1975 / 89 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Much has been made of Monty Python over the years. Yes, they are funny. Yes, they are inspired. Yet I can’t help but think that, perhaps, TOO much has been made of them over the years.

That being said, however, I regard them as one of the funniest comedy troupes ever to come down the pike. Their mixture of the silly and the sophisticated, the sublime and the absurd, the irrational and the irritating, is an ingenious combination. I see its origins in the early movies of The Beatles as well as the work of the Marx Brothers. Yet the Monty Python boys took what came before them and managed to put their own insane stamp on it. They created a form of comedy that you either love to death or you just don’t get. It defies explanation, really. You can’t quite pinpoint why, exactly, a Monty Python sketch is funny. It just…IS funny. That’s all you can say about it. I don’t know why I laugh when I see a cow being launched in a catapult. I don’t know why I laugh at a man harping on and on about the legislative system of his country and protesting being called an old woman. There are some who would sit through such things and have no reaction whatsoever. I am not one of those people.

“Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, which is supposed to be the funniest of all the Python films, has many truly inspired and hilarious moments. More than I remembered, in fact. To list them would be pointless, seeing as how they are the reason to watch the film. Yet the film is pretty much pointless aside from them. The plot is threadbare to say the least and the characters are little more than sketches. The jokes? Some of them work. Examples? The afore-mentioned launching of the cow. The encounter with the French. The “temptation” of Sir Galahad. The wedding party and the way that Lancelot interrupts it. And, my personal favorite, an unexpected monster which guards a seemingly important castle.

The ones that don’t? Well, I have never seen all the humor in the Knights who say “Ni”. Kinda pointless, really. And the business with the guards who don’t know what they are supposed to do in the prince’s cell. That’s a bit more redundant than inspired. The animation really grinds everything to a halt whenever it appears (which is how I feel about the animation in any Monty Python enterprise). And the movie just, sorta…ends. It doesn’t wrap up loose ends, it doesn’t prove or solve anything. It feels less like a cohesive ending than the point at which the whole production just ran out of funds. Then again, the whole movie has that kind of feel to it. Some of it works, and some of it doesn’t and that is fine. I don’t mind that approach to comedy. “Airplane” even had a couple jokes that fell flat. Though, in comparison to this movie, not nearly as many. “Airplane” was ingenious. This one is merely really funny most of the time. And “Airplane” at least had fun mining its jokes for every ounce of humor and milking everything for all that it’s worth. It also seemed to know where it was going. It had more momentum than this one.

But all that is just the bitching of a critic. Bottom line: if you like this sort of thing, you will find much to like about “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. Chances are good that you will laugh and laugh often. Yet there are quite a few movies I would put above this one if we are talking Great Comedies of All Time, and if you want to see what makes Monty Python truly special, I might suggest checking out that infamous Parrot Sketch.

My friends, sketch comedy just doesn’t get any better than that.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 87 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Would you believe it if I told you I’ve seen worse?

“Freddy Got Fingered” is easily the most pointless film I have ever laid eyes on. It serves only as a construct for Tom Green to operate within to take his distinct brand of “comedy” to a new level.

After reading that, you’re probably puzzled by the fact that I am giving this film a “D” rather than an “F”. The reason for that, my friends, is a man by the name of Rip Torn. I have always appreciated this fine actor in films such as “Men In Black” and “Wonder Boys”. He is an intensely quotable actor with lines such as “We’re not hosting an intergalactic kegger down here!” and “I am a writer!” forever burned in my mind. In this film he is given the unenviable task of having to portray Tom Green’s father. Quite possibly the most difficult role of his career. A lesser actor would have drowned in the role, but Rip makes the most of it. For the most part, his character loathes his son and Rip is delightful as he berates Tom at practically every opportunity. Why is he berating him you ask? Well, other than the fact that it’s Tom Green, the film’s, ahem, “plot” attempts to sort some of this out for us.

Gord (Tom Green) is a 28 year old loser who dreams of one day hitting the big time in Hollywood with his very own animated show. So he goes to Hollywood and gets his dreams shot down, thus sending him, with his tail between his legs, back to his parents’ house. This is where Rip becomes involved. He is not pleased with the fact that Gord has come back home. For a short time he thought he was rid of the fool and then he shows back up on the doorstep. Rip’s other son, Freddy (Eddie Kaye Thomas), has carved out a nice living for himself in the banking industry and Rip doesn’t understand why Gord can’t make anything of himself. From here the film essentially does nothing more than display Gord trying to irritate his father while also still attempting to realize his dreams. This might not be so terrible if not for Tom Green’s influence over the movie.

Did you see the possibility, anywhere in the above plot synopsis, of the following occurring? Tom Green becoming all wild eyed at the sight of a horse penis and, as a result of this, leaping over a fence and chanting “I’m a farmer” while dutifully jerking the horse off. Tom Green caning a disabled woman’s legs so that she can receive sexual gratification. Tom Green delivering a baby, biting through the umbilical cord, and then, as if that wasn’t enough already, twirling the baby about the room by it’s umbilical cord. This is by far the most obscene thing I have ever seen in any film… Ever! Anybody who sees any humor in that needs to be put under supervision immediately. Let’s see. What else was there? Tom Green licking a friend’s open wound with delight. The neighbor kid being repeatedly injured in decidedly non-humorous ways. Tom running around in a deer skin, although he does get hit by a semi at this part, which was rather funny. It’s just a shame he didn’t step in front of the semi in reality. Our lives would be much better for it. Lastly, as if jacking the horse off wasn’t enough, Tom decided to jack off an elephant as well. I’m sure I’m forgetting some, but I have a feeling you get the idea.

