Review: The Punisher
April 27, 2004; Regal Cinemas Falmouth #6
* (out of four)

This was atrocious.

There is nothing else that comes to mind. A few good performances - the shreds of redeeming qualities that earned this movie one star - were so overpowered by Hollywood crap that they are entirely insignificant. This movie is unrelentingly dark, unforgivingly brutal, and inexcusably formulaic.

But first, the good, because there's so little of it that putting it at the end would be the same as writing it off entirely. Some people do their job well, or at least as well as they can. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, playing a neighbor of Frank Castle (Thomas Jane) later in the movie, tries hard. Unfortunately, she's so bogged down with a complete lack of developement, terrible dialogue, and some awful attempts at romance (to show that Castle is devoid of real human emotion) that nothing she does will be good enough to cut through the crap. And even though Howard Saint (John Travolta) is a cardboard villain, Travolta's good at that. He's not trying hard - there's no need for him to - he makes Saint very convincing when motivated by his hate for Castle or possessive jealousy about his wife.

Beyond those faint glimmers of light... whooo boy. First off, this movie is dark. Completely. There's no relief. It works in the beginning, because it sets up that the massacre of Castle's family is serious stuff, and that his subsequent revenge is also deadly serious... but then they try to shove down our throats that the fight between Castle and The Russian (Kevin Nash) is funny... and it's just not. None of it is. Thus, this becomes a story about a man on a killing spree, with no breaks for anything lighter, and that's hard to watch for two hours.

Frank Castle is another issue. Thomas Jane plays the part well; he's disconnected, antisocial, recklessly driven... but it all starts too soon. With the exception of him being maybe a little bit angrier and quieter, there was no real distinct difference in Castle before and after the massacre. It was like he knew what was coming, and had already given up before a single shot was fired.

Above all else, this movie fits perfectly and unoriginally into the action formula. There's a happy exposition - mind you, it is the bare minimum that must be told to get the audience up to speed - a car chase, a gunfight, a fist fight, and stuff blows up. Anything in between these events is uninspired, and exists only to make the movie longer and give some semblance of plot. Also consider that the dialogue is ridiculous; one-liners like "God's gonna sit this one out" or "They have something to lose" are insulting to anyone old enough to get past the R rating. From what I've read, The Punisher actually has a decent story. Marvel's made good money off the character, so there must be something worthwhile... why didn't any of it get used?

Review: Man on Fire
April 26, 2004; Regal Cinemas Falmouth #1
* * 1/4

It feels like revenge movies have had a bit of a resurgence in the last year. Kill Bill, The Punisher, Walking Tall, Man on Fire... in each film, the lead character is seeking some measure of vengeance against those who have destoryed their lives or hurt their families. Some, like Kill Bill, portray and justify this exceptionally well. Others fail in these ambitions, and unfortunately Man on Fire falls into the latter category.

There's just not enough feeling to the movie. Entertainment is so flooded with violence at this point that in order for an audience to really connect to and feel the true weight and severity of extreme violence as a legitimate course of action, the audience must be able to feel like the violence is justified. That means the good guy must be shown to suffer greatly before the violence ensues, and the bad guys must be shown to deserve everything they get. Every member of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad got precisely what was coming to them in the Kill Bill duology, and before it even started, we knew that because of what she went through, the Bride needed to be the one to dish out the justice. That setup is nonexistent in Man on Fire. Yes, we see that Creasy (Denzel Washington) really does care for Pita (Dakota Fanning), the girl he's been hired to protect, and is heartbroken and destroyed by the news of her death. But there's never any real indication of what sorrow she brought him out of. It was obvious he was depressed and upset, but it's never made clear as to why. There's just this progression of miserable, happy, destroyed, homicidal which doesn't sit as normal or human. Denzel does the best he can with it and does well, as the world has come to expect him to, but it didn't feel like he got a whole lot to work with, character-wise.

It also felt like director Tony Scott was really trying to be daring with his camera, using quick montages and effects to create some disjoined symbol for the way Creasy's mind was working at the time, but he overlooked the benefits of keeping a camera still and steady in order to tell the story through showing the action. Creasy's acts and his demeanor while committing them speak for themselves; the audience doesn't need help to realize that this is a man who has been driven to the brink of insanity by the death of this little girl. The effort is there for the 'big picture' image, but he's trying too hard.

This was a hard movie to judge. Denzel is as good as he can be with what he has, and Dakota Fanning has more talent than a good amount of established actors three or four times her age - for her to be so convincing at her age with some of the things this movie put her through is astounding. Unfortunately, the movie is visually not well-constructed, and Creasy's justification is weak at best. And it's long. 40 minutes could have been cut out of this movie and not have been missed, so long as there was no reduction to screen time between Dakota and Denzel. Their scenes are by far the film's best, but as the focus shifts quickly away from them together, the movie loses its overall focus as well.

Review: Punch-Drunk Love (VHS)
April 25, 2004; Matt's Living Room (Maine)
* * * 1/2

I missed this the first time around and have passed on borrowing it a few times from Jay, but finally rented it with a friend last night to kill some initial home-from-college boredom. Granted, Punch-Drunk Love is not what anyone expects from Adam Sandler, but no one ever said that was a bad thing either.

Instead of his usual fare of bathroom humor and over-the-top cartoonish violence, Sandler gives a performance that makes me wonder why he's been wasting his time on low-brow crap for the past few years. His Barry Egan is similar to Happy Gilmore or Billy Madison, but the difference is that while in all his other movies the camera rolls until he breaks something (giving the oh-so-"funny" punchline), here director Paul Thomas Anderson lets the camera roll to see what happens to Egan after he messes up; it shows how he deals with it, and it shows Egan as a character who doesn't want to be that way, but he can't stop because he really doesn't like who he is.

What allows him to stop is his relationship with Lena Leonard (Emily Watson); he finds someone he can truly care about and it gives him a reason to pick up his life and put it back together. Nevermind that this relationship is pretty messed up - Egan tells her that her face is so beautiful, he wants to smash it in with a sledehammer - the point is that each character cures the other of a loneliness they had yet to find a way out of. This is a crystal-clear proclamation of the inspirational power of love: Egan drags himself out of a massive hole he's fallen into between his sisters and an extortion attempt, and there's no way he could have done it without meeting and falling for Lena. Their relationship could be a tough sell - the movie is barely an hour and a half, and their first date doesn't come until 40 minutes in, but Sandler and Watson both pour themselves into it entirely, and make it completely convincing.

