Ricky Jay do wonderful work. Sam Rockwell is alright, but his character isn’t that great. And Rebecca Pidgeon just stands around and changes her motivations and whims whenever the plot calls for her to do so. Her character is the biggest problem. She doesn’t seem to have one. She just kinda changes at the drop of a hat.

But the first hour has some neat moments and a lot of clever ideas and some priceless exchanges of dialogue amongst the stuff that doesn’t work so well. It’s only in the second half that the film really goes off the rails. The heist itself, which is built up as something really challenging, doesn’t seem all that hard. I didn’t see what the big deal is. Then the film has so many double crosses, triple crosses and plot twists that, by the end, I had no idea who was allied with who, who was doing what, or even why. And, moreover, I really didn’t care all that much. Hackman does well. But he doesn’t do any spectacular work as he did in “The Royal Tenenbaums”. The heist itself isn’t as intricate or thrilling as the new “Ocean’s Eleven”. The characters aren’t as unique as they were in that film either. The dialogue alternates from fun to odd to just plain lame. Delroy Lindo is decent. Ricky Jay and Danny DeVito shine here. They are in great form. But the screenplay is a friggin mess. I still can’t believe it’s by the same guy who brought us “The Untouchables”. That film was a model of structure and believable dialogue and characterization.

This one actually has a character who says, of another character, “He’s so cool, when he sleeps sheep count him”. Now, that might be a neat line. But I have no idea what it has to do with anything. I think that speaks for itself.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 113 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

First off, let me tell you one thing: this movie is not funny. Sure, it has its moments. It has a couple little chuckles in it. But I found it to be more of a drama, strange for a film that is marketed as a comedy and features Gwyneth Paltrow in a fat suit.

But I’m still recommending it. Why? you may ask, and you’d be right in asking. It is a comedy, after all, and I usually get pissed off at comedies that are this downright unfunny. But the reason I didn’t laugh was a unique one, and one that poses an exception to my usual rules governing the review of a comedy. The reason I didn’t laugh, even though many of the times I could feel the filmmakers trying to get me to do so, was because I was so involved with the characters. I was so utterly absorbed in their situations and circumstances, I sympathized and empathized with the two lead characters so completely that I actually found most of the jokes made at their expense to be painful. I actually felt my heart ache for the people in this movie more than in most dramas I have seen. And just because the actors and filmmakers invested me so deeply in these characters, I cannot give this film anything less than a good review.

The plot concerns a very shallow man named Hal (Jack Black). On his father’s deathbed, and heavily medicated, Hal’s father told him only to date women based on their looks and never to marry for love. Hal has taken this advice to heart and will only date women if they match up to his ideal of what a woman should look like (there is one hilarious moment where he is pointing out the inadequacies of women such as Britney Spears and Heidi Klum). One day, he gets trapped in an elevator with self-help guru Tony Robbins (playing himself) who puts Hal under a mental suggestion which allows him only to see people’s inner beauty.

Shortly thereafter, Hal meets a beautiful woman named Rosemary (Gwyneth Paltrow). The only problem is that Hal’s friend Mauricio (Jason Alexander, with a horrible hairdo) seems to be seeing a completely different woman altogether. An obese one.

Of course, problems ensue. How could they not? People question Hal’s motivations in dating Rosemary, while Hal himself wonders why they do. He wonders why no one else seems to see the beauty that he has found and everyone reacts so strangely to seeing the two of them together. He also wonders why Rosemary has such self esteem problems, since he can find absolutely no flaws with her.

Call me crazy, but this is a wonderful premise, one of the most original ones I’ve seen in recent years. But it doesn’t lend itself to anything exceptionally funny, most of the time. There is a hilarious scene involving Jason Alexander, a woman with a long toe, and Beatles tickets that’s pretty damn funny. But the problem is that the characters are so completely well-developed and so wonderfully acted (they live before our eyes the way that the best actors can make them do) that we find all the jokes at their expense to be, well, rather tasteless and sometimes downright mean. It is a tribute to Gwyneth’s acting talents in this film that I couldn’t laugh when she broke a chair by sitting on it or made a car sag with her mere presence in its passenger seat. I loved her and cared for her just too much. And when Jack Black made a couple of choices, I simply cringed and felt frustration when the film meant to have me rolling in the aisles. I could feel what the poor bastard was going through, and it was too truthful, too painful to be funny.

I fell in love with Hal and Rosemary. None of this would be possible if it were not for the sympathetic and loving direction of the Farrelly brothers and the nuanced writing of them and Sean Moynihan and the impeccable acting of Jack Black and especially Gwyneth Paltrow.

