Cynical Cinema

Untraceable:  Diane Lane is a front-line FBI operative in the war on cyber crime.  Remember Sandra Bullock in The Net?  Yeah, me either.

Mad Money (3/10):  Queen Latifah, Katie Holmes and Diane Keaton star in an absolutely putrid crmie caper.  Ted Danson and a few others up the suck factor.

Walk All Over Me:  Leelee Sobieski is a dominatrix caught in a crime ring.  Dominatrix - good.  Crime ring - good.  Leelee Sobieski -good.  Tricia Helfer - also good.  This could be good.

The Great Debaters (8/10):  Denzel Washington and Forrest Whitaker and Denzel Whitaker are all terrific in this movie about the Jim Crow south, race relations, and debate teams.  Formulaic, but very good.

Youth Without Youth:  Francis Ford Coppola directs this movie about Tim Roth, who is struck by a bolt of lightning and begins to age backwards.  Which means he gets pursued by the Nazis.

I’m Not There (9/10):  The best movie released this week.  Bob Dylan is re-imagined as six different people, including a young black kid, a woman, and an aging western outlaw.  For hardcore Dylan fans, mostly.  Check out my review for a guide to watching this.

The Cottage:  Brothers are holed up in a cottage, with their kidnap victim, when horror takes place.  Axe-wielding neighbours and gore.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Special Edition (8/10):  Still amazing after all these years.  Connery and Ford are terrific together.  Also some excellent special features.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom Special Edition (6/10):  The worst of the original trilogy, but still worth purchasing as part of the box set.

Raiders of the Lost Ark Special Edition (10/10):  The all-time classic on DVD again, this time with more great special features.  Worth revisiting, especially if you have kids who have yet to see it.

 Numb:  Matthew Perry meets a perfect girl and goes to a therapist to help him work out his anxiety problems.  Sounds…awful.

Backyardigans High Flying Adventures (4/10):  The Backyardigans are a cow, a moose, a hippo, and some other animals that don’t live in my backyard sing some songs and entertain some small children.

Alien Agent:  A lawman from another galaxy must stop an invading force from building a gateway to planet Earth.  Stars Billy Zane.  YES!  Billy Zane…

Drawn Together Season 3 (7/10):  Ignore what you may have seen on the TV trailers.  This series is actually quite intelligent, and hilarious.

The Land Before Time:  Through the Eyes of a Spiketail:  Yet another entry in this interminable series for children.  With a spiketail!

Mission: Impossible Season 4 (6/10):  The terrific original series which is way better than any of those incredibly lousy Tom Cruise movie remakes.

The Ten Commandments (3/10):  A virtually shot-for-shot remake of the Heston 1956 epic, with gigantic parts cut out and cheap animation, dumbed down for kids and starring Christian Slater as the voice of Moses.

Inside (4/10):  A French splatter-horror film with buckets of blood and a hottie who uses scissors to cut a baby out of a pregnant woman.

 Long Day’s Journey Into Night (6/10):  Well-acted, well-staged Canadian filming of the Eugene O’Neill play about family bonds and dysfunction.  But three hours of dialogue in just one room can be…pretty boring.

Describing I’m Not There is a tall task. This movie is weird. It’s beyond weird. It’s bizarre and artistic and insane and bonkers and very, very, good. It is, in some way, the story of Bob Dylan. But it’s Bob Dylan as imagined by Todd Haynes, the director of some of the strangest, yet most powerful and subversive movies in cinema today. And this is another in his long string of great and successful yet incredibly strange and complex films Mr. Haynes has unleashed upon North America. Haynes has managed, with I’m Not There, to craft a movie the way Dylan himself writes a song. Enigmatic, purposefully cryptic, brilliant and defying explanation. I can’t begin to describe the bizarre scenes and the strange moments in this film. Just be warned, this is very much an art film, and you, the viewer, are not meant to understand it all. What I’m going to do here in this review is provide, as best I can, as a Dylan fanatic myself, a sort of guide to the film so that you might enjoy it simply by virtue of understanding it a little more. I hope it helps, because this movie really is terrific.