This is a step for Sandler - he progresses beyond the amoral jerks with hearts of gold he tends towards, but he's still playing entirely awkward and uncomfortable in any social situation. He's good at it, but now that he's shown he can do more than people expect, it's getting near time to expand on that and show how much more. Nevertheless, this is a good, real little romance that is sold by the two stars.

Location Update

As I have relocated home to Maine for the summer, the locations you will see in reviews will change. The most common cinema you'll see is Regal Entertainment Falmouth in Falmouth, Maine - the theater I work at part time. One or two may slip in from Regal's South Portland location, and also from Patriot Cinemas Nickelodeon in Portland. These theaters have nothing on either the Loews or AMC cinemas in Boston, but it's what we have up here, so it'll have to do. For videos/DVDs, we move to my living room with a bigger TV, so that's an improvement. Reviews may become a bit more scarce as I will be pulling 40 hours at the theater, plus some more at an as-yet-undiscovered job (hopefully Best Buy). I may slow down, but I'm far from done here.

Review: The Girl Next Door
April 21, 2004; Loews Boston Common #9
* * * ¼ (out of four)

Okay. I admit it. I’m shallow. The first and foremost reason I went to see this movie is due to a cardboard standee advertising the movie in the theatre I work for in Maine. During slow times, employees – and I can’t say I’m not included in this – would spend minutes just staring at the damn thing, basically drooling over Elisha Cuthbert. When I finally saw a preview, I was relieved to see that it actually looks funny. And it is.

Emile Hirsch (The Emperor’s Club) is Matthew Kidman, high-achieving high school senior who is about the graduate and move onto Georgetown. Great for him, but despite being president of the student council and one of the most academically excellent students in school… he has no real memories of senior year. He hasn’t done anything exciting or noteworthy to make it a year worth remembering. His friends are unexciting, and while it bothers him, he just focuses on Georgetown, and shoves his discontent aside. Then Danielle (Elisha Cuthbert, of FOX TV’s 24) moves in next door. Stunningly gorgeous with no visible past, Matthew is instantly intrigued, and even more so when he discovers he can see into her bedroom from his window. A nice perk, until she catches him peeking. She comes over to confront him, and makes him play a little “show me yours, I’ll show you mine”… on her terms. They’re fast friends with obvious hints at more, and everything goes well until an unexpected visitor and a VHS tape reveal a little more about her past as a porn star than Matthew had bargained for. He then must decide what’s more important: ensuring himself a place at Georgetown by nailing a speech to win a scholarship, or pursuing the girl who, much to his pleasure, threatens to turn his whole life upside down.

Get something straight: this movie is frivolous fluff, and nothing more. While that usually wouldn’t fly with me, there are a few key differences between this and “normal” teen romantic comedies. First, all that fluff is done well, something few movies can actually claim. Secondly, although the jokes and plot (Average Joe boy falls for amazing girl, problems, problems, problems, happily ever after) have all been done before, at least here I actually gave a damn about the relationship and the two individuals who create it. Cuthbert and Hirsch both give solid individual performances - admittedly not a huge stretch for the 19-year-old Hirsch or the 21-year-old Cuthbert, but their chemistry is excellent as well, and that makes half the movie work. I actually believed that these two people cared about each other, regardless of how quickly the events take place.

The other half of the movie is made by Timothy Olyphant (A Man Apart) as Kelly, Danielle’s former porn producer who is trying to get her back into the business. Olyphant struck me as some weird crossbreed between Billy Bob Thornton, Jim Carrey, and Johnny Knoxville – I know, I don’t know how that would ever happen either, but that’s the impression I got. The character is a jerk at best, but Olyphant is having fun switching between outwardly being an asshole and showing that the guy does actually like Danielle and Matthew, but that Number One comes first. He's fun to watch, and has many of the best lines in the script.

Director Luke Greenfield (The Animal) is competent, though nothing really special. What he gets credit for is how he handles the sections involving porn. He never shows it as the gritty, ugly business he could have; he treats it with a certain amount of respect for the people involved. That Danielle spends the entire movie trying to get away grates against this image a bit, but her opinion of a “better life” doesn’t necessarily represent that of every person in the industry. Kelly treats her like crap throughout the movie, so that may be considered the force that is making her think twice.

Also commendable is the soundtrack, though after looking at the track list on Amazon.com, it’s unfortunate to see that the two songs that made my ears perk up (Queen & David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” and a song by the late Elliot Smith) are not on the album. Even still, these and the rest of the music all fit nicely, and give a nice backdrop to the film.

There’s nothing serious in this movie. It’s pretty obviously taking tips from American Pie but it’s not trying to outdo the standard. What’s been created is a fun, fluffy movie with a silly gimmick, but the performances by the three leads are strong enough to hold it together. Bottom line, I spent a lot of the movie laughing, sometimes very, very hard. Also, to make a romantic comedy that actually has a good romance seems like it gets harder to do every day, but The Girl Next Door manages very well. Big things ahead for all three leads… lord knows the world can always use more of Elisha Cuthbert.

Review: Monster
April 20, 2004; Loew's Copley Place #3
* * * 1/2 (out of four)

There aren't many movies that can get away with making an audience completely uncomfortable with the action onscreen, and still have the same audience saying it was a good movie as they leave. The Passion of the Christ has proven to be such a movie for most people; they fidget and squirm throughout, and still they walk out with nothing but compliments for the film and its power. I don’t know… maybe if there weren’t so many holes… but anyway. Monster threatened with a similar power and with the modern idea that if the lead character is flawed, then it must be a story worth telling. Keeping the movie on track is an excellent, Oscar-worthy performance by Charlize Theron and solid, engaging support from Christina Ricci.