She was a revelation here and gives perhaps the best female performance I have seen this year (you might think I’m on crack, but I’m not lying). She makes you feel her character’s pain. She makes her self esteem issues so real and tangible that I was astonished to find myself near tears much of the time. Even without the fat suit, she makes Rosemary very credible and makes her pain very real. It’s a beautiful performance. So is Jack’s performance as Hal. He is remarkable here, taking a character that could have easily been one note and imbuing him with heart and soul and subtleties. It’s a rich portrayal, so good that you wonder if he and Gwyneth realized that they were stuck in a comedy that involved jokes at the expense of a man with spinal bifida.

Unfortunately, the jokes don’t work. The film would have worked a lot better with less of them. It would have been an “A” caliber drama with some neat twists and clever ideas. And it deals with subjects of obesity and loneliness in challenging and rather uncompromising fashion. It’s too bad that it has to keep hitting us with the same one joke over and over again. Look, the fat lady sat on a chair and broke it. Oh, ha ha ha. Look, she ate a lot of food really quickly. Oh, ha ha ha. Really, is this all the better you boys could do? It’s not funny. In fact, when you care about the characters so much, it’s actually rather mean-spirited. And the spinal bifida jokes just didn’t work at all. A lot of times I felt frustrated at this movie’s need to keep cracking jokes. I cared about the story and wanted it to work on its own merits. A strange thing for a film by the same two guys who made the awesome “There’s Something About Mary”, but that’s how I felt.

If you’re expecting to bust a gut, you may find yourself disappointed. But if you want to see a surprisingly moving film about two sad souls finding love in a mean-spirited universe, then give “Shallow Hal” a shot. You might just be pleasantly surprised.

Share on Facebook

1995 / 97 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

The best thing that I can say about the movie “Tommy Boy” is that it reminds one how funny a movie “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” was. When you watch the jokes of this movie constantly fail, you can’t help but be reminded of what worked about the other movie.

After all, both movies featured a cynic and a fat man driving through the country in a car that kept getting worse and worse for the wear as the trip progressed. Both of the fat men in question were amiable enough men who just kept doing things wrong. But whereas “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” kept its characters tangibly human and identifiable, letting us understand and smile at their plight, “Tommy Boy” simply gives us a couple of cartoonish stereotypes of real people and then hits them with something. Usually in the crotch. When you don’t give a rat’s ass about the characters, I now understand, you don’t really laugh at something that happens to them. You don’t really care if they achieve their objective or not. In “Planes, Trains and Automobiles”, I had a genuine interest in whether or not the characters made it home for Thanksgiving. In this film, an entire town full of people’s jobs hung in the balance and I was only waiting for Rob Lowe to show up again.

“Tommy Boy” isn’t a particularly awful film, really. It’s just one that isn’t particularly clever or insightful. It doesn’t have any fresh ideas or anyone that you really care about. Well, that isn’t totally true. I guess I did care about Chris Farley’s character, until he started being REALLY retarded (that’s about forty minutes in, if you are keeping track). When he is quiet, he actually makes you feel sorry for him and want him to succeed. When he opens his mouth and starts getting loud, however, you just want him to shut up and go away. You can’t really feel sorry for many of the predicaments that he gets into because, frankly, anyone who wasn’t mentally retarded wouldn’t have gotten into these circumstances in the first place. And David Spade? This is one of the many reasons that I don’t really care if he never makes a movie ever again. He’s just an asshole here. Why should I care about the plight of an asshole? I shouldn’t. I don’t. We identified with Steve Martin’s character in “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” because, while he was annoyed and upset with John Candy’s character, he usually just kept it to himself (as most of us would do). Therefore, when he did lose it and go off on Candy’s character, it was funny because it had been building up for so long and it wasn’t all that mean because you could see he felt sorry the instant the words were out of his mouth (again, just like most of us). We feel some measure of pity for Farley in this movie just because Spade verbally berates him so much. I didn’t find it funny so much as sad and mean-spirited. In case you are wondering, that does not equal comic gold. God, Spade is an asshole!

And what is the deal with comedies where the characters have to take some kind of road trip? I mean, am I the only one who thinks this is the most tired comedic plot in cinematic history!? How many times can we see two idiots hit the open road? It’s boring!!! I remember when Siskel and Ebert reviewed this movie and said that, compared to it, “Dumb and Dumber” was “the ‘Citizen Kane’ of stupid guys on the open road movies”. Well put. And there isn’t even a good reason for the road trip. It seems more like the writers could think of nothing else for the characters to do. Each joke is not established by those that came before it or by anything remotely close to clever writing. The film just bumbles from one stupid incident to another without really even understanding why it thinks we should even laugh at them. That it does occasionally luck onto something funny is just a sidelight.