“Bob Dylan” is played by six extremely different actors, each of whom have a different name for the Dylan character. Christian Bale (American Psycho) plays Dylan as Jack Rollins, a singer-songwriter from the 30s whose most famous work was the song “Frosty The Snowman”. He also wrote Peter Cottontail and Smokey The Bear. A strange choice for one of Dylan’s personas, “Jack Rollins” is Dylan at the moment when his status as the leader of the folk movement begins to chafe on him and get under his skin. Richard Gere (Pretty Woman) plays Dylan as Billy The Kid in a movie. In the film Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid, Dylan famously wrote the soundtrack, which featured the song “All Along The Watchtower”. This is Dylan’s period after his motorcycle accident where he disappeared completely for a few years. Ben Whishaw plays Dylan as Arthur Rimbaud, a French poet of what was called the “decadent movement” in the late 1800s. He was a brilliant young man, considered on a par with Shakespeare, when he gave up writing poetry altogether at the age of 21. He never wrote again until he died at age 37. Whishaw is barely used in the movie, playing Dylan at his most standoffish and cryptic.

More involved in the movie is Marcus Carl Franklin, a young African-American boy who plays Dylan as “Woody Guthrie”. Guthrie, for those who don’t know, was Dylan’s hero and greatest inspiration, and Franklin is terrific as the young Dylan who passed himself off as the second coming of Guthrie. This is Dylan the “fake”, and (I think) the fact that he is so young is a reference to Dylan’s young years, and the “fakery” of passing himself off as the next Guthrie. And I think the fact that he is black is a reference to the backlash against Dylan for involving himself with race relations and the civil rights movement when he was a white guy, the “fakery” of writing songs from a black perspective when he was not himself black. Heath Ledger, also with a big part in the movie, plays Dylan the Rock Star, as “Robbie Clark”, and I have no idea who Robbie Clark actually was. It may in fact not be a real name. Which is odd, since everyone else playing “Dylan” had the name of a real person, except for Ledger and Cate Blanchett.

And then…Cate Blanchett. This is a woman who has won an Oscar for playing Katherine Hepburn. A woman who has been nominated for at least one (and sometimes two) Oscars each year since playing Queen Elizabeth in 1998. And this, Bob Dylan, may well be remembered as the performance of her life. This is Blanchett at her very best, and possibly at the very best any actress can ever achieve. Becoming completely believable as a very famous man. Watching her doing the famous press conference after Dylan went electric in 1965, you actually forget that you are not watching Bob Dylan at that press conference. This is a magnificent performance, and must be seen to be believed. She plays Dylan as “Judy Quinn”, another name that seems to be pulled out of thin air. Perhaps this refers simply to the Dylan song Quinn The Eskimo, his most nonsensical, whimsical and completely devoid of message song ever. Because she plays him at his most whimsical and nonsensical. The scene where she appears, she is taking the stage at Newport, and plugging in the electric guitar in what would prove to be one of the most significant events in the history of music. From then on, she is the Dylan of the Don’t Look Back era, the one who had some sort of thing with Edie Sedgwick and who turned the Beatles on to the joys of marijuana.

Other characters pop up in the movie, some playing actual people, others playing actual people with different names. Here’s a short guide. David Cross appears as Allen Ginsberg. Ginsberg was a real person, a poet in the 60s and one of the major figures of the “beat generation”. Charlotte Gainsbourg is terrific as “Claire”, who is basically Dylan’s long-time wife Sara. Although for some reason she has a French accent. Don’t worry about that. Julianne Moore plays “Alice Fabian”, who is Joan Baez under a different name. Michelle Williams has never looked better than she does here as “Coco Rivington”, which is the name Haynes has given to Edie Sedgwick. Ritchie Havens shows up for a moment, but he doesn’t play anyone famous. I just thought it was cool he was in there. Also cool - Kris Kristofferson as the narrator. There is an enormous amount of cool in this film. But boy, is it tough to follow.

And then, there is Bruce Greenwood. Greenwood is likely best known as the bad guy in Double Jeopardy, or as Mitch Yost on that John From Cincinnatti TV show. In I’m Not There, he plays two characters. One is a fairly self-important yet intelligent BBC journalist who attempts to interview Dylan, when he is being played by Cate Blanchett. The other is Pat Garrett in the scene with Richard Gere as Billy The Kid as Dylan. Following so far? OK. This is now my opinion, and this may well not be what Todd Haynes intended in the movie, but I’m going to throw it out there. In the Pat Garrett scene, the idea is that Garrett is the only man who was able to understand, and therefore capture, Billy The Kid. And the fact that he is being played by the same actor as the British reporter indicates to me that the idea there is that this British reporter is the only one who really understands what Dylan is about underneath all the enigma and bluster. Or, at least, he is the one who comes closest, who hits closest to home, and thereby is the only one who traps Dylan, the way Pat Garrett trapped Billy The Kid. This is just my opinion, and in watching this film you may well come up with some other explanation. But I certainly do hope you watch this film.