All of the actors, with the exception of Tom Green, are slumming here. Eddie Kaye Thomas (better known as Finch in the “American Pie” movies) has the disastrous role of portraying Tom’s brother Freddy. Thankfully he doesn’t have much screen time so, with any luck, this role will register as merely a speed bump in his career, rather than an abyss from which it may never return. Julie Hagerty of “Airplane!” fame has little screen time as well, although it was nice to see her working if for no other reason than to know that she still has a pulse. I have already praised Rip Torn for his resolve under rather unpleasant circumstances. Lastly, I must make note of the performance of Marisa Coughlan who plays the aforementioned caning recipient. She doesn’t have much to work with, but she seemed to be a very genuine, good-natured person. I have a feeling that she’s a struggling young actress, who was about to be evicted from her home and so had to become involved in this doomed enterprise in order to fulfill her financial obligations. Hopefully she finds something a little worthier of her talents in her future endeavors.

Basically all that Tom Green proves with this film is that he has a great deal of disdain for small children, the disabled, any species of animal in existence, and last, but not least, the filmgoing public. The only reason that the film works on the lowest level that a film can work is due to the efforts of Rip Torn and the fact that virtually every character in the film has a dislike for Tom Green’s character.

This is not recommended viewing in any way, shape, or form. The only reason for watching this would be to see what a truly terrible film looks like, or to watch Rip Torn spew profanity liberally. This film plays like a course in how not to make a major motion picture. So, if you’re in the mood for that, then by all means check it out.

If you’re in the mood for Rip Torn, on the other hand, I would recommend films such as the two I mentioned earlier (”Men In Black” and “Wonder Boys”). They are infinitely better films and I think Rip and myself would sleep much easier at night knowing that people were getting their “Rip fix” in the form of those films rather than the hopeless enterprise that is “Freddy Got Fingered”.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 87 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Okay, let’s face it: “Freddy Got Fingered” is shit. If you haven’t figured that out by now, well, then I’m not exactly sure what’s wrong with you. It is shit for the following reasons.

A) Tom Green is in it, and I can’t offhand think of a less appealing person, let alone actor. I would rather eat moldy tangerines by the barrel than spend a prolonged period of time with this man. Unless he brought Drew Barrymore along, and then I might rethink this. But just Tom? Nope. He sucks. A lot. He is annoying to the nth degree. Just ghastly. And the crap he thinks is hilarious…..

B) The movie’s attempts at humor. Only Hitler would laugh at some of this crap. This is sick, sick shit. Tom delivers a baby, bites the umbilical cord to sever it, and then whirls the baby around the room by the cord. I mean, HUH? WHO the hell would think that is funny? I have no idea but I do not want to meet them, particularly in a dark alley. Other things that were supposed to be humorous in the context of this film include: Tom masturbating a horse, Tom masturbating an elephant, Tom being fellated by a woman in a wheelchair after beating her legs with a cane, a small child being sliced open by airplane propellers, and the molestation (or fingering) of Tom’s brother Freddy. Perhaps Tom thought that this stuff was so outrageous and twisted that it couldn’t help but be funny. But, as you should already know, Tom Green is something of an asshole/retard. So it isn’t. The ineptitude of the direction of these so-called hijinks doesn’t help either.

C) The plot. There isn’t any. Period. It’s just a random series of sick and disgusting incidents crudely masquerading as a film. The animated sequences are terrible. The dialogue is often excruciating. Tom’s acting is like watching a snake trying to swallow something far too big for its anatomy (make of that what you will), though that would probably be a lot funnier. Yes, folks, this is what passes for hilarity in the modern world. Weep now for the future.

So does anything work? Only one thing, folks. Only one element of this film kept me more entertained than “The Grinch” and “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” and that is…..

A) Rip Torn. That’s it. But he is hilarious. He plays Tom’s father: a man who only wants one thing out of life and that is for his son to get the hell out of the house. If you can’t identify with that motivation, well, you just aren’t trying. Rip is hysterical, as he is in every other film I have seen him in (rent “Summer Rental”, an overlooked John Candy comedy in which he plays a pirate owner of a nautically themed restaurant, it’s great stuff).

But other than that, it’s horrible tripe of the lowest caliber with only one thing to possibly redeem it. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say that redeemed the film. It just made it less excruciating to sit through.

This film is the reason I didn’t feel bad when Tom Green had to have a testicle removed. In my opinion, it couldn’t happen to a nicer fella.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 145 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

David Lynch, you’ve done it again. Now, hold on, before you call and reserve tickets, that isn’t necessarily a good thing.

I have never really cared for David Lynch. If that makes me a hopeless square, so be it. If that means I am not cool, not trendy, not a true cinema aficionado, well, whatever. I could give less of a shit. Lynch has always pissed me off for one simple reason: I can rarely tell what the fuck his movies are supposed to be about. He is capable of brilliance. After all, he did do “The Straight Story” which was simple and elegant in the way of a wonderful poem. In that movie, he was spot on in depicting the way people talked, the way they moved, the things they said and the things they left unsaid. “The Straight Story” was brilliant and beautiful and inspiring. It also gave me hope. I had hoped Lynch had turned a corner. Yes, I had heard that “Mulholland Drive” was a great film, one of the year’s best and perhaps Lynch’s greatest achievement. If his last film had been “Lost Highway”, then there is no way you would have gotten me near the theater. Because “Lost Highway” largely sucks. Sure, it had its moments. There is a chilling moment at a party where Bill Pullman is advised by a strange man to make a phone call to his own house….only to have the phone answered by himself. That moment rightly got on more than a couple “Creepies Moments in Cinema” lists. No one is better at darkness and depravity than David Lynch.