Theron plays Aileen Wuornos, a woman who started life on the wrong side of the tracks, and was never able to cross over. We find her working as a highway prostitute in Florida, getting whatever money she can from semi drivers for doing whatever they might want. One night in a bar, she meets Selby (Ricci), a young woman who is immensely insecure about her blooming homosexuality. Wariness from a hard life drives Aileen’s initial reaction, but she’s soon drawn to Selby’s quiet manner, and finds in the girl an affection that she’s never felt from anyone, which is both wonderful and difficult, because she has no idea how to react to it. The girls leave together, traveling across Florida using whatever money Aileen can make from her encounters. When a particularly aggressive customer beats and rapes Aileen, she kills him in retaliation; understandable, I’d say, but it puts the idea that this is acceptable in her broken and confused mind. After an unsuccessful attempt to straighten out her life, Aileen takes to killing every man who becomes less than cordial in their encounter, passing off the murders as acceptable side effects spouting from her ability to provide for her and Selby. Inevitably, Selby gets sucked into this downward spiral, and the two end up in a slow chase across the state as police release sketches and information about them, driving Aileen more towards a breaking point, and hitting Selby with the cold realization that, love or no love, she got much more than she bargained for.

This is not a movie that is easy to sit through; an early scene in which Aileen is raped is almost traumatizing at best, it is so lacking in any form of humanity. In another scene, a too-far-gone Aileen comes across an elderly gentleman who is genuinely willing to help the woman, but that isn’t something that Aileen is prepared to deal with if it comes from a man. His needless death is an eye-opening turning point to the film, when it really sinks in that this woman is hopelessly lost. It’s no excuse for Aileen’s actions, but it makes you wonder about what kind of society could allow a person to reach these depths without a single helping hand.

Theron’s performance was astounding. Theron plays two sides to Aileen; on one, she is completely disconnected with reality, justifying killing these men at first by assuming they intend to rape her, whether that is justified or not, and then later with the idea that if their deaths provide for her and Selby, then the murder is justified. On the other side, she plays off a sense of wonder in her relationship with Selby, marveling at the notion that despite everything she’s done and all the horrors of her life, someone loves her. In the same moment that the love exists and is comfortable for both characters, there’s a sense of newness for both of them – for Selby to find this love from a woman, and for Aileen to find it at all.

I didn’t walk out with any sense of sympathy for Wuornos, at least not about her conviction and execution (Florida executed her in 2002 after twelve years on death row). She murdered seven people, and regardless of circumstance, that needs to be dealt with. If anything, I left with this haunted feeling that this woman was just one of many. This is a true story, and I know it’s not the only one like it. That Wuornos fought back may have been unique, but her situation is not. That there are people – women, men, and children – that can slip through the cracks from day one like this… it’s frightening and disheartening.

What this film lacks is any sense of release. This is a grim, gritty, ugly film, and there are no moments to get away from it. It could very easily overwhelm a viewer from the sheer brutality that this woman faced every day, and nowhere was there any room to breathe. That may have been what writer/director Patty Jenkins was going for, but with no breaks in the intensity, viewers may miss her points and simply find the movie offensively oppressive. Another minor problem is that I could never quite figure out how old Ricci’s Selby was supposed to be; there was no clear distinction, and since Ricci could still pass for seventeen in some places, it was disorienting to see her being served alcohol openly without any explanation.

Charlize Theron gives an amazing portrayal of Wuornos, showing a deeply conflicted woman battered physically and emotionally, and proved to me that she deserved the little gold man she took home in February. Christina Ricci fills out the other half of the relationship, and pulls a real person out of what could be just a ball of insecurities. Fair warning: this is a dark, harshly severe movie with no relief until the house lights come up, but if you can disconnect yourself from the onscreen horrors for a few moments, you’ll see a story of humanity’s worst nightmare: individuals cast aside with no ability to crawl out of the hole into which they’ve been thrown. There is certainly a message here that needs to be heard.

Review: Kill Bill, Vol. 2
April 17, 2004; Loew’s Boston Common #2
* * * ¾ (out of four)

Anyone wanna argue that Quentin Tarantino has officially become “the man?” If you do, I may just have to hurt you. After seeing this movie, the Kill Bill pair has taken its place as the best pair of films that I can remember since Toy Story and Toy Story 2. And this wasn’t even intended to be two movies.

Kill Bill, Vol. 2 picks up where the first film left off: former professional assassin The Bride (Uma Thurman) is knee-deep in her quest for revenge against her former coworkers and boss after they massacred her wedding party, killing everyone she was close to. Having already killed O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) and Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox), she now has her sights and her Hattori Hanzo sword set on Budd (Michael Madsen), Elle (Daryl Hannah), and eventually on Bill himself (David Carradine). Along the way, we get a full explanation of exactly what occurred at the El Paso chapel, along with more information on how the Bride became as deadly as she is, in the form of a training session with her mentor, Pai Mei (Gordon Liu). As the movie draws closer to the end, the focus shifts back to the subject of the brilliant cliffhanger from the end of Volume 1: the Bride’s daughter, now four years old and in Bill’s custody.

That is where the beauty in this movie lies. This is a wildly different film from the first; where the first thrived and thrilled in its nonstop action, Tarantino slows down and builds his characters, primarily The Bride and Bill. It was obvious from the first film that their relationship was much more than one of purely business, and we’re allowed to see that, initially through flashbacks but also through direct interaction, once The Bride has finally tracked him down.

What held this relationship together is David Carradine’s Bill. It was almost difficult at times near the end of the film to see the Bride interacting with her daughter in such a loving way, because it is such a radical change from everything we’d seen in the first. Bill is that necessary middle step. Where all through the first, the Bride was a violent entity, Bill was almost nothing… we knew he existed, but it almost didn’t matter, because it wasn’t about him yet. This movie shows us a Bill that is drastically different from the murdering bastard that we had been led to believe he was. That’s an aspect of him, but so is the father standing in the kitchen making a sandwich for the little girl (Perla Haney-Jardine, who is beyond precious) he so obviously adores. This is the much more interesting side of Bill, and it’s explored much more thoroughly in this film.

Also of note is the relationship between the Bride and Bill. The only relationships we’ve seen the Bride involved in to this point had been burned bridges with her former coworkers. It puts a lot of things into perspective when we come to realize that the Bride doesn’t hate Bill; she certainly hates what he’s done, but she may very well love the man himself – she did before. It puts her on a playing field of doing what she must, not what she really wants.