Six terrific performances, especially that of Blanchett, and brilliant song after brilliant song would make any movie good. What makes this movie great is that it so wonderfully mirrors the work of the man it canonizes. No one, including Todd Haynes, truly understands Bob Dylan. Many would go so far as to say that list of people who don’t understand Bob Dylan includes Mr. Zimmerman himself. So attempting to explain him is an exercise in futility. The only alternative, if one wants to pay tribute to this man, is to craft a movie the way Dylan crafts a song. Haphazardly, with a big picture only you can see, and if people get it, great, if they don’t, that’s great too. The idea here isn’t to get I’m Not There. The idea is to watch it, let it happen to you, and let it pique your interest, and then watch it again. And again, and again, and again. This movie is absolutely terrific.

There are many, many movies just like The Great Debaters, which comes out May 13th from Alliance Films. Movies that deal with race relations in the Jim Crow south. Movies that show kids in college achieving a greater understanding of the world through a special teacher and through competition. Many of which have starred Denzel Washington. All of which means The Great Debaters is nothing new. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t excellent. What sets this film apart is the crafting of the movie, courtesy of Washington, who directs, and the performances that hold it together, also courtesy of Washington. He is terrific as the college professor who molds a team of Africa-American debaters into the most potent orators in the college world.

Also terrific is Forrest Whitaker, who now has to merit some consideration as one of the finest actors of our time. He plays a preacher at the same college as Washington, a fine orator himself and a renowned scholar. He doesn’t quite understand, the way Washington does, how best to harness his intellectual powers to effect true change, but he grows over the course of the film. But the character who does the most growing is his son, who is played by the aptly-named Denzel Whitaker. As the youngest member of the Wiley College debate team, Whitaker is both the emotional centre of the movie and the one character whose growth most mirrors the story arc. His performance as 14-year-old James Farmer Jr. May well be the best in the film.

Rounding out the terrific cast are Jurnee Smollett and Nate Parker, as the eventual other two members of the debate team. Parker plays a rebellious student, who is brilliant but tortured. Smollett is a driven, intelligent woman, who aspires to become only the third black female lawyer in the United States. Their story, (and romance) is incidental to the film, but it works. Denzel Washington’s story seems incidental as well, at first. When he isn’t working at the college, he is dressing up as a farmer and holding clandestine meetings in barns, attempting to organize the Southern Tenant Farmers Union. This leads to him being branded a communist, and there is a backlash against him that comes from both the white establishment and his African-American colleagues. In the end, this is not simply an incidental story line, it is essential to the full fleshing out of the story.

The fact that this film is based on a true story might be the most remarkable thing about it. These people did exist, they did do this remarkable thing, and who knows - had we been there at that time, in 1936, it may well have been as powerful and inspirational as the movie itself. Now, I do have a quibble or two. If this were 1936, using a reference to Hitler to win a debate wouldn’t exactly have the gravity that it does now. In fact, it might have been a rather weak argument in 1936. Like making a Gearge-Bush-is-awful argument in August of 2001. Maybe you can see something terrible coming, but it sure isn’t there yet. And also, the top-ranked Harvard debate team seems to have had their lines dumbed down a little. They don’t make enough sense and they aren’t good enough points for such a highly-touted debating team. That being said, however, I would have really liked to see a little more of the debates themselves. They are all so compelling and so interesting that I could have handled another hour of movie if it was all debating.

As Wiley College mows down their opponents in Texas, and takes on the best Negro colleges in the States, a final showdown is set when Harvard agrees to meet the team and debate against them. Harvard is, of course, the perennial powerhouse team, the best in the country, and they are willing to meet this remarkable Negro team in an historic debate. Of course, this is the big, climactic, and inspirational finale of the film, and it’s fairly routine in the way it ties everything together, but it is set up and delivered so well that it doesn’t feel like a cliche or like the obvious ending, it just feels great. And so does the rest of The Great Debaters.