So far so good, right? Not quite. Because, while Dave does have a great idea of how to craft a creepy moment, he doesn’t really know how to add them up. “Lost Highway” was without punch because the film was a total washout. There was no sense to it, no purpose. It was a collage of images that, when you finally added them up, didn’t really mean anything. It was a meandering, sometimes intriguing, challenging and ultimately frustrating piece of crap. Well, I hate to break this to you, but “Mulholland Drive”, despite its presence on every top ten critic’s list I have seen, is completely fucked in the head.

The story. What is the story? Good question. I watched the whole movie and I couldn’t tell you. Every so often, I thought that the movie was going somewhere. I thought that there was some grand design behind it all. But I was wrong. The film concerns an amnesiac woman (Lara Harring) and the plucky young actress whose house she invades (Naomi Watts). The woman can only remember that she had been in a car accident on Mulholland Drive. In their attempts to piece together the events she underwent previous to her accident, the story meanders through wheelchair-bound dwarves, spontaneous Spanish speaking, a director named Adam whose wife appears to be getting boffed by Billy Ray Cyrus (I’m not kidding! I swear it’s him!), strange magic/music shows, lesbianism, and a man who is very picky about his espresso. None of it gels into anything remotely resembling sense. It flirts with having a point every so often, but ultimately, the film would rather just go nuts and show you a lot of strange imagery. Watching “Mulholland Drive” is about like taking a ride in a taxi and, just when you’re about to get to your destination, the driver bails out and you have no way of controlling the vehicle. And it’s less fun.

There are moments that are intriguing. There are interesting characters and ideas. In fact, that’s the thing that pissed me off so much about this movie. I cared about these characters. I wanted to know what was happening. I wanted to know what the purpose of it all was. But apparently, I cared more than Lynch did. In the end, David would rather just attempt to shock us and show us some creepy stuff. The film doesn’t even work on that level. More than once toward the end of this film, when I take it I was supposed to be creeped out, I was simply laughing at the ludicrous ineptitude of it all. It was more silly than suspenseful. And the lesbian scene, hot and welcome as it was, had all the point and purpose such a film has in a porno, except that it comes even more out of nowhere.

I could take all this if I thought there was some higher purpose behind it all, if there were some theme I could ponder and explore later. But there isn’t. If there is, I don’t know what the hell it is. I like a movie that challenges my intelligence, but I like this one doesn’t. It simply frustrates my intelligence. Just when I thought the movie did have a point, it did a complete 180 and left me scratching my ass. Maybe there is something there, down deep, very, very deep. But you know what? I have better things to do with my life. Yes, even I do. I don’t need to spend hours on the internet analyzing Lynch’s insane delusions. Thanks anyway. I prefer “The Straight Story” which explores interesting ideas and introduces intriguing characters without ultimately pissing me off.

If this is your sort of thing, then you’ll eat this shit up with a spoon. It isn’t mine. Say that I “didn’t get it”. Say that I’m an idiot. Whatever. I don’t give a shit. I don’t need this aggravation.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 145 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

After watching “Mulholland Drive” I was left with nothing but questions. This is often the case with exceptionally well constructed films such as “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Unfortunately, more often than not, this turns out to be the case with films that lack a sense of direction or purpose. In the case of “Mulholland Drive” it quickly becomes obvious that it belongs with the constituents of the latter, rather than the former.

“Mulholland Drive” has to be one of the strangest beasts of a movie that I have ever seen, and I don’t mean that in a good way. The first half hour borders on being laughably bad with dialogue that sounds as if it was lifted from the most hapless of soap operas. The next hour is what truly troubled me about the film. Not because it was bad, but because it was so good.

Within that hour it became a richly compelling experience that rivals the best the year 2001 has had to offer. You’ve got a woman with amnesia and her culture shocked roommate of sorts, attempting to piece together the amnesiac’s past, which apparently involves a purse full of money, a wheelchair bound dwarf (No, his name isn’t Gimli.), and a car accident. This is intriguing subject matter that does not disappoint. That is, until the final hour when, in typical Lynch fashion, it turns into a none to subtle mindfuck with absolutely no purpose other than to confuse and alienate its audience. At first it’s not so bad. It makes the viewer question whether what they just saw was a dream sequence, or possibly what they are currently viewing is the inner workings of a jilted lover. This would be all fine and good, but Lynch can’t leave it alone. He has to add a bunch of pomp and circumstance to the proceedings, which does nothing more than distort an already muddy picture.

In writing this review I think I have figured out the meaning behind this film, but I won’t share it so as not to spoil a possible viewing you might choose to undertake in the future. The problem with the meaning that I have interpreted, which I’m sure is incorrect, is that I only used about 80% of the film, whereas for any true meaning to be derived it should be supported 100% by the film’s content. The reason this happens is due to something called David Lynch. He is easily the most pretentious director I have ever come across in my time watching film. Just when things seem to be coming together he throws in a bunch of flashy non-related nonsense that pisses me off when it should be challenging me. This, by the way, is coming from someone who enjoys both flashy filmmaking and mindfuck movies as much as any other form of cinema. I site my love of “Vanilla Sky” as well as all things Brian De Palma as prime examples of this.