Rob Lowe is the highlight of the film (now you KNOW you’re in trouble) as a guy who keeps trying to undermine Farley and usually ends up in pain for it. He’s funny just because he’s Rob Lowe and he has this “I’m so cool” look on his face while he is about to be electrocuted or attacked by a dog. Right here you understand what works about a better comedy. A low key approach is the best thing these scenes have going for them. In these moments, the fact that the character is not screaming or rolling around on the floor or being a huge retard is what makes it funny. He is calm in the face of the ridiculous, and that is what makes it funny. If only the rest of the movie had remembered this lesson. The episode with the deer in the back of Spade’s classic car is also pretty funny, I must admit it. As are the scenes in which they attempt to sing along with the radio.

Aside from those moments, however (which are few and sadly far between), you’d be a lot better off just renting “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” and seeing how funny this movie COULD have been.

Share on Facebook

1998 / 170 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

There are scenes where this film hits the high notes that it is aiming for. When it actually channels a bit of the genius that it intends to show.

However, there are just not quite enough of them for me to recommend this film.

War movies are a strange little genre unto themselves. And they often hit the same points over and over again. Not that there is anything wrong with that. They are good points: the tragedy, brutality and ultimate pointlessness of war; the waste of human life; the loss of innocence and youth. These are all relevant themes and “The Thin Red Line” means to tackle them. It does so with varying degrees of success.

On one hand, we have a superb performance by Nick Nolte as a hardened general who will let nothing, absolutely nothing, stand in the way of his success. He has been given his orders. He has his agenda and he means to follow it through, no matter what the cost.

Opposing him is Elias Koteas, known best to those of my generation as Casey Jones (the guy in the hockey mask) from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies. He is equally good as a man who argues for his troops. He disobeys Nolte’s orders when he finds it necessary, seeing no reason to sacrifice his men for something pointless and in a fight that they cannot possibly win. The struggle between these two men says a great deal about the nature of war, and it is a very important statement. Whenever the film chooses to focus on these two men, it is fascinating.

There are other things of note in this film as well. The subplot in which a man stays true to his wife no matter what was of great interest to me. She is the thing that gets him through the war, the single thing that keeps him going. Then he gets a shattering piece of news that I will not reveal to you here. Needless to say, that is a powerful moment.

There are powerful moments here, just not enough of them for me to recommend the film. For one thing, it is too unfocused. Characters appear and disappear without a point and without an explanation. The narrative rambles and without reason. The ending of the film is decidedly anticlimactic. Not only that, but the first forty-five minutes or so of this film are just not interesting. They are downright boring, in fact. I sat there waiting for the film to take off, to lead somewhere interesting. And it eventually did go somewhere interesting. It has some very good points to make at times. I just think that the first hour seriously undermines the remainder of the film. It is a lag that the best moments of the movie never quite recover from.

Another quibble I had with the movie was that there were far too many big stars in it, and for short amounts of time. We don’t get to know them. They don’t really serve the plot much of the time. Instead, they distract one from the rest of the movie. You follow along and just when the film is starting to absorb you, you think “Hey, there’s John Travolta!” He shows up, says a few lines, distracts your mind from whatever else might be going on onscreen, and then he disappears just as suddenly and inexplicably as he came. He is not alone on this. Many other stars do the same. They show up just long enough to throw off your attention and then are gone before you can figure out what they were doing there.

The scenery is beautiful, and there are many mesmerizing shots involved in this film. But ultimately, this viewer was left wanting. I wanted to see more of what happened to the characters that I was made to care about. I wanted the movie to concentrate more on them and less on the major stars that seem to arrive simply for cameos. I wanted it to delve deeper, to toy more with both its issues and my emotions. But in the end, I was left wanting more than the film itself would provide.

For some, “The Thin Red Line” may be a fascinating and absorbing study of war. And for those who find it to be such, I am happy. More power to them. I only wish I had felt the same way.

For me, however, “The Thin Red Line” was a rather maddening experience.