Mad Money is about Diane Keaton, Katie Holmes and Queen Latifah stealing money. Katie Holmes is Tom Cruise’s wife and was in Teaching Mrs. Tingle. Queen Latifah was a rapper who appeared in the movie Taxi and produced Who’s Your Caddy. Diane Keaton, on the other hand, was Annie Hall. She was in The Godfather. And Manhattan. She is the one who should have known better. When a director whose previous credits include “Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood” approaches you about starring in a movie with Katie Holmes and Queen Latifah, you say no. Well, if you’re some actress just trying to break into films, you don’t. But if you’re Diane Keaton, with seven certifiable all-time classics under your belt, you do. You say now, you walk away, and you wait for the next legitimate offer to come rolling in. Saying yes to this movie would be like Jack Nicholson agreeing to star opposite Adam Sandler in a comedy directed by the guy who did The Nutty Professor II and Tommy Boy. Oh…wait…that happened too.

Frankly though, I think Diane Keaton’s appearance in Mad Money is not a reason to make fun of her. I think it is more likely a result of so few good roles popping up in movies for women over the age of 35. There have been five good, older-lady starring roles in movies over the past decade. Two have gone to Judi Dench, and three to Helen Mirren. There is nothing left. So if you want to continue acting, you take whatever comes along, even if that means appearing in one of the worst comedies of 2008, Mad Money. Keaton plays a upper-class yuppie who gets thrust back into the work force when her husband (Ted Danson) gets downsized. She ends up getting a job as a janitor at the Federal Reserve Bank, where she decides she really does want to be able to continue buying those Faberge Eggs after all, and so she decides to steal some money to continue her yuppie lifestyle.

She enlists two other cleaners to help her. Katie Holmes is a spaced-out airhead. Queen Latifah is an angry single mother. And…laugh! OK, laugh! Nope. Laughs are few and far between as the plan gets put into action. There is also very little drama, very little excitement, and no boobs at all. So…what reason would someone have to watch this? A good question. The answer is - none. No reason at all. Mad Money doesn’t even work on the level of one of those loser idiot gross-out Adam Sandler movies. Like the one directed by the guy who did Tommy Boy. At least there was something interesting about it. Like, how low can Jack Nicholson actually GO in a movie? Here there is no suspense. Diane Keaton has already shown how low she can go by appearing in Because I Said So, which was even worse than this. (To see Keaton and Nicholson both phoning it in for a paycheque at the same time, watch Something’s Gotta Give.)

There are some seriously lousy performances in this movie, although Keaton’s isn’t one. Latifah plays who she always plays, she’s phoning it in too. Katie Holmes is given a role so unchallenging that it doesn’t matter whether she’s any good at all. Stephen Root, however, is unnecessarily obnoxious as the boss of the Federal Reserve. You would think that a guy in charge of something like that would be a little less smarmy and creepy than Steve Carrell in The Office. But what do I know. Ted Danson is useless as Keaton’s husband, existing only to cry about the loss of his job and complain about the thievery, both of which he doesn’t do well. There are a few funny moments. The moment where Queen Latifah asks the dean of her son’s private school if she can pay him in crack is hilarious. But…this IS supposed to be a comedy. One laugh and fifty-five cringe-inducing moments do not a comedy make. They make a turd heap. And Mad Money is one. It comes out tomorrow, May 13th, courtesy of Alliance Films.

Of course, you knew when the new Indiana Jones movie was about to hit theatres, there would be all kind of reissues coming out. Paramount released the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles Volume 3 a few weeks ago, and now comes the original trilogy, in special-edition form, on May 13th from Paramount. The first movie in the series, Raiders of the Lost Ark, remains by far the best of the three. The opening scene in the film is still, to this day, incredible, with the giant boulder and the bag of sand and the darts shooting out of the walls and the whip and the chasm and the closing door and the double crosses and the float plane escape…all very exciting. One of the best opening scenes in a movie of all time. And best of all - no gunshots or explosions! Amazing!

Although the thing that set Raiders apart from other movies upon it’s release and made it an instant classic was that no one had ever seen a movie like this before, what makes it a classic now is that it is still better than any other movie like it. Imagine a movie made now that has something of historic, biblical importance as the central object. Now imagine it involves car chases, gun fights, lost treasure, exotic locales, face-melting guitar solos, and Nazis. And, archaeology! Were this movie to be made now, it would likely star Matthew McConnaughey and Kate Hudson, and it would be directed by Michael Bay and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, and written by some Hollywood focus group-watching team of nincompoops. And it would probably be called “National Treasure 4: The One With Nazis”. And it would suck worse than “National Treasure 3: Search For the Necronomicon”.

