Reviews

There are few crimes more reprehensible then the dumbing down of the Looney Tunes in a failed attempt to appeal to today's, presumably dumb, children. Fortunately, director Joe Dante, writer Larry Doyle, lead voice actor Joe Alaskey, and composers John Frizzell and Jerry Goldsmith have created a truly fine work that is able to stay true to the personalities and comedic sensibilities of the original characters.

Actually the credit goes to the entire cast and crew of Looney Tunes: Back in Action. These days, seeing a movie where Steve Martin is actually funny is enough of a gift from the Hollywood Heavens. But, I singled out Dante, Doyle, Alaskey, Frizzel, and Goldsmith for their outstanding efforts. Dante is a brilliant director. The success of this film hinged on his dedication to what made the 'toons classic to begin with: really great timing, and convincing character interaction. Larry Doyle made a name for himself on the Simpsons and this movie is evidence that he was one of the GOOD writers. Simply put, he understands and actually respects the subject matter. I can't say enough about the quality of Alaskey's voice work. He performs the film's two main animated characters, Bugs and Daffy, as well as Tweety, Sylvester, and Marvin the Martian. I don't care what the nitpickers have said, he emulates Blanc almost perfectly. But his skill lies not in mere impersonation, but a genuine understanding of the cadence, timing (again), and personality of the characters. Finally the pace is perfectly frenetic and that's due in large part to the score provided by Frizzel and Goldsmith. They've seamlessly blended the recognizable, classical pieces used in old Looney Tunes shorts with stings referencing Dante's past work, other films, and their own new material. There's not enough room here to mention everything I liked about this movie. Fraser, Elfman, Martin, Cusack, and the rest are great. The script is filled with too many gags to catch in one viewing. Insider film references abound, just like in the old shorts. This is simply the funniest movie I've seen all year.

Sure, Branagh's Hamlet was a brilliant and accurate adaptation of the play, but it was missing one very important element: The Moviephone guy.

But I get ahead of myself.

In Michael Almereyda's update of this Shakespeare classic, the trials and tribulations of a young prince bent on revenge are transplanted from Denmark of old to modern New York. Our hero Hamlet is portrayed by Ethan Hawke who, thanks to exciting technological advancements, doesn't talk or change facial expressions at any time during the film. Seriously. When we do hear Hamlet's voice it's almost always as an internal monologue dubbed in later. It doesn't really matter, though, because Ethan delivers the Prince's lines so unconvincingly that one wonders if he might have accidentally grabbed the Los Angeles phone book by mistake. The lovely Julia Stiles takes on the role of Ophelia, but with one slight variation: No lines. Yes, Almereyda brilliantly took an already sparse but important character and reduced her to a mute. The poor thing struggles so hard to get her character's motivations out without words, that she ends up looking like a French mime who's trying to tell Hamlet to steal third. And her brother's worse. Liev Schreiber's Laertes is inexplicably the only character in the film with a British accent. Well, not a British accent per se, but that kind of pseudo-Shakespeare-speak adopted by folks who have no earthly idea what they're talking about. This is compounded by his taking even the most light-hearted of his lines and adding a grim intensity previously reserved for Jack Palance's character in `Cops and Robbersons'. Then as a finale, he stares off into space in such a way as to indicate he may be playing an improv game in which he imagines himself to be reading his lines from the side of a distant moving bus. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Liev Schreiber, I just wish he was in the same movie as the rest of the actors. As for everyone else, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do an excellent impression of Bill and Ted, Claudius and Gertrude are weak at best, Horatio is unintelligible, and the Gravedigger and Fortenbras are essentially absent. Last, my personal favorite, Bill Murray as Polonius. I know Polonius is a funny character, but not Bill Murray funny. Murray knows it too, but he can't find his footing, so he hops from ultra nonchalant to so bored out of his skull he's not even listening to himself.