Share on Facebook

1965 / 197 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

David Lean has a power that few filmmakers possess. You may think to yourself, “I’m only going to watch a half hour of this and then off to bed” or “I’ll watch half tonight and then half tomorrow”. Simple, you think. No problem. But then you pop in the DVD or (poor saps) videocassette and before you know it you have succumbed to Lean’s storytelling power. You sit powerless before the screen of your television and every ounce of your being will not let you avert your eyes until you have seen how it all turns out. I first noticed this bizarre phenomenon during “Lawrence of Arabia”, a film I had no intention of finishing that night.

Even “Summertime” kept me enraptured for its entire running time, despite the fact that it was about nothing more important than Katherine Hepburn enjoying a holiday in Venice. And now, I have spent the entire night doing nothing but watching “Doctor Zhivago” for the second time in my life. I am sure that it is far from the last.

“Zhivago” has been described as an epic love story, but I believe that it is far more than that. Dismissing it as a love story, comparing it to “Gone With the Wind”, these things diminish the power of the film. It is the story of a man dealing with the changes of his country. It is the story of a man whose way of life is suddenly swept away. It is the story of a man facing difficult choices. And, yes, it is the story of a married man falling head over heels for another woman. A woman who stirs his soul like no other ever has.

Any description of the plot of this film would be rather pointless. How can I describe it accurately? The film simply flows the way that a novel or even reality does. There is no Act One, Scene Three, Conflict Arises moment that you may find outlined in a Screenwriting Manual. Or, if there is, it is so cleverly concealed that I was unable to find it. The film flows from one fascinating event to another, with the main character of Yuri Zhivago borne upon its back like a branch floating down a river. During the course of his lifetime, the entire social and political atmosphere of Russia changes and he is simply struggling to keep up. His country is never at a calm moment during the three hours we see him. I have never seen a film so accurately catalogue the events of an entire country through only a few select characters. It is truly masterful. You truly get a sense of the struggles and upheavals that Russia has been through and, I don’t want to sound the America bullhorn yet again but, it does make you appreciate your own life and the country that we live in. You really feel sorry for the Russians. And you really get a sense of why Communism is such a bad idea.

Yet you also get a sense of the healing power of love. During many of the film’s events, it is only Zhivago’s undying love for Lara and even Tonya that keeps him going. There seems no end to the problems which await this man for much of the film’s running time. And you wouldn’t care so much about the passion of these two people (especially with revolutions going on and madmen traveling the country by train) if it were not for the simple, understated and genuine-seeming performances of both Omar Sharif and Julie Christie. If you think Omar was a revelation in “Lawrence of Arabia”, then his portrayal of Yuri will leave you utterly breathless. And Julie Christie’s work as Lara will simply floor you. I must also make mention of Geraldine Chaplin’s performance as Tonya, Yuri’s wife. You see where she’s coming from also, and it makes things much more interesting since Yuri does not have a simple choice to make. In most films like this, it’s easy: wife is a bitch, boyfriend is an asshole, other woman or man is a saint. But in this film Tonya is the saint if anything. It’s very complex and fascinating. And Omar wears the inner turmoil and frustration of his character in his eyes, on his face, in his posture.

Unlike most epics, this is a subtle film. It is confident enough to let you figure many things out for yourself. It takes the time to breathe. It also has a dense visual poetry. The emotions of the characters are often reflected in something as simple as the melting of frost on a window or the wilting of a vase of flowers. The characters do not throw fits. They do not scream and hurl insults. They keep their feelings largely bottled and until they can stand it no more and then they only spill out a little bit, just enough to gain our sympathy and respect. This movie has a quiet dignity and a simple power. The cinematography by Freddie Francis is awesome. Many of the images are indelible. A train dwarfed by the mountains and the endless fields of snow. The ice castle of Varyniko. A single set of hoofprints through a snowy field. Ice cracking beneath the feet of walking soldiers. The atmosphere of the film is also magnificently established. You may want to keep a blanket handy during this film. The cold is almost a tangible thing. It is a character in the film, much like the shark in “Jaws” or the wave in “The Perfect Storm” (by the way, the wave was probably the most compelling character in that entire film). David Lean’s skill with the actors and environments and camera was surpassed only by “Lawrence of Arabia”.

I must also give notice to the great acting of Alec Guinness (yet more proof that this man should be remembered for far more than just his work as Obi Wan Kenobi), Rod Steiger, and Ralph Richardson. I also must credit the set designs, the beautiful score of Maurice Jarre, and pretty much every other aspect of the film. The movie stirs with the magical power of love, the hypnotic imagery, and the poetry which seems to run through its veins.