It is a testament to the brilliance of both Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford that they did not allow this movie to become…that. Raiders of the Lost Ark is, in many ways, childish. And it is simplistic and cheerfully bonkers. And yes, it is standing on the shoulders of many movies that came before. But most of those movies were made in the 30s and 40s. And Raiders is set in the 30s. And it is both homage to the old John-Wayne-type serials of the early era of cinema, and also a completely new film going experience. It’s one of the only movies, ever, that is basically wall-to-wall action and yet could be considered classic. Harrison Ford did more than a good job as Indy, and he did more than create an iconic character in a movie. Much more.

This is what he did: He created an iconic persona in film in general. Not many actors have been able to do that. In the years following films like The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, you could tell in other films when people were playing John Wayne. The Duke created an all-new screen persona. Same goes for Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird, Charlton Heston in Ben-Hur, and Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast At Tiffany’s. And now, when you watch certain movies, you can see other actors playing Indiana Jones. And that is a remarkable achievement in acting. Harrison Ford makes Raiders magical with humour, toughness, intelligence, good looks and stoicism. And Spielberg makes it magic with the set pieces, the camera work, and the ability to create wonderful moments in dialogue, scenery, and especially action.

Also terrific in Raiders was Karen Allen. Now, for a long time, I always thought that Margot Kidder starred opposite Ford in this film, simply because they look alike and the Superman series ran almost parallel to the Indiana Jones series. But Margot Kidder was NOT in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Or…was she? I did some checking.

And in so doing, I have uncovered a conspiracy! Yes, I saved it for the end of my review, because it is such a huge revelation I wanted to save it for last. And here it is: Margot Kidder was born October 17th, 1948 in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. The daughter of an explosives expert, she rose to big-screen fame playing a bit part in the film Gaily, Gaily, and then scoring the starring role in the Brian DePalma film Sisters. Soon, she became a household name thanks to her portrayal of Lois Lane in the major blockbuster, Superman, in 1978. Superman II, II, IV, V, and eventually Superman XLII followed. After “Sisters”, she briefly dated DePalma, and was linked to Pierre Trudeau for a time. She was married and divorced four times, none of those marriages lasting more than a year, and now lives as a little bit of a recluse, saying she prefers the company of her dogs to that of men. In the early 90s, she came under fire from the press and the establishment in the U.S. for criticizing the press and the government over the Gulf War, saying that they did not realize the long-ranging ramifications of their actions. She had a well-publicized breakdown in 1996, when she was found wandering the streets naked and diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Karen Allen was born October 5th, 1951 in Carrollton, Illinois. The daughter of an FBI agent, she rose to big-screen fame playing bit parts in Animal House (1978) and Manhattan (1979). In 1981, she teamed up with Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg in the massively successful blockbuster, Raiders of the Lost Ark. She didn’t marry until 1988, when she tied the knot with Kale Brown, some guy who was in “Challenger”. She had a son in 1990, and the couple divorced in 1998. Since then, she has become more reclusive, and has professed her love for knitting as an activity. In fact, she loves knitting so much that she started her own textile company in 2003. She teaches acting in Massachusetts, and has been coaxed back to the big screen this year to reprise her Raiders role in the new Indiana Jones flick.

Now for the big revelation - Margot Kidder and Karen Allen are the same person! First of all, here is some photographic evidence:

Here’s what I think happened. Margot Kidder, finding that her Canadian background closed certain doors to her in Hollywood, while opening others, decided to make the best of both worlds by creating an American alter-ego for herself. As Karen Allen, she decided to make herself three years younger, since certain roles always go to the younger actress. She made sure that the family background was similar. Their birth dates, for example, were only two weeks apart. While Kidder’s father was an explosives expert, she decided that Karen Allen’s father should be something a little more vague, and thereby easy to explain - and FBI agent. Possibly one with knowledge of explosives. When Kidder hit the big time with Superman in 1978, she was unprepared for the sudden fame, and the alter-ego, Karen Allen, took over. Working with people she admired (like John Belushi and Woody Allen), as Karen Allen, and working with people who wanted her simply for her name, as Margot Kidder.

Then, in 1981, disaster struck. Karen Allen was offered a part opposite a little-known actor named Harrison Ford, in a movie helmed by a fairly interesting, two-hit wonder director named Steven Spielberg. It seemed like a perfect role for the Karen Allen persona - that was the side of Kidder that made the indie movies, and took risks, after all. But when that movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark, became a massive blockbuster, all of a sudden both personas were out in the open and in the consciousness of America. Kidder tried to deflect attention away from her movie work by marrying and divorcing several times, but when she met Kale Brown, she thought it would be forever. And so, having painted Margot as the oft-marrying type, she had to get Karen to actually marry this guy and settle down. Once she was married, as “Karen”, she stopped working as Karen.