But was it at least adapted well? Nope. Since Hamlet's an amateur filmmaker rather than an amateur playwright in this version, his famous soliloquies are typically presented as gripping scenes of Ethan watching himself on a monitor, completely undercutting the drama. Good idea taping the rehearsals, bad idea putting them in the film. As for the `to be or not to be' speech, Almereyda chops off the stirring opening lines and replaces them with some barely related file footage, then he tacks on the rest of it a few scenes later as Hamlet wanders through a Blockbuster Video. Product placement? Gee, I guess so, because it sure didn't lend itself to the film. Neither did the big, gaudy Pepsi One machine that the Ghost disappears into, or the appallingly gratuitous insertion of the Moviephone guy into the background of another scene. Another obvious botch occurs when Hamlet begins to go crazy despite the fact that his `I'm going to pretend that I'm crazy' speech has been cut. So we see the sequence in which Hamlet calls Polonius a fishmonger, obviously feigning mental instability, yet because the explanation is absent, Ethan Hawke gets lost. So he plays it like he may be just insulting Bill Murray, or is perhaps actually crazy. A few scenes later Polonius drags Helen `Ophelia' Keller to a pool where the King and Queen are lounging so he can give them the scoop on their nut-ball son. Murray's delivery is so uninteresting, however, that Ophelia spaces out and has a surreal foreshadowing daydream about drowning in the pool. So when the time comes, does she drown herself in that very pool? NOPE! That would make sense. Instead she's found face down in a two-foot deep decorative office fountain. How embarrassing that must have been as executives walked by. `Need help?' `No, I'm almost dead, just give me a second.' Of course her lame death enrages Liev who luckily came back from France just in time to look more intensely confused than ever. So he challenges Ethan to a rooftop duel. However, because this is modern fencing, Hamlet and Laertes are decked out in padded outfits preventing either of them from getting hurt! Liev gives a knowing glance to Claudius to confirm that he's picked the sword with the poison on it, yet this NEVER COMES INTO PLAY. No one is even scratched until the film hiccups and Laertes just pulls out a gun and shoots Ethan, managing to off himself in the process. Gertrude who's given no indication she's even still in the movie, drinks the poison wine, and Claudius takes a slug from Hamlet, almost flips off the roof but thinks better of it and just dies. The play winds down and Horatio delivers his most famous words which, unfortunately, no one can understand.

And did I mention that Claudius' super secret plans to kill Hamlet are in the form of an email on Rosencrantz's laptop that has the subject `Plans to Kill Hamlet'? What about the fact that Hamlet wears a goofy snowboarder hat the whole film? Have I told you about Bill Murray turning into a short Mediterranean guy right after dying, or the long introspective shot of the boom mic?

Bottom line, if Shakespeare had written and directed KFC commercials.no that's too harsh, his commercials would have been better than this. It's Branagh all the way, baby. Or if you're pressed for time, Mel Gibson. But please, friends don't let friends watch Hawke.

The Muppets are still the Muppets. I agree that since Jim Henson died, it seems to take a lot more effort to put together something worthy of their original off the wall charm, but it can and has be done in Muppet Christmas Carol and Muppets Tonight!. Muppet Classic Theater shows us that the focus has shifted to Gonzo and Rizzo since Dave Goelz and Steve Whitmire are among the few Muppeteers still dedicated exclusively to Muppet projects. Granted, these stories are rushed and simplistic and the songs are mediocre, but the work Goelz and Whitmire put in reminds us that these are still the characters we love. It's much like seeing your favorite actors in a bad movie. The story isn't so hot, but you can tell they've still got it and will go onto do better things.

Those who know only know Val Kilmer from his "Top Gun" and "Batman Forever" roles may be surprised to learn that he helmed this intelligent, yet goofy comedy about a rock star who becomes involved with a group of French rebels while performing in Germany. Kilmer sings his own songs and dances wildly as the Elvis-like Nick Rivers while "Blue Lagoon", "Bonanza", "The Great Escape", and others are cleverly spoofed (as opposed to the sometimes shameless spoofing of other films in the genre such as "Spy Hard").