It’s a shame that the film was lacking any sense of direction, because the actors truly seemed to be giving it their all. Despite some incredibly flimsy dialogue at the film’s outset Naomi Watts still managed to turn in one of the years more memorable female performances in the role of the culture shocked roommate Betty Elms. She makes every moment come off as being so natural that you even manage to buy some of the ham fisted dialogue, she is forced to utter, as the sort of stuff that a naïve acting hopeful, arriving in Los Angeles for the first time, would say. The other performance of note is that of Lara Harring as the amnesiac woman Rita. She doesn’t manage to offer up the same level of genuineness that her costar does, but she still manages to turn in a finely crafted performance in what is definitely a difficult role to portray.

Now for those questions I mentioned earlier. These really gnawed at me and I feel I should lay them out for you so you know what you will be faced with if you choose to watch this movie despite my reservations about you spending your money in such a silly manner. What now follows is the questions followed by what I last saw regarding it during the film.

1. What was up with the wheelchair bound dwarf?

? All I knew about this guy was that he sat in the middle of a room with, I believe, green carpet, and a glass wall that people, who seemed to have a great deal of respect from him, could speak to him through. Sounds like the sort of thing you’d like to know more about doesn’t it? Well tough, because that’s all the more you ever get to find out.

2. What happened to Robert Forster?

? He shows up as a police investigator at the car crash that opens the movie, utters some awful dialogue and then leaves a minute later and is never seen or heard from again. I think his disappearance supports my theory about the film’s meaning, but still it pissed me off because I wanted to see more of this guy.

3. What was the deal with Dan Hedaya’s eyes?

? A short ways into the movie he shows up as a lawyer/agent of some sort that has a deal to make that apparently cannot be refused. I think it was on behalf of the dwarf, but I can’t be sure. The thing is, for his whopping five minutes of screen time, we get Dan Hedaya staring downward at a table that he pushes papers across. I wanted to know what that was all about, but that was left unresolved as well.

4. Is there something important about espresso that I don’t know about?

? During the same meeting that Hedaya was busy blindly passing offers out at, there is a dude who apparently enjoys a fine espresso. So much so that the people he is meeting with have it made special for him whenever he is around. Problem is, he spits the stuff out on a napkin when he drinks it, which is never a good sign. The film dwells on this long enough that I am forced to ponder the intricacies of a fine espresso. I don’t think there is, but if I’m missing something be sure and let me know.

5. We’ve got lesbians!!! But why?

? I am not complaining about the simultaneous nakedness of two of the most gorgeous creatures to share the screen in some time, but where were the clues, that should have been laced throughout the film, to at least hint that things were going to head in this direction at some point. Two hot chicks are trying to solve a mystery and then all of a sudden they hop in the sack together. Once again, nothing wrong with the nakedness, but it would be nice if it was at least hinted at.

6. What was the significance of the spontaneous Spanish speaking by a lesbian and blue haired gypsy wannabe near the end of the film?

? Out of nowhere we suddenly have “silencio” becoming the word of choice for people far and near, whether they be slumbering lesbians or balcony inhabiting blue haired gypsy wannabes. I am still uncertain of what this nonsense was all about. More than likely it was just Lynch being a megalomaniacal retard again, but I guess that’s open to interpretation.

I’m sure I had other questions after watching this film, but I can’t remember what they were, nor do I care to.

For the majority of its runtime “Mulholland Drive” suffers from ridiculous dialogue and the self righteous meddling of its director. Unfortunately, the film is not a complete piece of crap due to the middle hour that borders on brilliance before falling prey to the convoluted happenstance that plagues the film during its final hour. Lynch is a good director with good ideas. It’s just a shame that he seems to be inept when it comes to bringing a good idea to fruition.

“Mulholland Drive” leaves the viewer with many unresolved questions that frustrate, rather than inspire making it yet another in a long line of films that demonstrate the ineptitude of David Lynch as a filmmaker.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 121 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I had forgotten what it was like to completely surrender to a film, to get so caught up in it that I scarcely gave a thought to anything outside the margins of the screen, until about midway through “From Hell”. The characters, the music, the deliriously effective editing, the amazing visuals and the haunting and chilling atmosphere. It all wrapped me in a fog as dense as that of 1888 London itself and I found myself unable to look away. The film is a hypnotic web of a thriller and I was but a fly caught in the sticky, disturbing web of its creation.

“From Hell” is a fictitious exploration of the hunt for Jack the Ripper. Jack the Ripper, as you all should know, was the first of all the modern serial killers. For a short time in the late 1800’s, Jack menaced the foggy streets of London, stalking and slaughtering several prostitutes until, inexplicably, the murders stopped. They just ceased and desisted. The infamous Jack was never caught. No one ever discovered his identity. His identity remains an enigma to this very day, more than a hundred years later. “From Hell” is a “what if” film, showing us what might have happened. It explains why the Ripper might have had the knowledge of human anatomy that he did, one so encyclopedic that, working in fog-shrouded, shadowy alleys in the middle of the night, he was able to remove vital organs with a grisly surgeon’s precision. It posits a theory on how he selected his victims. It provides a hypothesis on why he murdered them.

With a dazzling mastery of conspiracy theory unprecedented since Oliver Stone brought us “JFK”, “From Hell” gives us a fictional account behind the scenes of one of the most fascinating mysteries of all time. The conspiracy that the opium and laudanum addled Inspector Abberline (Johnny Depp) uncovers is never less than absorbing. It has enough twists and turns for three other films, and none of them seem like extraneous plot developments designed simply to keep the viewer awake. When you think it over later, the plot all makes sense.