This gave her the opportunity to truly live two lives. One was the quiet, suburban home life with her husband and son, out of the limelight. That was Karen. Margot, on the other hand, since she no longer really existed, was totally free. Free to express her opinions and sound off about anything she wanted. After all, she had an escape where she could return home and be Karen for the rest of the evening, and let the Margot stuff slide off her back. But after eight years of this, the double life finally took it’s toll, and she snapped. Fortunately, she had the presence of mind to snap as “Margot”, since “Margot” had already portrayed herself as the left-wing nut, the outspoken eccentric, and it would stand to reason that it was she, and not “Karen”, who momentarily lost her mind. In fact, Margot now wanted to live AS “Karen”, and was planning to do away with Margot completely, a la Fight Club. But rather than succeeding in killing off one of the two personalities, she merely succeeded in making one of them crazy. After nursing her back to health, and explaining the two personalities away conveniently as “bipolar disorder”, her husband could take no more and divorced “Karen” two years later.

Shocking, eh? Not only that, I can go one better - I know where Kidder got her idea for the final transformation! In 1988, as “Margot Kidder”, she starred in a made-for-TV movie called “Vanishing Act” with Elliott Gould, where she plays a woman who insists she is the husband of a man whose wife has just disappeared on their honeymoon, even though the man has never seen her before. Vanishing Act was a re-working of a Robert Thomas stage play called “Trap For a Lonely Man”, and had previously been filmed as “One of My Wives is Missing”, and “Honeymoon With A Stranger”, starring Janet Leigh. That same year, she, as “Karen”, married her final husband. Now, “Margot Kidder” hangs out in a rural area with her dogs, and “Karen Allen” hangs out in a rural area with her knitting. You read it here first, folks!

The opening sequence of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is bothersome. Harrison Ford is sitting with some evil men, who mean to do him harm, and he really looks like Han Solo trying to play James Bond. The dialogue (the antidote - to the poison you just drank!), the set pieces (that big rolling gong), the utter ludicrousness of the entire scenario, just don’t feel like the Indiana Jones we know and love from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Fortunately, as soon as this scene ends, he goes back to being the Indy of old, but the movie never seems to recover. Although Temple of Doom is still quite good, and definitely better than any of the imitators that have followed, it comes off as cartoonish when seen in th context of Raiders. Kind of like Return of the Jedi was a cartoon after watching The Empire Strikes Back.

Of course, Temple of Doom still has dozens of memorable moments, like the chase in the railway cars and the pilotless plane, and the raft ride, but it is so LOUD. It’s so busy, and loud, and over-the-top that it loses any charm Raiders might have had. The first forty minutes or so are non-stop action, when you kind of just want to get to the story. Short Round is still hilarious, and I still love that kid, but Kate Capshaw is irritating as the love interest, and the bad guys just aren’t as compelling as Nazis. The whole underground temple has just such a creepy feel to it that’s incongruous with the rest of the movie’s bonkers implausible tone. I don’t care if a guy can pull my heart out of my chest, I still fear the Nazis more. And those gross-out scenes with the monkey brains and all that? Totally unnecessary. And obnoxious.

In the end, Temple of Doom IS pretty good. But it comes nowhere near the standard set by Raiders of the Lost Ark, and it is the worst of the three films by far. Well worth having, this is one of those trilogies that needs to be complete in your collection, and you can’t ignore this one. But it will likely be the one you watch the least.  It’s out in Special Edition form tomorrow from Paramount.

Only time will tell if the new Indiana Jones movie stacks up to the rest of the existing trilogy. And in all likelihood, it will. But the same concerns were voiced nineteen years ago when the third installment hit theatres. And, over the years, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has held up extremely well. In fact, it is only slightly behind Raiders of the Lost Ark in terms of quality and awesomeness. It really is Temple of Doom that is the weak(er) link in the series. The Last Crusade fits right into the theme - Harrison Ford as the hard-edged James Bond of the world of archaeology. Classic lines (no ticket!). And classic set pieces - the airplane and the seagulls, the airplane off the dirigible.

The new twist added to this third film is the addition of Indy’s dad, played by Sean Connery. This is a common theme now, of third movies in trilogies. Austin Powers has run out of ideas…let’s give him a father in the third one! But at the time, it injected new, refreshing life into the series, and the interplay between Connery and Ford is fantastic. Also, this film marks the return of the Nazis. And, as I have said many times about Temple of Doom, it’s great that you can pull a guy’s heart out of his chest, you’re still not as bad-ass and scary as Nazis. The unfortunately named Alison Doody is light-years ahead of Kate Capshaw in terms of a worthy foil. Again, Indy is archaeology’s James Bond, as he is now given a female lead, in whom he has both an enemy and a lover. How very Bond.