This was the Zucker, Zucker and Abrahams follow-up to their previous hit "Airplane", so if you liked that film, the Naked Gun series, or any of their others, you will most definitely appreciate this!

Why? Someone tell me why. Someone e-mail me and explain to me why. There is nothing to gain here. Nothing to be learned, nothing to excite, no story. Why? Seriously, is there any documentation that might explain WHY this thing (not a film) exists. Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is so unprecedented in it's poorness, that it doesn't even succeed in being a dumb slasher flick. Let me reiterate. The filmmakers actually FAILED at the least complicated genre in the book. If I wanted a series of randomly assembled images leading nowhere I would have rented "Week End".

RotTCM should have gotten a 1. In fact I felt like I was disappointing moviegoers everywhere when I gave it a 2, but the extra point is the ever crafty curiosity value. Yes, you will be compelled to watch, if only to observe some clue as to why both Matthew McConaughey (pre-"A Time to Kill") and Renée Zellweger (pre-"Jerry Maguire") accepted the lead roles (the clue never comes). Texas Chain Saw fans will, of course, feel the completist need to see this, the death knell of the series. And finally, I think just the concept of Leatherface as a shrieking cross-dresser will garnish a few bewildered viewers. But believe me folks, this still doesn't answer the ultimate question: Why? Why?! WHY?!

My, my, my, if only there was something below a rating of 1. I am, admittedly, not a student of the Bible, so I can only offer my opinion of "The Omega Code" as a stand-alone film. And that opinion is low indeed. From the start, Omega Code is obviously a religiously centered movie, and yet it seems to want so bad to be secular. Slick camera shots, two big name leads, and the "action flick" format seem to scream "Look at us! We're making a secular film with Christian subject matter! We've done the impossible!" But rather than intelligently weaving religious aspects into an already strong movie, the filmmakers seem to treat the mainstream and biblical elements of Omega Code like the hot and cold water in a broken gas station sink. Sometimes it'll be hot, sometimes cold, but never properly mixed. And in this case, neither are well executed separately either. So we're left with a motion picture that spends half its time on mind-numbingly boring biblical diatribe and the other half on mind-numbingly boring hackneyed action scenes. Don't get me wrong. "The Ten Commandments" among other films has proven that the words of the Bible don't have to be boring. But in this film, boring is all they can hope to be. In fact boring is the operative word in this flick. Boring boring boring. So boring, that even when attempting to lampoon it with a friend of mine, we were quickly silenced by the sheer mesmerizing tedium taking place on screen. How could a movie with so many explosions be so boring? I'll tell you how. 1) It doesn't respect its audience. 2) It was ill structured and ill conceived. 3) It was clearly written by a mentally-challenged orangutan. Final thoughts? This thing makes "Batman and Robin" look like "The Sting".

Capricorn One is a film about a mission to Mars that fails, so those in charge decide to fake it to save face. Coincidentally, it's also a film in which the third act fails, so those in charge decide to fake it to save face. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this movie and the acting is first rate (although take note that O.J. Simpson received very few lines), but the fact is that it ended at a very odd place. I'm not revealing where that was, but any of you familiar with screenwriting will know what I mean when I say it had no third act. Yes, it was a well done drama that gripped and intrigued you, but the big payoff that you expect isn't there. Instead you are left to assume that it happens off camera as the credits roll. It was like reading a really good book and then discovering the last chapter is missing. But, if you can stand to fill in the blanks yourself, this really is a pretty good flick. It's best feature is that it will get you thinking about a real life incident.

The movie was based loosely on the possibility that the 1969 moon landing was faked by NASA in order to beat the Russians. This may sound insane, but when one is presented with some of the evidence, one becomes at least intrigued by the possibility. (Check out the Fox special "Conspiracy theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" Yeah I know it's a Fox special, but it's good, trust me.) Questions such as "Why can we see shadows on the moon pointing in conflicting directions when NASA claims the only light source was the sun?" and "How does the American flag flap in the supposedly airless atmosphere?" have caused some to believe we never made it to the moon.