Tarantino’s directing is amazing… any surprise here? From the opening black-and-white sequences, it’s clear this installment is as well heavily influenced by the genres he grew up loving, and that he loves this piece in turn. Kung fu reference is heavy (I’m told the Shaw brothers, though I admit I’ve never seen one to compare), and the battle sequences are all spaghetti westerns, over in a flash of tension that had been building for a time before. That’s the only place where I can find a… well, I can’t even call it a fault. It is a slight irregularity. There is nothing in this movie to compare to the pure exhilaration of the showdown at House of Blue Leaf from the first film, and I think I would have to see the film as he intended it to judge whether it is as jarring as I think it might be. For all I know, it may be a perfect balance and transition between the two styles, but for the time being, I think Tarantino benefited from being forced to produce two separate films. It allowed ample time for people to forget just how crazy and fast the first was (unless you’re like me, and watched it three times in the week before you saw the second).

The only detractor from this film is also a product of the slicing in half. There are some scenes that were obviously added to in order to increase the length, and some of these go on just a bit too long. The entire sequence in Budd’s trailer involving him, Elle, and the Bride seemed like it took a huge chunk of the movie, and then didn’t even involve what the film was really trying to get to: the relationships between Bill, the Bride, and her daughter.

It’s not quite a perfect end, but it’s damn close. I think this solidifies Tarantino as one of the best directors working today, and I enthusiastically add his name to the list of people who will get me into almost anything. Uma Thurman continues her excellence, and David Carradine delivers exactly how he needs to – I’ve heard some say reclaiming his career in the process (accurate, I’d say, seeing as IMDb has him involved in three more films being released this year). See this movie. Don’t argue, just see it.

DVD Review:Kill Bill, Vol. 1
April 13, 2004; Matt's Dorm Room

Movie: * * * * (out of 4)
Features: * * * (out of 4)

I admit, I'm doing this in a maelstrom of personal anticipation for Kill Bill, Vol. 2, which comes out today. Even still, I have no qualms about this rating. Watching writer/director Quentin Tarantino's masterwork again is still the most fun I've had with a movie in quite a long time. I'll be seeing the second installment tomorrow morning, and it's got a LOT to live up to. Fortunately, I've heard it does that and more.

Kill Bill was originally intended by Tarantino to be a 3-hour epic revenge film, paying tribute to the foreign kung fu flicks, spaghetti westerns, and other styles that he grew up loving as a kid. However, Miramax told him that they wouldn't back the three-hour ride he handed them, so to get it released, he chopped his movie in two, and fleshed out the halves to make them both feature-length (Volume 1 closck in at 111 minutes, while Volume 2 will deliver about 127 minutes). No matter. It still rocks. Volume 1 is essentially the kung fu/Hong Kong action homage. It introduces us to The Bride (Uma Thurman), a former assassin who tried to leave that lifestyle in order to get married and raise the child she is now pregnant with. Unfortunately for her, this is not a plan that sits well with Bill (the never-fully-seen David Carradine; his part is greatly expanded in Volume 2), the leader of the Black Viper Assassination Squad and her former boss. Bill orders the squad to turn on its former member, inciting a massacre in an El Paso, Texas chapel that leaves her entire wedding party dead. The only problem is that despite a severe beating and a gunshot to the head, The Bride didn't quite die. The first action in the movie is The Bride arriving at the home of Vernita Green, one of The Bride's former "coworkers." After a bloody living room brawl ends abruptly due to the arrival of Vernita's preschool-age daughter, the two trade jabs over coffee, until Vernita has had enough and reincites the violence... finding herself dead moments later.

Jumping back in time to just after the massacre, The Bride wakes up in a hospital four years later, childless and lost, but remembering all the faces of the backstabbers who ripped apart any promise she may have had of a new life. After a... creative escape from the hospital, she sets off for Okinawa, Japan to acquire a tool with which to gain her "bloody satisfaction": a sword crafted by Hattori Hanzo (Sonny Chiba, in the same role he played in the 80's TV show Shadow Warriors). Once she has this, she takes flight again, this time to Tokyo to confront the first of her offenders, O-ren Ishii (Lucy Liu). Thus ensues the meat of Kill Bill, Vol. 1. The chapter entitled "Showdown at House of Blue Leaves" can only be described as an orgy of violence; there's blood - lots of blood - and flying limbs, but it's done in such a style that while gross, it's not realistic enough to condemn the movie as unnecessary. Tarantino described his film as a symphony of violence, and that's precisely what he delivers here in an extended fight that leaves O-Ren's entire protective army dead, with the blood-spattered Bride standing in the middle waiting for the fight she really showed up for. Afterwards, Tarantino gives a cliffhanger better than any other, finding the EXACT place to cut his movie to piss fans off to no end, and also build a ridiculous amount of anticipation and momentum to power today's release of the second half.

I was apprehensive about buying this DVD... I'm almost certain that there will be a "Director's Cut" edition released after the second part, showing the movie in all its three-hour glory as Tarantino intended it, and God knows I'll be buying it. But wanting to see the first part again before this weekend's conclusion, I picked this up anyway, and was disappointed to look at the packaging to see a startling lack of features. Included on this disc is the film, a "Making of" featurette, trailers for all of Tarantino's films thus far, and music videos by featured rockers The 5, 6, 7, 8s. No commentary... no deleted scenes... nada. I was sad. But then I put the damn thing in my player, and flipped on the "Making of" feature. This makes up for a lot of what is missing on the disc, at least until the next version comes to stores. In the featurette, you are treated to Tarantino talking up a storm about his latest film. Honestly, he sounds like an excited little kid, and that's an energy I've seldom seen recently from a director. Tarantino and Thurman get the majority of the screentime, and talk about every aspect of the film, from its conception during the shooting of Pulp Fiction through how Tarantino bought The 5, 6, 7, 8s album out of a clothing store's CD player in Japan to make sure he followed up on the lead. Tarantino obviously has a deep love for this movie, which became a 10-year writing process, and Thurman also expresses a significant attachment to her character of The Bride. Seeing this movie as a labor of love makes the film that much better, as you begin to pick up on little touches that could only be added by people who truly adore the material they're working with.

The only criticism I have of this movie is the extended black-and-white sequence in the House of Blue Leaves. I understand that had he left this scene in color, it's quite possible the film would have been slapped with an NC-17, cause there's just that much blood. Even still, the switch seems to blur some things that would have been more enjoyable had they been left in full color. I hear they were in Japan, and perhaps this will be restored in the U.S. director's cut DVD. Also, this is not a complete aversion of black and white; his choice of no color in the opening scene really highlights the severity and brutality of The Bride's near-death at the hands of Bill, and it just looks gorgeously grim and gritty.