“Doctor Zhivago” is amazing. I can’t think of any other way to describe it. And I can think of no better reason for you to get yourself addicted to it.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 92 Minutes / G
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

First of all, I must gush about the “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones” teaser which was attached to this movie. Sorry, I know that I should be reviewing the new Pixar flick. But, really, those thirty seconds of footage from a movie that is six months away from me was more breathlessly entertaining, cooler and much more adrenaline-pumping than anything in Pixar’s latest film. Oh my God, this movie has me excited. All it is thirty seconds of footage from the latest Star Wars flick, bits and pieces of it, with the sound of Vader’s breathing in the background. But it works. I would give a kidney to see this movie RIGHT NOW! So the teaser works. It has a dark tone. Watto is in it. Sam Jackson is in it. Yoda is looking very upset. Millions of troops are being loaded onto a large ship. Anakin is engaging in a light saber duel with someone. Obi Wan is floating in the air with amazing serenity. And, best of all, Jar Jar Binks is nowhere to be seen. This movie might actually have a chance. I was reduced once again to that little boy who ran around the house with a Chewbacca figure reenacting the films and supplying my own sound effects with my mouth. Lucas has done the job with the teaser. Now, let’s see if the movie can live up to one immensely cool teaser.

Back, reluctantly, to “Monsters Inc.” Yes, the Episode Two trailer really is that much better than this film. “Monsters Inc.” is the story of two monsters. Their names are Sulley and Mike Wakowski (John Goodman and Billy Crystal, respectively). Together, they are the best team of “scarers” at “Monsters Incorporated”: a company which provides energy for the city of Monsteropolis by harnessing the energy of small children’s screams. One day, they accidentally bring a little girl (nicknamed “Boo”) over from the human world and all heck breaks loose. You see, children are viewed as highly infectious creatures and physical contact with them is to be avoided at any cost.

Mike and Sulley run around for far too long looking for the little girl (in scenes and sequences that I have a feeling were meant to be funny, but really aren’t) and, in the process, Sulley discovers feelings for the little tyke which force him to re-evaluate his entire nature.

What works? The creature animation is pretty breathtaking. You never doubt in the existence of Mike or Sulley or any of the other myriad creatures on display in the film. Each hair on Sulley’s blue pelt moves individually and miraculously. The environments feel real. And the sequence with the doors in the midst of the factory is simply dazzling.

But, by that point, it’s simply a case of too little too late. The premise is a great one. But once it is established, the film really has nothing else to say. The plot is pretty typical. I always knew what was going to happen next and the big plot twist is visible from about a kilometer away. The voice talents are all game, and they create good characters, but, aside from Goodman’s Sulley, there is really nothing for them to do. Most of the jokes fall completely flat. And the film is lacking the zip, the spark, that made the Toy Story films and “A Bug’s Life” so fantastic. Those were mesmerizing, dazzling and bewildering films that were packed with clever moments and dense with hilarious moments. The characters were far more endearing (Sulley and Boo have a nice relationship, but Mike was largely just annoying) and the whole enterprise was just far more magical. Those films kept me on the edge of my seat and made me feel like a kid again. This film almost put me to sleep in the middle.

The middle is simply too long. Had perhaps fifteen minutes been excised from it, I would probably be giving this film a “B”. But, as it is, you just want it to get over with by the time the door chase is over. The door chase is dazzling (I think I already said that, but it does bear repeating) and the animation is great. But it could have been so much more. The jokes are just so flat and the plot so routine that none of that mattered. The animation is so good that it feels like a live-action movie. Unfortunately, it feels like a live-action movie with a good idea but a number of problems.

I was actually shocked to find that I liked “Shrek” a lot more than this. I liked “Atlantis” infinitely more. That was an original ride, and a consistent one. Unlike this messy affair. The kids I saw it with seemed to love it, though, so what the heck do I know? But I just wanted more. I expect more from Pixar. That’s all. They made their first three films so magical that I refuse to settle for one that is merely adequate.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 116 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Ed Crane is “The Man Who Wasn’t There”. People he met that same day cannot remember him. His in-laws are even having a little trouble with it. Ed is so forgettable, in fact, that he has become accustomed to that blank stare he gets as people attempt to recognize him. At one point, the police who have already come to the shop to tell him that his wife is in prison arrive to tell him more bad news….and even they can’t place him by face.

But in the performance of his life, Billy Bob Thornton is going to make sure that you don’t forget Ed Crane, one of the most original cinematic characters in recent memory.

