'God's Hand' needed to save this one

'God's Hand' needed to save this one

Death to Smoochy

A Smurf on smack reciting "Faust" in Swahili. That's what was playing from the little recorder sitting on my desk, and all hope was vapor. The thought of throwing my wasted self from my 10th-floor room came to me with open arms, saying, "I am your friend. Take my invitation!" Then I realized it was because it was 3 a.m., I was tired and had forgotten to switch the recorder's speed down to normal. Regrouping my wit (and yes, it was singular by this point), I pushed "play" and began to transcribe the events of March 25. That was the day I participated in a telephone conference with Robin Williams (Rainbow Randolph), and director Danny DeVito (Burke), in promotion for "Death to Smoochy." What follows is the majority of that stimulating conversation. Here, you will find the story of a rainbow-riding fool driven to the edge of insanity by a fuchsia rhino, the man who dared to bring it to the screen, and a cookie… My God, a cookie that would bring Ron Jeremy to his chubby knees. Enjoy…\nRobin Williams\nQ: This is the first of three dark roles for you ("Death to Smoochy," "Insomnia," "One-Hour Photo"). Why did you decide to do them?\nA: With "Insomnia," it's working with Chris Nolan ("Memento"). It was amazing because he's so young, but he has a great feel of scene and direction. Playing dark characters is something that I wanted to explore for awhile. Studios wouldn't send it because, I hadn't done it before, but with "Smoochy" it was just so nasty-funny, and once I found out it was Danny DeVito, I said, "I have to do this."\nQ: Danny DeVito seems to be very visual and you are more improvisational and physical. How did that work out?\nA: There are no boundaries with him, there aren't even little road cones. It's just basically this sense of try anything and he'll take the best. Because he's so visual, I think that's why you kind of push the physical comedy, which is great. That combined with his own nasty sense of humor -- he has this kind of demonic laugh that you know if he's going for it, it must be really dark. And he just wanted to go more. He's not afraid of anything and that's why I wanted to do it.\nQ: Was this like exorcising the demons?\nA: It's nice to go the other way once in awhile just to confuse people, like "Is this that nice man?" You know, it's when you find out there's a porno version of your movie called "Snatch Adams," you go, "Oh my God!" And it's kind of interesting to toy with people on that level, and that's why it's been fun for me to do and also so interesting for the films themselves because they kind of toss people's perceptions on their ear.\nQ: What was one of your favorite moments from filming?\nA: There's a great one! You know the scene where he (Smoochy) pulls out The Cookie (think Interpretive Cookie Art à la Larry Flynt) the first time, you know, there are all these sweet little kids around and this one little kid about 8 years old looks up and goes, "What the fuck?" And that was the first time he pulled out The Cookie and so that was the real reaction of this little kid responding to The Cookie and they didn't get it on film. And it was the most bizarre thing. It was like a little cherub saying it.\nQ: How was working with Edward Norton?\nA: He was great. He's a great actor. I mean, you look at him, everyone's talking about me doing a dark roll. He's coming from the dark side doing a kind role, because you know, he has played some of the nastiest and powerful characters like in "American History X" and "Primal Fear." My God, what a frightening psychopath. And in this he's playing an innocent, very sweet and yet, by the end slightly more realistic, more cynical, more of a survivor. And he's a great actor. He's really got the chops. It's great to work with him. I've been lucky enough to work with people like him and Pacino and all these other people and you just learn, which is a great thing.\nQ: In this film, Randolph is quite offensive and he's doing this in front of impressionable children. Did you have any discomfort doing this in front of them, and if so, how did you deal with these things?\nA: The first day they wanted me to just come and do those things and say those things about The Cookie right in front of all of them, and I said listen, I have to do two things: I have to tell the parents that we're doing this -- you know, I don't want anybody having to explain things that they're not ready to explain to a child -- and then also let them know what was going to be said. And the only word they were uncomfortable with, and this was Canada, was the word "dick," because they said one of the children might be named Richard.\nQ: When you got the script, how did you feel reading and were you a little apprehensive?\nA: No, not at all. I laughed my ass off when I read it. The only other time I've laughed out loud is when I got a copy of "The Birdcage" and I went, "Wow!" Was I worried about it having an edge? No, I mean, my stand-up's like that.\nDanny Devito\nQ: What was it like working with Robin Williams, Edward Norton and Jon Stewart?\nA: The experience was really exciting. It's always exciting directing movies, but when you have people who are very prone to improvise and constantly have a lot of fun, which is good by the way, your experience is broadened. It's made more exciting because you do the script, which we stuck by pretty closely, but I also allowed all the actors a few takes to let it loose. And the one person you have to be careful to say that to is Robin, because he just goes. It was lots and lots of fun.\nQ: Working as an actor, producer, and director, which role would you say you prefer?\nA: Well, I love the business. I think it's the greatest industry. We have the ability to create and work with people and to do all the things that I love to do. I really enjoy working as a producer because you get to work with people like Quentin Tarantino, (Steven) Soderbergh and all the different directors and collaborate with them and try to get their vision on the screen. And acting I've been passionate about since I was in my early 20s. And directing is a glorious thing to be able to do -- to take that script and visualize it and work with the actors. So, I really couldn't pick one to do, if I couldn't do the other two, I guess I would say directing would be first because it would take up a lot of the time in the day, which it does, and you have more time to sit and draw pictures and think of music and do all the things that I love doing.\nQ: How do you make the decision to push something and how do you know when to draw the line?\nA: In terms of taking risks, I think that's what life's all about if you're an artist. If you take risks, you're going to grow and you're going to try things. You also have to have a barometer, I guess, inside which kind of pulls you into like how far you're going. I usually pull back a bit. Even though sometimes it doesn't seem like it, I do censor myself in terms of the kind of shots that I'm doing and how far I'm taking the audience or pushing the envelope. I try and be respectful to the script and the sensibilities of all the characters, whether or not I'm taking it over the edge. It's something you have to guard really close, and sometimes maybe your foot slips over the edge, but it's more exciting for you as an artist to take that risk as long as you're not really hurting anybody. The risks are part of the joy of it.\nQ: There are some who are arguing that the kids-business-as-hell-hole concept is old, something that's already been done by such shows as "The Simpsons" with Krusty the Clown. As the director of "Death to Smoochy," what would you argue makes this film an original approach to this storyline?\nA: I actually watch "The Simpsons," you know. I've appeared on "The Simpsons" a couple times, but they've never done it on "South Park." That's my only reference these days. I felt when I got "Death to Smoochy," it was a really unique and exciting vehicle, something I could take chances with, bring a lot of style to and get Robin Williams and Edward Norton and Catherine Keener on the board, finding out what their interpretations of these characters would be and that was what really inspired me to do the movie.