I have always been a bit wary of Tarantino - his near-narcissistic appearances in every one of his films always irked me, mostly because as an actor, he's not very good. But he makes a better choice in Volume 1, forgoing an appearance that because of his recognizable qualities I think would have been more distracting than anything else. He focuses entirely on directing here, and, as Thurman says in the featurette, successfully teaches himself how to be an action director. However he studied, he did a damn good job. This film is exquisite in every aspect, and to be stiffed by even a nomination by the Academy this past year is, in my mind, a travesty. But that's the breaks, I suppose. If half of his movie can be the work of brilliance that is Kill Bill, Volume 1, I can't wait to see the conclusion this weekend.

Review: Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed
April 13, 2004; AMC Fenway #2
* * * 1/4 (out of four)

Now, before you close the window, never to grace the page of this half-wit again, hear me out. As you may have read in Jay's blog, this became one of those movies that... yeah, it's stupid, but it's still funny, and a lot funnier than some of the other shlock that gets released around here. Bottom line here is that I enjoyed myself in the movie, and I walked out of the theatre still laughing at a few key moments.

Monsters Unleashed picks up an undisclosed amount of time after the first Scooby Doo ended. Mystery Inc. has returned to Coolsville to oversee the opening of a museum exhibit in their honor, displaying the costumes of many of the ghost wannabes they've unmasked over the years. Here we meet the first great addition to the cast: Seth Green, playing the quiet, kinda nerdy curator of the museum, who also has a massive thing for Velma (Linda Cardellini). Soon after the unveilling of the exhibit, one of the costumes mysteriously comes to life, wreaking havoc on the visitors. As always, a masked mastermind makes his presence known, taunting the do-gooders with the ever-present stereotypic evil guy laugh. As Coolsville's faith in the fivesome's ability to protect the town fails, Scooby and Shaggy (Matthew Lillard) begin to doubt their ability to contribute anything to the team. They opt to set out on their own to solve this mystery, thus proving their eligabilty for membership in the agency. Naturally... this doesn't go well, and the plot then follows a line straight out of the cartoon. The secret? It's done pretty well.

To Scooby Doo's benefit are Matthew Lillard and the new members of the supporting cast. Lillard has, with this movie, successfully taken over the role of living cartoon character that Jim Carrey recently vacated with roles like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and this is something Lillard is well-suited for and must seriously enjoy doing. He is no less than perfect as Shaggy, in voice, body language, and overall personality. Also impressive, if not a bit odd, is that he seems to be at his best when acting opposite his CG best friend, Scooby (voiced by Neil Fanning), rather than any of the human costars. This may also be a result of that being where he gets the most screentime, but I don't know.

The supporting cast has taken jumps as well. I already mentioned Seth Green, who I had forgotten could be really, really funny - the Austin Powers movies don't give anyone outside of Mike Myers much of a chance to show what they can do, considering he played the three main characters in the last one. Also strong is Alicia Silverstone as the reporter with some secret vendetta against Mystery Inc., badmouthing them and twisting the words of leader Fred (Freddie Prinze, Jr.) whenever she gets a chance. Finally, Peter Boyle enters as Old Man Wickles, the crotchety old fart previously unmasked and discredited by Mystery Inc. In some places, these along with others in the undercast outclass the stars, particularly Prinze, Jr., who could disappear from the movie altogether, and I'm not sure I'd notice.

There are a few factors holding this movie back from where it could be. The running time is one. Clocking in at 88 minutes, including credits, a quick video game plug at the end, and a decently long opening titles sequence, this flew by. On one hand, I can't really see what else they might have done with it, but on the other, with the price of movie tickets nowadays, it gets harder and harder to justify that. Also, while Lillard and Cardellini are excellent and fully involved in their roles, Prinze and Sarah Michelle Gellar - Daphne - are less enthusiastic. Although Gellar had a little more to do than in the first - she was essentially playing Daphne as season 1 or 2 Buffy - Prinze just seems lost. Luckily, the director understands this, and significantly cuts down their screentime.

Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed is a funny movie. I swear. Yes, the premise is old - the Hannah-Barbera cartoon originally premiered in 1969 - but so long as there are still jokes to be told that are still funny, who can object? There are three or four genuinely hilarious moments that had me laughing pretty hard, and two that were noteworthy enough to have Jay and I quoting them for ten minutes after we walked out of the theatre. Character-wise, Lillard has settled in firmly as Shaggy, Cardellini is solid in Velma, and even Gellar's Daphne has improved since the first movie. With a third installment on the way, my only hope is that they find the material to give this movie at least another 20 minutes. And recast a carboard cutout as Fred. It might be a step up.

Theatre Review: Bread and Puppet Theater's "Cardboard Circus"
April 9, 2004; Blackman Auditorium, Northeastern University
* * * 1/2 (out of 4)

I feel so liberal right now. I sit here listening to Air America Radio, and I'm still thinking about the performance I saw last night. Northeastern was visited by the Bread and Puppet theatre group. This group, founded in 1963 and based in Vermont, uses puppets, slapstick, music, and humor to amuse their audiences, and make them deal with the current issues of the day. Due to their very leftist persuasion, their current show focuses in on President Bush's platform, essentially ripping apart every contraversial or failed decision he's ever made (and as they see it, there's a lot of them). They succeed in opening these issues up to the audience, and inciting all sorts of laughter, and they do it with class.

This performance was titled "The Victory Over Everything Circus. The show is organized into a series of short "acts." Each act deals with a certain aspect of the current state of affairs, ranging from the war in Iraq, "No Child Left Behind," Bush's dead-horse of an education act, the economic instability, and a variety of others. These are serious topics, but the group presented each one with a flair and style more common to a variety show than any sort of political forum. Their "puppets" are for the most part full-body or -torso paper-mache costumes, led by three man in janitor's clothes whose masks bore a striking resemblance to the Chief himself. One of the metaphors that the show pushed was that these janitors, essentially clueless figureheads, had no idea what they were doing, never able to adequately clean whatever they tried to clean. Other skits involve literally beating the crap out of an "oil-rich dictatorship" in response to the U.S.'s plummetting stock market, and shots the FCC and conservative media.