And the Indiana Jones series could easily have turned into another James Bond series. Every movie with the same lines, the new gadgets, the scene where Indy has to face, once again, his fear of snakes. And it’s a testament to the brilliance of Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford that it did not. The inclusion of Sean Connery is fantastic casting, the search for the Holy Grail is, while a logical next step in Indy’s adventures, not overdone. And the spirit of the original is maintained. The Last Crusade is a more-than-worthy inclusion in the trilogy, and is almost as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark. Well worth renting, if you haven’t seen it, but buying the whole set is really the way to go.  They are all out in Special Edition form tomorrow from Paramount Home Entertainment.

Long Day’s Journey Into Night is a new DVD out tomorrow, May 13th, from Alliance Films. It’s not so much a movie as it is a stage play filmed like one. It’s an old 1996 staging of the Eugene O’Neill play from the Stratford Festival, directed by David Wellington and starring William Hutt, Martha Henry, Tom McCumus, Peter Donaldson, and Martha Burns. It’s the tragic and compelling story of an Irish-American family coming apart at the seams. The mother is a morphine addict, the father is a cheapskate and a drunk, one of the brothers is a degenerate alcoholic, and the other has just been diagnosed with consumption. Although this sounds like the basis of a fine and hilarious family comedy, Long Day’s Journey Into Night is anything but funny. It’s moving, it’s dramatic, but it is far from hilarious.

And perhaps it could use a little hilarity. This film is three hours long. And without some break in the drama, it starts to feel fairly monotonous at about the one-hour mark. The performances are all excellent, but they are stage-play excellent, which for film feels a lot like over-acting, in particular the scenes between the brother with consumption and his father. Over a game of cards, the dialogue gets heated, then slows to a lull, then explodes again, then fades away. I imagine that if bipolar disease is something that can be caught, this scene could give it to you. This is a wonderful play, and a great story with some super dialogue, but it seems unnecessary. Why bother putting it on film, when the entire thing happens basically within one room, and there is virtually no action at all. It ends up being three hours of talking. Interesting, intelligent talking, mind you, but still just talking. So to whom does this appeal?

I think, in the end, that this movie was put on DVD for a select few people. The theatre afficionados who can’t get out to Stratford for the big event, and the people who don’t get out to the theatre as often as they would like. So this might well fill the gap. Long Day’s Journey Into Night is one of the best-loved plays of the 20th century, but it does not make for a great movie. One hour of talking could work. Three hours is painful.

Inside is the latest horror-splatter movie released by Dimension Extreme. It’s a French film, starring Alysson Paradis and Beatrice Dalle. Dalle is a very well-known actress in France, where she has been one of the hottest women around for a long time. She is as well-known for her crazy behaviour off the screen as she is for her amazing presence on the screen. She was apparently cast to play opposite Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense, but had to turn the part down when she couldn’t get an American work visa because of her arrest record. Alysson Paradis is a relatively unknown actress about whom I know almost nothing. The two of them are the central characters in “Inside”, Paradis as Sarah, a pregnant woman, and Dalle as an utter maniac who has invaded Sarah’s house.

In this case, it is Dalle who really needs to carry the movie, and this has got to be one of the most entertaining roles an actress can play. The homicidal, raving lunatic who kills everyone. But she isn’t really up to the task here. She’s kind of…too hot, I think? And even when she gets that mad-crazy look on her face, she still looks a little like she’s posing for a modeling shoot. Which means the horror will have to carry the film. And to a certain extent, it does. The people who made this movie must have cleaned out every fake-blood supplier in the thirty miles surrounding the shoot. Heads blown in half, eyes stabbed with knitting needles, faces burned off, and all kinds of gruesome, bloody death. Also, there’s a self-performed tracheotomoy. But most of the damage in the film is done with sewing scissors. Which is gory as all hell.

As far as these movies go, there is almost never anything new, plot-wise. And there is never anything interesting in the dialogue or the actual filming. The reason they are made is simply to sue more blood and create more gore than the last guy. And “Inside” falls somewhere in the middle. It’s certainly a first for me. The first time I have seen a French splatter-gore movie. The first time I have seen scissors used so gruesomely as a weapon. And the first time I have seen Beatrice Dalle play anything but the sexy vampish ingenue. But all these things do not make the movie original, they just mean I ought to expand my horizons. There are some scares, and lots of gross, but Inside is just not that great. It comes out tomorrow, May 13th, from Alliance Films.