Ed doesn’t talk much. He doesn’t cotton to talking much. He has philosophical ideas about hair. He is the master of the art of the haircut. And when a man with a bad toupee enters his shop and tells him about a way to make a load of bread in the dry cleaning business, Ed starts to thinking. The problems start right there, since Ed is obviously a man who is not that good at thinking and not that accustomed to it. He rolls through life, taking whatever comes his way. When his idea about getting into the dry cleaning business suddenly involves blackmail, murder and teenage girls with a knack for the piano, Ed barely blinks an eyelid.

He barely lets it register in his infinitely calm face. He just constantly smokes his cigarettes (there is perhaps one scene, maybe even two, where a cigarette is not smoldering between his lips), says as little as possible, and lets life wash over him, unconcerned about where it might be taking him.

“The Man Who Wasn’t There” is the sort of film noir that might be well-charted territory. We all expect the elements: crimes going horribly wrong, unexpected developments, twists and serpentine turns, dames who are not quite saints, cheated husbands and the like. These elements have been a staple of cinema since time out of mind. It is the genius of the Coen brothers that they can find a fresh slant to this material, that they can make it fresh. The Coens seem to love cliches almost as much as they love tearing them inside out and turning them on their head.

The Coens are masters of a film like this. This movie takes them back to the sort of film they usually win the most raves for: films involving shady characters and crimes that go horribly awry. “Blood Simple” is their best previous example of this. “Fargo” is also a story cut from this cloth. They mined aspects of this for humor to classic effect in “The Big Lebowski”. At first, you may not be excited to hear about the movie. Even though it doesn’t involve a kidnapping, it still has most of the Coen hallmarks. But none of their other films have been centered around a character quite like Ed. No other film noir has either. Ed Crane is a glorious, simple and fascinating creation in the hands of the Coens and with the pulse of Billy Bob Thornton pounding inside him. And he is what elevates this film to such a distinctive plateau.

The film’s pacing is the key to its fabulous success. As in “The Big Lebowski”, the film is told through the eyes of the main character and shares most of his aspects. In “Lebowski”, The Dude was a lazy man and his story looked lazy and as though it added up to nothing, until later inspection, in which you find that its narrative is genius and it actually does tell a tight story after all, as seen from The Dude’s skewed perspective. You get Ed’s side of the story in “The Man Who Wasn’t There”, and therefore the film takes the same calm, laconic approach that Ed takes to his own life. It is a great way to tell a story, and it works magnificently.

Aside from the script and the remarkable direction, high kudos must go to the cinematography of Roger Deakins. Through a gorgeous use of black and white photography, he has easily created the most beautiful and sumptuous film of the year. There is a lyrical beauty to every street corner, to Ed’s barber pole, to the hairdos that Ed’s attention remains drawn to throughout the film. Dennis Gassner’s production design is also worthy of notice. He invents this world down to the last fallen hair from Ed’s barber chair. My God, this is a gorgeous film.

Then, the acting. I have already mentioned Thornton, but I don’t believe I have mentioned him enough. I always knew that the man was going to wow me one of these days, and he has done it at last. He creates Ed basically out of nothing. His character is alive and kicking from the first frame to the last, and we come to know him and understand him (as well as a man like Ed can be understood) yet he really hasn’t got that many lines and he smokes like a chimney. But he creates one of the most spellbinding performances of the year. Ed is a fabulous enigma, and it is a lot of fun spending two hours trying to figure him out. Frances McDormand is good in her role, but not much was required of her. She fills the character out nicely, however, and gives her subtle shading and nuances that a lesser actress would not.

The scene where she drinks too much at an in-law’s wedding reception is a comedic highlight of the film. I also like what Michael Badalucco does with the role of the ever-talking barber Frank. But one of the real standouts here is Tony Shalhoub. Oh, Tony Shalhoub! When will your greatness be recognized? If this movie doesn’t do it, then nothing will. He is a fast talking, big city lawyer named Freddy Riedenschieder who comes to defend several characters in the film. Freddy is, in fact, the best lawyer money can buy, and a man who refuses to lose a case, no matter what. “I litigate, I don’t capitulate!” I also liked the word of Scarlett Johanssen as Birdy, the piano prodigy, James Gandolfini as “Big” Dave Jenkins, Katherine Borowitz as his strange and quiet wife, and Jon Polito as the idea man in the bad rug.

It’s rare that a film can appear both subtle and quiet and still feel this rambunctious and fresh, but the Coens have achieved that rare alchemy in “The Man Who Wasn’t There” (which, by the way, is a marvelous title). A film this exuberant just goes to show you how excruciatingly cookie cutter most modern films are, and why I left so many of them with a glum expression.