From the first frame of this film, I was hooked. And Abberline’s character is a marvelous creation. He is a mysterious addict, yet he always gains our sympathies. He is a deeply flawed man with his own secrets and a strange gift for seeing the murders before they even happen. Depp is great here. He doesn’t show off. He doesn’t need to. The “look at me” flourishes another actor would be tempted to throw in would detract from the mesmerizing visuals and framework of the film. Depp is perfect here, as in most of his films, for his ability as a chameleon. This is a totally different creature from men like Ed Wood, Ichabod Crane and Hunter S. Thompson, other characters that Depp has inhabited, and those with a wild and sensational zest. He is more low key here, because the film requires it of him. In the other roles I have mentioned, his bizarre overtones added to the film. Such outlandish shenanigans would not have worked here, so Depp confidently eschews them for this remarkable approach.

But I must also commend Heather Graham. Most of the time, I find her to be an extremely attractive woman (and the display of cleavage she brings to this film does not hurt its grade any) but here she actually is required to act. She does an admirable job as a ditz (see “Bowfinger”) and a slut (see anything else she’s in) but, for the first time since perhaps “Boogie Nights” more is needed of her. And she rises to the challenge, giving us a complicated woman who has prostituted her body but not her mind or her emotions. She is a woman who has made some tough and admittedly bad choices, but she has had the strength to retain her dignity. At first I thought that the relationship which develops between Depp and her might not work, that it might wobble and throw off the story. But it only enhances the tale, and actually serves a purpose in the narrative, unlike most movie romances. And the two leads give an adequate impression of chemistry when they are onscreen together. The relationship does progress a tad quickly, but then again, the movie has a lot of ground to cover.

The Hughes Brothers have done a superb job here. I liked the fact that they are black filmmakers, yet they did not want to get pigeonholed doing ghetto gangsta movies. There’s nothing wrong with a filmmaker like Spike Lee, who only wants to do issue films and nothing else. But I admire the Hughes Brothers for wanting to branch out and do something else. They show a remarkable flair with the camera (the opening shot alone is better than anything I’ve seen in a John Singleton film) and editing. The editor and screenwriters should likewise be commended, for the solidity of the tale being told. But many of the transitions are utterly flawless. The film is never less than intriguing. And it is also quite scary at times. The moment when the camera starts on the Ripper’s back as he saws away at one of his victims, then moves slowly away from him, yet never leaves him entirely, is one of the creepiest things I have ever seen. The film at times moves from scene to scene with the finesse of Hitchcock or Scorsese. The atmosphere of the film is almost tangible. London itself becomes a character, and one of great dread and almost unbearable suspense at times. The gore has been slammed in this film, but I found the film’s use of violence to be sparing and effective. It’s interesting how little we actually see of the Ripper’s heinous crimes, yet the film makes us feel that we have seen far more.

It’s chilling, it’s unsettling, it’s got a delightfully creepy atmosphere and a possession over the viewer. It sucked me in, thrilled me, scared me, held my attention and kept me poised at the edge of my seat for its entire length. It also fascinated me and made me think, and not just about the Ripper. The dark side of the medical establishment, the importance of country and the lengths that one should go to protect it (how far is too far), the moral questions surrounding lobotomy, and the inherent racism of the police are all explored within the context of this film. So is the classic chestnut of evil and its qualities and ramifications. Robbie Coltrane and Ian Holm are two of the other actors in the piece that I must give high marks. They are excellent here.

See “From Hell”. No thriller in years has come close to it. And it’s a perfect movie for the upcoming Halloween season.

Share on Facebook

2001 / 122 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Bandits” is more than just a hell of a lot of fun. It’s fun with a heart. It’s fun with a soul. It’s well-written, well-acted, original and unique. It’s not just another dumbass action movie. There is action in it, and the action is exciting. But it’s more than that. This film isn’t about providing you with two hours of adrenaline. But you know what? I don’t mind. I loved it, in fact. It respected my intelligence far more than any other action film I have seen this year. It’s exciting, yes, and Bruce Willis does get to look cool and fire a gun and rob banks (I didn’t realize how much I had missed Bruce doing things like this, God, it’s so refreshing!) but it’s also something even better. It has something that is sorely lacking from most films of this ilk.

Charm.

Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thornton (the guy who gets to go home to the stars of “Tomb Raider” every night) portray Joe and Terry. Joe and Terry are in prison and are best friends (one wonders how the hell these two hooked up, but they care for one another so it doesn’t matter). Until one day, when Joe decides, on a whim, to break out and Terry comes along with him: mainly because there are too many things in prison that he is allergic to. Once on the outside, Joe immediately robs a bank and steals a car.

Once they cleverly elude the police, Terry comes up with a brilliant idea. What if they hit the bank managers’ houses the night before and forced the managers to let them in before the bank began its business day? Before all the guards and customers arrive? Joe takes immediately to the notion and before long, that is just what they are doing…and with great success.

Until the day that an unfulfilled housewife and rabid Bonnie Tyler fan named Kate careens into their lives (played to perfection by Cate Blanchett). You can’t really say that she was abducted, since she seems more to be abducting Terry than the other way around. Soon she is cozying up to both men, becoming an important part of the gang, and complicating everyone’s lives in unique ways.

That’s all I will tell you about the film’s plot. This movie’s plot is one of its chief pleasures. It doesn’t have one hairpin turn after another like some movies. But there are twists and subtle little surprises. There are many things that you won’t see coming, no matter how closely you are paying attention, and nearly all of these things will bring a wide smile to your face. The twists are not the reason for the film’s existence, either. They are merely the icing on a delightful cake.