Regardless of this, Capricorn One is a C+ film with an A+ cast and a D- ending, but it still receives my endorsement and I encourage you to go pick it up and judge for yourself.

Boy this was awful. Really really bad. I think the scene that best embodies how unrealistic and moronic this film truly is, would be the one in which the two main characters (who are only about 14) find themselves covered with leeches, and so they spontaneously take off all their clothes and jump in a river, and then look SURPRISED that they've done so. Like they didn't realize that this was a stupid idea WHILE they were doing it. Now we get to sit and watch as the movie awkwardly bumbles its way through the "I'm a guy, you're a girl, we're accidentally naked" schtick. Just shoot me with one of those Panda tranq darts and put me out of my misery. Granted, this film did its job of keeping the kids I was with interested, but unlike most Disney films and other modern flicks geared towards young children, it had nothing to keep the adults even remotely interested. I think the reason that this movie takes place in Hong Kong, is because it's actually a form of ancient Asian torture. Avoid this like the plague. And if you have to choose, take the plague.

If you're the kind of movie-goer who enjoys original content and intelligent suspense...then look elsewhere, kids, cause Sleepwalkers really sucks. Usually I'm more eloquent than that, but...wow...this was bad. I especially love it when Charles offers Tanya a ride home, she declines, and then he is seen WALKING HOME. Where's his car?? Anyway, just don't see it, folks. I really want to be more specific, but words escape me. Cats jumping on people. A guy getting stabbed by corn. Cheesey lines up the proverbial "wazoo". Just don't see it. Wait, I take that back! See it for writer Stephen King's cameo as the guy who owns the graveyard. He's actually pretty good. Even with guest appearances by Mark Hamill and Ron Perlman, King gives the best performance of the film. But, other than that...wow...BAD.

Acting Lesson #1:

Let's say (hypothetically) that you (yes you!) are a cast member of fledgling hour-long skit-based comedy program Saturday Night Live in the Lord's year 1975. Perhaps you are one of the more popular performers on said program. All over America, SNL is exploding in popularity, and millions tune in to witness your own special brand of physical comedy. Now let's say you get cocky. You figure if you're already so popular on national television, you could become even MORE popular in the movies. So after only one year on the show, you leave to pursue a career in Hollywood. But you weren't ready. You hadn't built enough hype up as a TV star yet, and with what appears to be no consideration whatsoever, you accept every movie roll that comes along.

That, ladies and gentleman, is the story of Chevy Chase. Despite his obvious comedy genius, he blindly accepted the roll of our protagonist Max Fielder in the godawful Modern Problems. Wrought with visible camera equipment, transparent special effects, weird and upsetting continuity errors (including teleportation), and more shots of the boom mic than of Chase himself, Modern Problems is much like a poorly edited home movie.

Now we've established Chases's undiscriminating attitude, but what on earth possessed the rest of the cast? This stinker touted a few reasonably well-known names such as Dabney Coleman, Nell Carter, Mary Kay Place, SNL alum Brian Doyle-Murray, and a guest shot by Pat Proft. Perhaps the first 100 actors to sign up were given a free calendar.

Regardless, I would never pretend that this movie had no value. Like at least 60% of all films, it becomes an instant classic when you and a group of friends gather to guffaw at it's obvious shortcomings. And, heck, there are some legitimate Chevy jokes in Modern Problems. Don't miss the line "Smells like feet!"

This film hits all the right buttons! Hilarious word-play, visual puns, and deadpan delivery from Neilson make this one of my all-time favorite comedies. Throw in Priscilla Presley as the sultry love interest, Ricardo Montalban as the villain and you've got comedy gold. If you've been living under a rock for the past decade, run out and SEE THIS FILM!

The best show on TV today.