“The Man Who Wasn’t There” is a salve for those poor souls like me, who have too often left the theater wishing for something more. “The Man Who Wasn’t There” delivers in ways you hadn’t even thought of. That is its brilliance.

Share on Facebook

By Dale Nauertz

Tonight I had the great pleasure of meeting an honest-to-God famous person. Well, a famous person that you may not know. Bruce Campbell: American cinema’s best kept secret.

For the uninitiated out there: Bruce Campbell is the star of the “Evil Dead” film trilogy. He is the man with the chainsaw hand. The guy who says things like “Groovy” and “Gimme some sugar, baby”. He is the epitome of cool in a zombie crisis situation. But the great thing about him in these movies is that he isn’t the brightest of guys. He’s just the only guy who is around to deal with the problem. He isn’t the greatest of heroes. He’s just the only person around. A bit of a jerk, really, but he has to rise to the challenge. Therein lies the greatness of Bruce Campbell. He’s a fearless actor.

Sure, he isn’t the greatest thespian ever to appear on film, but he has a real charm to him. There’s just something great about him. He’s not afraid to do anything on film. He’s genuinely funny, with a slapstick air about him and a technique with physical comedy that makes him a bit of an heir to the throne of Buster Keaton (look no further than the scene where his hand becomes possessed in “Evil Dead 2″, it’s a gutbuster). He also is a master of what I like to call “eyebrow acting”. “Eyebrow acting” is just how it sounds: it’s conveying emotions with the eyebrows. But some people just don’t know how to use eyebrows properly. They don’t know the delicate range of emotions that a great flick of the eyebrows can convey. It’s an art that a lot of actors just don’t make use of. I only notice it because, in my few cinematic roles (videos shot by Ben Heckendorn) I have been told that I am very good at using my eyebrows. Therefore, I tend to notice it in other actors. But that isn’t all that he does well. Like Kurt Russell at his best (though better than Kurt) he has mastered the art of underplaying in a crisis situation. He has mastered the art of the one-liner.

In short: he rules.

But enough of eyebrows and other things. During a fifteen minute Q and A session, Bruce answered many questions that even those who are not interested in zombie flicks might find interesting. One of Bruce’s upcoming roles, for example, is that of a wrestling announcer in his friend Sam Raimi’s new movie. A little movie called “Spider Man”. Perhaps you’ve heard about it. Anyways, Bruce has the pivotal role of the man who names Spider Man. Really! He’s the announcer of a wrestling match between Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man and “Macho Man” Randy Savage. Tobey tells Bruce that he is “The Human Spider” and Bruce shakes his head. He then announces him as “The Amazing Spider Man”. “So, without me, the movie would be called ‘The Human Spider’.”

Bruce also told us a little something about a film called “Bubba Ho Tep”. Now, get a load of the plot of this one: Bruce plays Elvis Presley at age 68, now living in a retirement home. Ossie Davis is also in the film, as an elderly man who believes that he is JFK. See, Ossie thinks that he was painted black and put in the retirement home and that part of his brain is still being kept alive in the White House somewhere. He also believes that there is an ancient Aztec mummy roaming the halls of the retirement home sucking the souls out of the patrons through their assholes. I could not make this shit up. But I am glad someone has. It sounds like the most gonzo premise since “Being John Malkovich” and I, for one, hope that it doesn’t go straight to video the way that some sacreligious fan suggested this evening.

He also said that he will not be involved in the fifth “Phantasm” movie. But I don’t think anyone really gave a shit about that one anyway. Though, if Bruce were in it…..

Anyway, Bruce is the most personable and fun guy you could ever hope to meet. He’s a wonderful guy who actually seems a lot less conceited than most average people I have met. He allowed me to have my picture taken with him and signed a copy of his book, which, by the way, is the reason that he was in town. It’s called “If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B-Movie Actor” and, unlike most books about celebrities, this one is about the harsh reality of working in Hollywood as told by one of those people who slave away at it for years without achieving super-stardom. Think about it for a second and you’ll realize just how cool a concept that is. We all know what life is like for the Bruce Willises and Steven Spielbergs of the world. But what about the, well, the Bruce Campbells? If this intrigues you, then I whole-heartedly urge you to rush out and pick up a copy of his book. It’s twenty-five bucks well spent, from what I read while waiting in line to shake hands with the man. That’s right, I actually SHOOK HANDS with the guy who played Brisco County Jr.

All this may not mean anything to you, but to the true movie nuts like me…well, it’s just plain awesome. I will never forget the night I met Bruce Campbell and I will always be able to look at what he wrote me in the front of his book and smile.

“Dale-

Hail to the King.