The show was bolstered by the presence of a live brass band, that kept the pace flowing and energetic through every scene. Also heartening was the call for volunteers in the days leading up to the performance, resulting in 10 or 20 Northeastern students being active participants in the skits, performing roles as a politician's entourage, the children in the aforementioned education skit, and the army that declares victory over everything.

This is a show not to be missed... if you share the company's views. If you have any support in your heart for Bush Jr. or anyone within his administration, it's more than likely you'll be offended here, unless you can look at it purely objectively. But then, looking at this group's work purely objectively would not only destroy the point, but also make it a lot less fun. And that's what it is, above all: all sorts of fun. Crazy characters and situations presented by people who truly love and believe in what they're doing. Well done.

DVD Review: School of Rock
April 5, 2004; Matt's Dorm Room

Movie: * * * 1/4
DVD Features : * * 3/4

Jack Black had made a pretty solid career out of playing kooky sidekicks in films, tagging along with John Cusack, Jason Biggs and Colin Hanks. Only once before, in the lesser Farrelly effort Shallow Hal, has Black come out at the front of a cast. Granted, that's not a lot of encouragement to place him in a lead role, but School of Rock's plotline allows Black to rely more heavily on his experience as frontman of the comedy/rock duo Tenacious D... though much cleaner, cause, y'know, there's kids listening. Black does well to bank on what he knows his fans look for from him, but also gives an all-around entertaining performance in a pretty good film Mighty Ducks-esque movie.

Black plays Dewey Finn, a rock-obsessed guitarist who early on gets thrown out of the band that he helped to form. Finn's love of "old school" rock n' roll music and performance doesn't mesh with the rest of the band, who are basically out to get a record deal. At the same time, he is at risk of being thrown out on his rear by best friend Ned (writer Mike White) and his anti-Dewey girlfriend, played by Sarah Silverman, if he doesn't come up with his part of the rent. Desperate for money, Dewey pretends to be Ned when a high-class boarding school calls in need of a substitute teacher. After meeting the uptight principle of the school (the most hilariously prudish Joan Cusack you'll ever see), he meets his class: an ethnically diverse collection of 10-year-olds. At first, Dewey doesn't exactly care about what class time consists of, so long as he gets a check at the end of the week. Upon hearing the kids in their music class, however, Dewey hatches a plan to turn the kids into his own rock n' roll band, eventually leading to a Battle of the Bands competition and a musical clash with Dewey's old band. Along the way, of course, Dewey and the kids all grow and learn a few things about what is important in life.

Jack Black is solid, mixing his outrageous brand of comedy with a sweetness that overpowers his initial self-interest. His rapport with the kids is excellent, but who wouldn't be having fun on a set with Jack Black? The kids themselves are pretty good, though acting-wise, some are better than others, led by 9-year-old Miranda Cosgrove as the goody-goody class brown-noser. Most of the kids with more significant roles were cast for their musical ability more than their acting, but some parts have been written to allow a basis for discussing relevant issues for kids that age; Robert Tzai, piano extraordinaire, has a very nice scene with Black as they discuss the downfalls and gaps created by popularity, and why they don't really matter. Similarly, Black takes normal aim at his own abundant abdomen in helping one girl accept her excess weight - a good message to portray, but he does this by telling her that her singing voice will drown out her size; a good idea, but I think it would have been better to make weight a nonissue... that's not something kids this age should have to be worrying about, even though American society has given it an air of importance.

Exceptional in the movie is Joan Cusack as Principle Mullins, the most uptight administrator ever. The most amusing moment in the movie comes from her attempting to "console" a little girl after scolding her, and being so inhumanly awkward about it that the child does all she can not to scream and run away. Joan Cusack has shown many different sides in her career, from Toy Story 2's Jessie to her hilariously sinister villain in "It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie," and School of Rock shows just one more thing that this comic genius can do very, very well.

The DVD, I found, was a bit lacking. Though on a rental from Blockbuster I didn't have time to explore every detail, what I did see was somewhat uninspiring. The high point was a feature called "Lessons Learned," which looks most specifically at the on-set relationship and antics between Jack Black and the kids. Also present and amusing is the full episode of MTV's "Diary" concerning Black. However, these pluses are almost overruled by the lack of an outtakes reel, which given Black's impromptu style and Cusack's ability would be priceless, and the lackluster commentary track by Black and director Richard Linklater. In that, it seems as though Linklater is holding Black back from saying anything interesting for fear of going off-topic... whatever that topic might be in his mind. I understand the movie is aimed at a younger crowd, so Black's really outrageous behavior would not be appreciated, but Black managed to be just as funny without it through the entire movie, so why can't he do it here?

I felt like I needed to include the DVD extras in the review because more and more that is what sells DVDs. Distributors make more that their fair share off of multiple editions of the same movie, so I think it is important to see what else you would be getting with the purchase. Here, it's somewhat disappointing, given the talent involved, but significantly better than some of the bare-boned trailer-and-cast-bio DVDs floating around. Moreover, the movie is pretty good, and appropriate for almost all ages; the PG-13 strikes me as a little much for the offending content. It's a good story with good performances, and it also helps to get Black away from his completely over-the-top, unrealistic delivery while maintaining his unique style of comedy, which may be a good stepping stone to his work in Peter Jackson's upcoming King Kong remake.

Review: Hellboy
April 4, 2004; Loew's Boston Common #1
* * * 1/4 (out of 4)

I had only read one Hellboy comic previous to seeing the movie; before that, I had barely heard of him. I admit, my comic interests were pretty limited to the writings of Brian Michael Bendis, or whatever weird things my brother could get me to like. As such, if this movie has self-referencing material, I'm pretty sure I missed it. But it didn't matter. This is a ride, and a damn good one.

Guillermo Del Toro gives us the story of Hellboy (Ron Perlman, a wise-cracking, adolescent-minded demon who has become the major fighting force in the United Stat es' Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense, a black-sheep branch of the FBI. The story is told somewhat from the perspective of Agent John Myers (Rupert Evans), but that seems solely to give the audience an Average Joe to identify with; Myers quickly gets lost in the supernatural surroundings created by his new coworkers. This is really the story of Hellboy, fish-man Abe Sapien (the body of Doug Jones with the voice of David Hyde Pierce), and pyrokinetic Liz Sherman (Selma Blair). Hellboy's action-oriented style mixed with Abe's ability to see both the past and future give the evil-fighting aspect, while Hellboy's dedication to Liz gives the emotional/romantic aspect.