The performers all hit the right notes. Billy Bob Thornton and Bruce Willis are both perfect as a cross between Butch and Sundance and Oscar and Felix. They’re wonderful here. Thornton is a perfect ball of neuroses and Bruce, oh, boy, Bruce! Bruce is a fucking stud in this film, pure and simple! Every woman he meets seems to drip over him in this film, from the first frame to the last. Not only that, but he’s the coolest in this that he has been in many a year. Those who love Willis will find a great deal to love here. He rules, ladies and gentlemen! He’s simply great, charming and smooth and a joy to watch. So is Thornton, though his role is pretty much the antithesis of Willis’s. Willis is the smooth operator. Thornton is the guy who thinks too much for his own good, yet pulls a great many inspired ideas out of his ass. And Blanchett is excellent as always as the woman who brightens the moments she meets these men and finds, in them, new reason to live. She is great. And together, the three of them are a remarkable team. I was continually reminded by these three of the relationship between Newman, Redford and Katherine Ross in “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”. These three may even equal the performances of those three.

The film has a laid back nature that I found refreshing. Director Barry Levinson knows the strengths of his story and his quirky and well-rounded characters. He lets the story and characters breathe, and the film is a better one for it. It’s a great, quirky tale told just as it needs to be told. Okay, maybe not perfectly. I wished that the film had not began at the end of its tale (which is a gimmick that’s getting utilized a great deal these days). The film, I believe, would have been better had it just progressed from beginning to end in the standard way. But that is a very minor gripe. Otherwise, it is great all across the board. It’s a wonderful, sweet, cool, well-made film of the sort that we haven’t really had since the glory days of Newman and Redford. All the actors are great, the direction is great, the writing is sharp and all the planets seemed to have aligned for this one.

Plus, you get to see Willis be a cool dude once again. That alone may be worth the price of admission.

Share on Facebook

1990 / 169 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

I am handing this film the best grade of all three Godfather films, because it takes what made the first “Godfather” film so good and expands on it in ways that make it the most enjoyable, thrilling, and engaging of the three films.

“The Godfather Part III” is essentially the first installment set thirty years later. Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is in the role of Godfather, which was occupied by his father Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) in the first film. Both of these men had sons who wanted nothing to to do with the family business. Both of them had a hot-headed relative whose lack of thought before action threatens to ruin all that the family has achieved. Both films have their respective Godfathers being hospitalized after the the first hour of each film. Both have finales that have the Godfather attending an event while a series of orchestrated hits are put into action against those who have acted against the family. I’m sure there are similarities that I am failing to mention, but these are the key ones that need to be noted.

The main difference between this film and the first is that this time around the Godfather is trying to do things legitimately. Although I guess it can be said that even Brando’s Godfather was a man of principal since he would not allow the family to enter into the business of narcotics, despite the obvious financial advantages, because it was not the sort of business the he did. Pacino’s Godfather wants to set the record straight and restore dignity and honor to his family’s name. He does this by making a sizable donation to the impoverished people of Sicily and angling towards a stake in a large European organization called Immobiliare. He finds that these attempts are futile as, just as he thinks he’s out, he gets pulled back into the mob game.

Other storylines are interweaved with Pacino’s such as the budding romance between Pacino’s daughter (Sofia Coppola) and his nephew (Andy Garcia). This is an interesting plotline that the Godfather does not want to see develop any further. He attempts, on numerous occasions, to persuade his hot-headed nephew, who is the son of James Caan’s Sonny from the first movie, to stay away from his daughter. He gets little in the line of results from his pleas. There are also threads involving a dying Pope, a local thug who bites off a little more than he can chew, and the Godfather’s entertainer son.

These various plots are all weaved together flawlessly by Francis Ford Coppola, who displays some of his well renowned visual flair in this film, whereas it seemed to be fairly lacking in the first two parts. This film has a very nice flow to it that carries it from beginning to end with a grace and beauty that have come to expect from Coppola after seeing films such as “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and “Apocalypse Now”. He has a knack for finding beauty in the most obscene of stories and unlikeliest of places. He finds the beauty in death and inner turmoil and manages to explore it to it’s fullest extent. This film definitely stands as one of his finest works.

This film manages such lofty praise due to it’s strong performances from the two male leads. Al Pacino delivers one of the best, if not the best, performances of his career. He takes the man he made decidedly one-dimensional in the second installment and makes him as human as it is possible to make a mob boss. The range he demonstrates in this film is exceptional. He is man who loves a family that barely even exists anymore. His brothers are all dead and his sister is little more than a sheep following the herd. His wife is gone. Both of his children reject the lives he wants them to have. Despite all this he thinks he can make right out of his life by making the family business legit. He finds this to be a difficult proposition and will find himself overwhelmed in more ways than one before the film comes to it’s thrilling conclusion.

The other notable performance I alluded to is that of Andy Garcia (”The Untouchables”). He is a live-wire ready to shock the shit out of anything that comes near him. Much like his father, he is quick to seek out violence as the answer to the family’s problems. He resorts to his whims against the wishes of the Godfather, which never results in good things for anyone involved. Garcia has to deal with the restraints of his position in the family, as well as the mixed feelings of forbidden love that he has for the Godfather’s daughter. Garcia delivers a very well restrained performance that walks the tightrope of control, or lack thereof, with a steady brilliance.

The only real blight on this film is the much-maligned performance of Sofia Coppola. She proves, with this performance, that she is a much better director (”The Virgin Suicides”) than actress. In all fairness I can’t say that it’s all her fault. I think her father and Mario Puzo fell asleep at the wheel while writing the lines for her character. They wrote her lines, as if they were for a twelve year old girl, rather than for a woman in her early twenties. Even Meryl Streep would have a hard time digesting these lines if she were handed them. Thankfully Sofia’s character pays off, as she delivers one of the films more poignant scenes at the height of the film’s emotional arc.