Bruce.”

Cool. I’m still giddy about it!

Share on Facebook

1987 / 106 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I shouldn’t be giving this movie an “A”. I’ll be mocked and ridiculed and laughed at. People will not take my opinion as seriously as they have before.

Yet, I cannot help myself.

Sometimes there is a movie that you know has a few flaws. The plot is kinda shaky, and falls apart as soon as you try to scrutinize it. Some of the situations are a little outlandish. There are a couple of continuity errors.

But you what? I don’t care. This movie is fun. A lot of fun. And that is all that it sets out to be. It wants to make you laugh and laugh very hard. And you know what? It does.

And it has two wonderful performances in it.

Dan Aykroyd is utterly perfect in this movie. He was born to deliver lines like: “Ma’am, what is the approximate dry weight of the average Madagascar fruit tree bat?” And Tom Hanks was born to reply: “You mean you don’t know?” If you thought that exchange of dialogue was hilarious, then you will no doubt enjoy “Dragnet”. Dan Aykroyd is all business. In fact, he takes the definition of this term to new, unprecedented heights. And Tom Hanks is perfect in an early comedic performance as his comic foil: the sort of man who represents everything that Joe Friday is against. Pep Streebek (oh, how I love that name) is a smart ass, a lone wolf, a cop who does whatever it takes to make a collar. Friday is so by-the-book that he could have written the book. Together, these two are a joy to watch. They are a great comedy team. Comedy seems to have forgotten how to make a comedy team. Today they just throw two Saturday Night Live alums together (who cares how they fit) and film it. They don’t try to make the characters into individuals, they don’t seem to even worry about what makes the pairing funny. But here, the two of them are polar opposites and it is a joy to watch.

Bottom line: this movie makes me very happy. I have always loved it. I always will love it. Not enough movies can do that much for me. That is the reason that I watched “Dragnet” about 75 times in a single summer. And that is the reason that I am giving it an “A”. No matter what people will say about me. How can you not love any movie that has Tom Hanks and Dan Aykroyd rapping over the end credits?

Oh, and the ending (which I would not dare ruin for you in a million years…but I will say that it involves a woman who is known as “The Virgin Connie Swail”) is just priceless.

Share on Facebook

1979 / 93 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Monty Python’s Life of Brian” is the closest to perfection that any Monty Python movie ever got. For one thing, it is the most consistently hilarious of all their flicks. There is hardly a moment that doesn’t elicit a pretty large laugh. There are not five minutes in the whole film that are not capable of provoking laughter from me somehow.

Another reason that it works so marvelously well is that it is completely on target with its satire. Most of the Python films are happy just to be silly and fun. This one is still quite silly and it is a hell of a lot of fun, but it also has a point. It is closer to reality than “Holy Grail” and, therefore, it is more of a clever satire than just a potpourri of bizarre events that trigger our laughter. “Life of Brian”, unlike the other Python films, actually has something to say.

“Life of Brian” is, not too surprisingly, the story of a man named Brian. Brian was born just down the block from Jesus Christ on December 25th. The very first scene of the film has the Three Wise Men visiting him in his crib before moving down the street to where the real action is. This is a very funny scene, but it also establishes the rest of the film. For the rest of his life, Brian’s close proximity to the Messiah will cause him nothing but problems.

The best bits of the film are when the Judean people (Not the “Judean People’s Front” mind you) start to mistake him for the Messiah and follow him. There is a lot of biting humor here. Not at the expense of Christ, mind you. Christ is only in one scene of this film and he is shown being very Christlike as he gives the sermon on the Mount. No, the humor here is in the people mistaking a common man for the Christ and the problems that such mistakes would bring with them. The satire is not making fun of Christ himself. Rather the movie is poking fun at the ridiculous crap that sometimes goes down in His name. It is making fun of religious pomposity and hypocrisy. It is poking fun at the way people are so desperate for leadership that they will sometimes follow anyone. It is about people getting the wrong idea.

And it is always hilarious, as I stated earlier. The Pythons were in rare form here. Even the jokes that should misfire have a wonderful way of working. My favorite bits? The part where Brian loses a sandal and his followers take it as a sign from God. I also loved the part where Brian’s mother starts to chastise his followers (”He’s not the Messiah. He’s a very naughty boy!”) and basically any scene involving the People’s Front of Judea. The whole film is just one brilliant joke, sight gag and line of dialogue after another, and worthy to be catalogued amongst the great screen comedies of all time.

Or, as one character would say, “worthy of Jehova”.

Share on Facebook