Hellboy's origin is perfectly explained in the movie, so I'll leave it to do that. The conflict here is that Rasputin (Karel Roden), the crazed Russian monk, has returned from the dead and is once again trying to open a portal that would let all sorts of evil into the world. Naturally, Hellboy can't allow this to happen, so he begins to fight back, starting with the hellhound Same-el. From the initial battle up through Hellboy's final encounter with Rasputin's godly embodiment, Hellboy wisecracks and pummels his way in fairly typical action fare. But it is done very, very well.

What wins this movie for me was Perlman's portrayal of Hellboy. Though born via a portal 60 years earlier, because Hellboy is a demon, he does not age as we do. Though 60 years have passed for his 'father' in the film, Hellboy is barely into his 20s. Beyond that, Perlman plays him perfectly as a rebelling teenager, especially when it comes to anything concerning Liz, on whom Hellboy has a significant crush. At their first meeting in the movie, Hellboy is so awkward he can barely look her in the eye, much like a boy confronting his interest for the first time. Later, when Agent Myers asks Liz out for coffee, Hellboy follows them, and acts in entirely immature ways that are downright hilarious coming from a 6'5", bright-red demon. Even more to Perlman's credit is the quality of expression from Hellboy's movements, face, and especially his eyes. An impressive feat, considering the pounds of makeup and latex he must have been under every day on set.

Del Toro's direction is beautiful, if a little dark. He seems to be following the trend of Underworld (a trend he contributed to himself with Blade II) in using far too little light in far too much of the movie. He does not go to the extreme of Underworld because at least in his movie we can see what his characters look like in normal lighting. Alternately, the exposition of Hellboy's 1940 origin is beautifully shot in war-movie perfection; dark, grim, impersonal, and eliciting every bit of Nazi-hating as an Indiana Jones movie. His writing is smart, Hellboy's dialogue is sharp, and his action sequences are fun to watch, if only a little short at times.

Hellboy is a success for Del Toro and Ron Perlman in their collaboration on the character. They are able to take a demon and make a truly human character, better than a lot of filmmakers can do with characters and heroes who actually are human. But with this focus comes some loss in the action. I don't feel like the advertisements portrayed the film accurately, as I walked in expecting more Hellboy kicking ass than I got. In addition, many of the battles seemed incredibly short, especially the final battle. Were this promoted as a action-comedy about Hellboy growing up instead of the Hellboy kicking tail that I expected, I think I would have gone in with a different mentality, and enjoyed it a little more. But it is fun, nevertheless, and even with its shortcomings it is still one of the best action movies out thus far this year..

Review: Walking Tall
April 2, 2004; Loew’s Boston Common # 16
* * ½ (out of 4)

I have a secret. I love pro wrestling. I always have. It’s one of those things I grew up on, and even after I came to realize how fake it was, I grew to appreciate the athletic talent and in some cases the characterization by the performers. This is why, when Duane “The Rock” Johnson started to get movie offers, I was enthused. His character was always dead-on and he was one of a few wrestlers who always looked like he enjoyed what he was doing. Johnson brings that energy and talent to big screen in his 4th outing, Walking Tall; sadly, he doesn’t get much help in making this what it could be.

Johnson plays Chris Vaughn, a Special Forces soldier returning to his hometown after eight years of service. He finds a town drastically different than the one he left; the lumber mill, which was the primary employer when he left, has been closed, and the streets are filled with drug peddlers and crooked cops. The town now revolves around a casino, owned and operated by Jay Hamilton (Neal McDonough), a high-school buddy of Vaughn’s who has become the most important and powerful man in town. It also seems that the drug trade is centered in the casino. On his first visit to the casino, Vaughn witnesses some foul play, and being the moral, upstanding guy that he is, starts a fight about it. The result of this is him being left for dead after being overpowered by Hamilton's flunkies. He recovers, but upon his nephew overdosing on crystal meth, an irate Vaughn grabs a 2x4 and exacts his own style of revenge on the casino workers, this time dismantling them and the casino itself, but getting arrested in the process. In his trial for the damage he inflicted on the casino, Vaughn promises to run for Sheriff and clean up the ailing town if acquitted. Entrusting his wise-cracking, convicted felon of a best friend Ray (Johnny Knoxville) as his one and only deputy Vaughn sets out, 2x4 in hand, to restore the respectability to the town.

This film has two things going for it: Duane Johnson and Johnny Knoxville. Chris Vaughn is essentially breaking more crimes than anyone else in the movie – the brutality in his fights with casino employees is shocking at times, and goes well beyond self-defense – and yet Johnson plays him with such a passion and drive for what is ‘right’ that it doesn’t matter; you’ll still walk out feeling that every singe broken bone, every single dispatched scumbag was completely justified. Knoxville’s Ray is, basically, the comic relief in the movie, and there are a few scenes of him having a great time that are fantastic; watching him “search” a prisoner’s truck for drugs had me nearly in tears.

Beyond these two, the acting suffers. Most of this is the product of shamefully underdevelopment. Most severe victim is Ashley Scott as Deni, who is apparently a former girlfriend of Vaughn’s. Mind you, this is never said directly, but between knowing looks between Vaughn and his mother, and the fact that the second time they see each other in the movie, they’re on Vaughn’s office floor within two minutes, I think it’s a safe assumption. Otherwise, Deni is flat, there only to serve as a romantic interest and possible ‘damsel in distress.’ All of the villains are evil cardboard cutouts, not showing any motivation for anything beyond their own personal gain. McDonough tries to hide his lack of character with at least a bit of charisma, but he can only do that for so long.

Sending this movie to its death is the directing. This is Kevin Bray’s second outing in features, the first being All About the Benjamins. The man loves his close-ups. I feel like I know every inch of Johnson’s face much, much better than I need to. Most aggravating, however, was the handling of the fight scenes. It seems to have become a trend to zoom in far too close on fights, and make camera cuts so quick that it is impossible to figure out what is happening, let alone who is winning. This is The Rock… he rose to stardom doing matches lasting 10 minutes or more, and they had to look good from every viewpoint. Why would you be afraid to show this man doing what he does best?