Until the final twenty minutes, this film was in a dead heat with the first installment for the honor of best of the trilogy. It was at this point that it raised the bar and pulled ahead of the first two with relative ease. This is a direct result of the way Coppola constructs the brilliant conclusion to this epic saga of a trilogy that spans some nine hours of film time in total. He does so by taking the same elements that made the conclusion of the first film so gripping and adding in a fairly large helping of emotion to the mix. By doing this he maximizes the viewer’s attachment to the film at the very end of the entire trilogy’s arc, which makes for a wonderfully satisfying conclusion that I wouldn’t dare spoil for anyone.

The hardcore “Godfather” fans of the world don’t seem to care too much for this film. I can’t say I know why. To me “The Godfather Part III” takes the best elements of the previous two films and refines them to create a better crafted and smoother paced film that should keep the most militant of filmgoers planted in their seats from beginning to end.

Plus it’s a hell of a lot better sequel than “The Godfather Part II”.

Share on Facebook

1974 / 200 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

When one brings up the subject of the greatest sequels ever made, it seems that this film’s name is always mentioned. Granted the ingredients are there for something great to happen. You take the majority of the cast from “The Godfather” and add Robert Deniro (”Taxi Driver”) into the mix. One would think that only great things could come from a collaboration such as this.

The only problem is that Al Pacino (”The Insider”) doesn’t hold up his end of the show. This movie is nearly three and a half hours long and as a result feels like two movies. The beauty is that, that’s the intention. You have Michael Corleone’s (Al Pacino) attempts to maintain control over the family’s affairs and assert himself as the new “Godfather” comprising one of the film’s threads. The other is a look back to Vito Corleone’s (Robert Deniro) rise from an orphaned childhood to a man known simply as “The Godfather”.

Michael’s thread is easily the downfall of the film. It has some interesting ideas behind it. I like the fact that you get to see what the Corleone family’s operations are like in Las Vegas, Miami and even Havana. I like the idea that you see Michael having to deal with the concept of betrayal by those closest to him. What I don’t like is Pacino’s performance here. He didn’t blow me away in “The Godfather” either, but I thought he did a good job. Here he becomes incredibly one-dimensional, as he seemingly attempts to become Brando’s version of the “Godfather” rather than his own. He doesn’t even do a good job of trying to be Brando. I’m not saying the man is horrible here, but I’ve seen him do much better.

The other part of the movie, involving Vito Corleone, is riveting. You first see him as a boy in a harrowing scene that leaves him orphaned. He makes the exodus to New York and manages to meet a woman, have children and lead a fairly normal life. Then he runs into some smug prick who goes around the neighborhood collecting tributes from the local shopkeepers to keep them out of trouble. Deniro takes care of this situation in his own way. He opens his own store, which will become the front for his underhanded dealings that lead to the life that we saw Marlon Brando live in “The Godfather”.

I don’t think Deniro can deliver a poor performance. When I was younger I never understood what all the fuss was about with him. Having since seen him in a great deal of his work I now understand. This man is a force of nature. He takes the role and treats it as if it is the life he has always lived. He does with every role what Anthony Hopkins has done in his two stints as Hannibal Lecter. He inhabits the character and makes him come alive in ways that few actors have the ability to do.

The difference between the two storylines is that Vito’s is full of interest, whereas Michael’s is disturbingly non-compelling. Michael’s storyline does have some stirring scenes, such as the one when he has an argument with his wife and she discloses a truth about their relationship that must have been quite a jarring moment back in 1974 when this film was released. The attempt on his life was pretty cool as well.

But you see. That’s the problem. With Michael’s story I have to pick out the things I liked. With Vito’s that is not the case. His story paints a beautiful picture that fascinates every step of the way. It’s too bad the other story couldn’t have held up as well as this one.

Director Francis Ford Coppola tries to rekindle some of the magic that was present in the first film, but comes up empty-handed for the most part. He constructs some of the most beautiful transitions when going from Michael’s story to Vito’s. It never seemed that these great transitions ever went the other way though. I can’t remember anything spectacular, in this respect, when going from Vito’s story back to Michael’s. Maybe this tells us that even Coppola himself cared more about getting to Vito’s story than getting back to telling Michael’s. I doubt it, but I’d like to think that was the case.

This whole time travel concept in relation to the goings on of the mob was done much better in Sergio Leone’s “Once Upon a Time in America” a decade after this film’s release. That film effortlessly glides between different periods of time with an ease and grace that “The Godfather Part II” should have had. Maybe it would have, had Sergio not turned down directing “The Godfather”, because he had plans of making his own mob epic, which he eventually did with “Once Upon a Time in America”.

I started this review by talking about sequels that are considered to be great. Despite Deniro’s efforts this film will not be seen in any sort of great sequels list coming from me.

I save that realm for films the likes of “The Silence of the Lambs”, “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Back To The Future II”.

Share on Facebook

1972 / 175 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

What a difference a second viewing makes!

When I first saw this film, I thought it was heavy-handed, manipulative and about as appealing as a plague victim in heat. That was about a year ago. Now, for whatever reason, I have chosen to revisit it and I must say that I am glad I did. Virtually all of the flaws I saw the first time around were erased with this second viewing. It still has that uneasy tendency to put the mob on a pedestal that I find decidedly inflammatory and it does lose itself momentarily in the final half hour, but, regardless, I must admit that I find it to be quite compelling overall.