Alright Focus on the Family and like-minded Christians, I’m calling you out. You’re getting lazy. You spend so much time fighting against ambiguously gay television characters like Spongebob and Tinky-Winky, that you don’t have time for your own children. And why do you need to complain about these TV characters and movies like The Golden Compass? Because the only thing left to raise your children, what with all that time spent complaining, is the television. And you want to make sure that while being raised by that TV, your young impressionable boys don’t happen across the Teletubbies and all of a sudden start liking showtunes, lusting after Skeet Ulrich, and planning for a career as an interior decorator, or Kevin Fededline’s backup dancer. I know, I know, you COULD just spend time with them, making sure they watched only Christian-approved programming and maybe reading with them, but that seems like a lot of effort, doesn’t it? Better to write angry letters and volunteer at the latest Fred Phelps or anti-abortion rally, leaving your children in the care of (you hope) the VeggieTales.

So then what happens? Your kids are now addicted to cartoons and television. The only way to get through to them now is through other cartoons or possibly video games. And you want the to learn the bible, but they’re not going to be reading on their own or anything. So now, what, NOW what? Well, you hope that biblical stories get made into cartoons, so your kids can watch these cartoons and grow up to be just like you, and join you at the next Pat Robertson seminar. And lo and behold, here comes The Ten Commandments, the story of Moses, in cartoon form! And sure, you could always wait until Easter for the Charlton Heston movie to come on public access television, but then you would have to strap your children down with bungee cords and tape their eyelids open, because there’s no way they’re sitting through that one on their own.

Well, thank God for Christian Slater, Elliott Gould, Alfred Molina and Ben Kingsley, who have all provided their vocal talents to The Ten Commandments, (cartoon version), which came out May 13th courtesy of Alliance Films. This is one of those computer-generated “animated” movies where people kind of look like people, and kind of move like people, but they are mostly bald because animating hair would be that much more difficult. Again - lazy! Just because Yul Brynner was bald in 1956 doesn’t mean all ancient Egyptians were hairless, OK? Lazy, lazy, lazy. With The Ten Commandments, the story is already there. All you have to do is tell it in a cool, new way. But this movie hasn’t even done that. It’s just a cartoon remake, almost scene-for-scene, of Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 epic! Down to the scene with the staffs and the snakes, and the slave labourers doing their thing, and the parting of the red sea while Moses stands facing it. That one is pretty much shot-for shot the same.

Which means that what we’re doing, in watching this film, is comparing it with Charlton Heston. And it comes up pretty darn short. Cheap, easy animation vs. a cast of thousands, with massive cinematography and epic storytelling? No contest. And Heston vs. Christian Slater? Come ON. Heston had the Moses voice. The deep, booming Moses voice. Christian Slater does not have that voice. In fact, he has a pretty sissy, weenie voice. Can you imagine, in a live action movie, Woody Allen playing Moses? That’s how this movie feels.

“Let my people go!”

“Umm…no.”

“OK, I’ll take my staff and I’ll leave.”

“Yeah, you’d best be going.”

And then there’s Alfred Molina, as Ramses, who calls for Moses like he’s William Shatner in The Wrath Of Khan. “Moooooosseeees!” “Khaaaaaaaaaaaaan!” And Elliott Gould as God may as well be…well…Woody Allen also.

So what it comes down to for me is this - why? Why make this movie at all? I wracked my brain long and hard before coming up with the laziness explanation. And I am fully aware, so don’t bother pointing it out, that the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments is more of a Jewish story than a Christian one. But I don’t see Jewish lobby groups complaining about Patrick Starfish. When I do, I will make fun of them as well. And this might not be the right forum for this, but…isn’t what Moses (and of course God) did to the Egyptian people…terrorism? The plagues - you can’t drink the water, it’s unsafe. The locusts have eaten your crops, so you can’t eat. Your civilians will die if you don’t…let God’s people go. We will kill all of the first born sons of Egypt. Yes. We will murder your innocent citizens if you don’t give us our independence. Umm…sound familiar? Perhaps in Palestine, the people might…OK. I was right, this is not the right forum for this. The Ten Commandments, stupid cartoon version, comes out tomorrow, May 13th, from Alliance Films.