The 72-minute running time is a factor as well, but with the way the story was presented, I’m not sure what else they would do with it anyway. If you can fight through some unwatchable shooting, there are good performances here from the two good guys. Johnny Knoxville is starting to come into his own in mainstream comedy, moving away from his Jackass antics, and Duane Johnson is without a doubt the next big action star, provided he can get some decent directing. Walking Tall is a near-hit, but not quite. If you’ve liked Johnson so far in his film outings, you’ll enjoy this.

Review: Secret Window
March 30, 2004; Loew's Boston Common #6
* * * (out of 4)

I've been on a huge Johnny Depp kick following last year's Pirates of the Caribbean and Once Upon A Time In Mexico, so I've been looking forward to this for some time. I was a little discouraged when I heard that beyond Depp's performance, it wasn't very good, but I finally decided that I needed to go see for myself. Surely Johnny could drag a thriller through rough spots, right?

Well... he tries. Good lord, does he try. Sometimes he gets help, other times... well, it's just him. Depp plays Mort Rainey, a successful mystery writer trying to clear up some writer's block in a cabin in upstate New York. His first night there, a knock on his door introduces him to John Shooter (John Turturro), who claims that Rainey stole an entire story from him and published it as his own. Eventually, Rainey looks at the manuscript, and finds that it is indeed a near-exact rendition of his own story. The plot then turns to Rainey trying desperately to recover a copy of the magazine in which his story was originally printed from his estranged wife (Maria Bello), which would prove to Shooter that Rainey wrote it first. Shooter, it seems, doesn't allow this to happen, culminating in the apparent arson in the home of Rainey's wife. The latter half of the movie watches Rainey very closely as he becomes more and more desperate to remove Shooter from his life.

As always, Depp is excellent. Rainey is a departure from all of his previous characters, while at the same time retaining a characteristic that makes him likable. Here, Depp is twice at his best; once in an
argument with his wife's new boyfriend who is constantly trying to get involved, and again near the end of the movie, once everything is explained, Depp becomes creepy to a new level. In fact, he fills in the creepiness factor that I felt was lacking from John Turturro for most of the movie. Turturro's Shooter was intense and well-acted, but I didn't feel like there was much of a sense of urgency in his pursuit of Rainey. The rest of the supporting cast felt a little bit flat as well; Maria Bello's Amy Rainey was flat, and it?s hard to understand her motivation for the divorce when it's blatantly obvious she cares about Mort more than new boyfriend Ted (Timothy Hutton). Charles S. Dutton's hired bodyguard could have been an interesting character had he been around more before being cut out of the movie.

Also notable is David Koepp's direction. I think Koepp picked up some of Sam Raimi's style while working on Spider-Man; as I was sitting there, I felt like I had seen some of these shots before. In particular is a certain scene when Rainey stares into a mirror; the angle reminded me of Army of Darkness, and there's a certain amount of 'fear of what you can't see' that struck me as Raimi-esque. Understand that this is not by any means a bad thing. Koepp could find worse directors to learn from.

This is a thriller with good direction, some solid performances, and one excellent performance. Unfortunately, it's just not terribly thrilling. Koepp wrote Panic Room, so I know he can do better than this. The script isn't bad; on the contrary, Depp's dialogue is excellent, aided, I'm certain, in no small part by the man delivering it. It just seemed like Koepp took the easy way out in a few places to get a shock effect, and in this case, it didn't work for me. There are obvious ties to another high-profile psychological movie that will diminish his premise as well. A good try that produced a decent movie... but maybe it just didn't turn out quite as the writer/director wanted.

Review: Hidalgo
March 30, 2004; Loew's Boston Common #3
* * * (out of 4)

What must be said about this movie from the beginning is that it's just gorgeous. DIrector Joe Johnson and cinematographer Shelly Johnson provide a harshy beautiful landscape for the film's 3,000-mile race. In any shot where the director pulls his camera out wide, which he does a significant amount of time, rolling sand dunes are all that can be seen. Sounds boring, but these dunes are dynamic, and when we reach the portion of the race on the Arabian Desert's "Ocean of Fire," the bleakness and boiling heat are excellently shown.

This is a story based on the life of Frank Hopkins, played by Viggo Mortensen. Hopkins was a Pony Express courier with a mixed background: his mother was a Lakota Indian, and his father was an American Army scout. After carrying the orders for the disarmament of the natives and then witnessing the massacre at Wounded Knee, Hopkins leaves his position, bringing his horse Hidalgo to join Buffalo Bill Cody's (J.K. Simmons) Wild West Show. It seems Hopkins and Hidalgo have an incredible history of competing in cross-country distance races, in which the horse has never placed 2nd. An Arabian sheikh (Omar Sharif) has taken offense to Hopkins's claim that Hidalgo is the fastest horse in the world, and challenges Hopkins to participate in the Ocean of Fire race, becoming the first non-Arab to do so. Numerous side distractions are explored as well, involving the sheikh's too-liberal daughter, and a wealthy British patron involved in more than just the race.

I was pleased to see Viggo Mortensen playing a character very thoroughly removed from his Lord of the Rings alter-ego Aragorn; the only other role I had seen him in was Gwyneth Paltrow's lover in A Perfect Murder, so watching his stretch beyond the role that made him a superstar was a pleasant change. His Frank Hopkins is an American cowboy in every sense of the word, but Mortensen plays him with a grace and respect that pays tribute to the mythology of the cowboy figure in the American West. The best performance here, though, comes from Hidalgo, his horse. I haven't seen animal training and "acting" of this quality since Comet in the too-short-lived "Adventures of Brisco County, Jr." There are things the horse does that I never imagined a horse being able to do. More than than, Hidalgo has more of a personality than many of the supporting cast.

My biggest complaint here is that the film was slow. Yes, I realize it was based on actual events in Hopkins's life, but I feel like there were some sequences that could have easily been cut out. They didn't add anything to the movie, and could have been better replaced by more of the meat of the film, the race itself. However, there is good chemistry between Mortensen and his horse, and some beautiful sequences in the desert make this one worthwhile, maybe as a rental.