What was so much different this time around you ask? I can quite honestly say that I do not have the answer to that question. Maybe I wanted to hate it. Maybe I didn’t read the label properly and drank the mouthwash rather than gargling it. Maybe I watched the almighty “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” earlier in the day and was shocked and damaged by the fact that many people in the world consider the pathetic weasel of a film that is “The Godfather” to be a finer film. Maybe… Maybe… Maybe. I’m sure I had reasons. Valid or not. I had them.

Now that I have mined my well of ineptitude for a substantial period of time, let’s take a look at the movie itself for a change. After all, I am supposed to be reviewing it.

We begin with a wedding. Not just any wedding, mind you. It is the wedding of the Godfather’s daughter to some schmuck who will inevitably get on the bad side of his new family, as is the case with most of the people in this film. It should be a day of rejoicing and celebration, but for the Godfather it means taking requests and seeing them through. He is Sicilian (Of course!) and cannot turn down a request on the wedding day of his daughter. Some goofy tradition or something I guess. Regardless, it sets up the key ingredients of the film. Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone AKA “The Godfather”, James Caan as his son Sonny, Robert Duvall as Vito’s adopted son and lawyer Tom, and Al Pacino as his war hero son Michael.

These are the people who mean something in the world of the Godfather. He is a man who will dispatch his men to carry out a hit while bouncing a grandchild on his knee. He is a man who loves his family more than anything and will do anything to ensure their livelihood. He doesn’t consider one to be a true man unless he spends time with his family whenever possible.

It doesn’t take long to realize that it is not wise to piss this man off. Animals are beheaded, muggers killed, and struggling entertainers are given jobs thanks to this man. All is going well in his world until a hit is carried out, due to his lack of interest in the drug trade, that leaves the family in the hands of his eldest son Sonny.

Sonny has a fiery temper and is not fit to lead. He knows how to be on the physical end of things, but he doesn’t know when to pull his punches. Tom attempts to guide him with limited results. Meanwhile, Michael has never been one to be tempted to take part in the family business, but, with the tension increasing after the assault on his father and Sonny’s halfwit decision-making, it becomes more and more apparent that he will have to step in if there is to be anything left of the family.

Director Francis Ford Coppola has made better films than this, but that is no slight when you consider the fact that he is responsible for films like “Apocalypse Now”, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and “The Conversation” to name a few. He manages to helm the ship fairly well here keeping the down time to a minimum. Most of the down time that does occur happens with about half an hour left, which is unfortunate, because it bogs the film down slightly when it should be building towards it’s stunning finish. Overall though, a fine job by a man who had many great things ahead of him after this film.

It used to be that when people talked about this film they spoke of Marlon Brando. Recently, however, it seems people have brushed him aside and cast their attention towards Pacino’s performance, which is completely without merit. Brando is the lifeforce of this film. Without him, this film would fall back into the average bin where I had once placed it. His is easily (and surpisingly) the most developed character in the film, even though the film’s focus shifts strongly towards Michael after the first hour. The layers that Brando brings to this man, who could have very easily played as a hollow caricature, are extraordinary. When I think of this film, I think of him as a grandfather playing “monster” with his grandson. I think of him gaining and maintaining the respect of his friends through words first, and then actions if necessary. Beautifully done. Marlon Brando, I salute you.

Pacino does a good enough job with the role of Michael. The son of a mob boss who wants nothing to do with the “business”. Now that has possibilities. Possibilities that are explored with a great deal of care and attention by Coppola and Pacino, for the most part. Something I didn’t care for is how quick Michael is to change colors when his father has been attacked. Granted that would piss me off too, but he suddenly goes gangster with the blood in his veins suddenly turning to ice and him knowing exactly how things should be handled even though he has been away during wartime and never wanted to have anything to with the “business” in the first place. I guess I’ll let it slide though. Desperate times, desperate measures and all that nonsense.

The rest of the cast fills their roles nicely. James Caan as the hot-headed (Can he play anything else?) Sonny. The scenes that show him becoming enraged by his brother-in-law’s actions towards his sister are very well done. Speaking of his sister, Talia Shire (YO ADRIENNE!!! herself) does some solid work here in a role that doesn’t give her much more to do than get pissed and cry. Robert Duvall turns in his usual awe-inspiring performance as the adopted son turned family lawyer, Tom. He has many great moments, and he makes the most of them as always.

Anything else notable about this film? Let’s see. I can’t think of much else other than the infamous scene involving the horse and the “baptism in fire” ending (Which is one of the more masterfully done conclusions to a film that I have seen.). The only other thing worth mentioning is this film’s subtle pretentiousness that only irked me a couple of times. Every so often, when watching this film, I get the unsettling feeling that I am being preached to. “Jason bow down and kiss my big-bloated Grand Canyon of an ass.” At that moment, I tell the movie to piss off and the preaching diminishes. If I wanted to bow down and worship I would put in an Eastwood movie, and be on my knees with lips puckered. But guess what. This isn’t an Eastwood movie and inevitably that means that I’m not in my pew on Sunday kissing this film’s celluloid ass.

Now then. Sorry for the tirade, but I don’t need to be sermonized by a bunch of pretentious fools in suits that have speech patterns that have speech therapists, the world over, wincing in pain.

Despite that little diatribe at the end, I did find “The Godfather” to be a surprisingly entertaining film. While not being the greatest film ever made, as some would have you believe, it is a film that can rest on it’s own laurels and be assured of it’s status as a finely crafted film that even I couldn’t bring down from it’s pedestal.

Although, if it starts getting overly preachy again (Like it did the first viewing.), I may be forced to revise this review as I see fit.

Godfather….. You’ve been warned.

Share on Facebook