Death to Smoochy

A Smurf on smack reciting "Faust" in Swahili. That's what was playing from the little recorder sitting on my desk, and all hope was vapor. The thought of throwing my wasted self from my 10th-floor room came to me with open arms, saying, "I am your friend. Take my invitation!" Then I realized it was because it was 3 a.m., I was tired and had forgotten to switch the recorder's speed down to normal. Regrouping my wit (and yes, it was singular by this point), I pushed "play" and began to transcribe the events of March 25. That was the day I participated in a telephone conference with Robin Williams (Rainbow Randolph), and director Danny DeVito (Burke), in promotion for "Death to Smoochy." What follows is the majority of that stimulating conversation. Here, you will find the story of a rainbow-riding fool driven to the edge of insanity by a fuchsia rhino, the man who dared to bring it to the screen, and a cookie… My God, a cookie that would bring Ron Jeremy to his chubby knees. Enjoy…\nRobin Williams\nQ: This is the first of three dark roles for you ("Death to Smoochy," "Insomnia," "One-Hour Photo"). Why did you decide to do them?\nA: With "Insomnia," it's working with Chris Nolan ("Memento"). It was amazing because he's so young, but he has a great feel of scene and direction. Playing dark characters is something that I wanted to explore for awhile. Studios wouldn't send it because, I hadn't done it before, but with "Smoochy" it was just so nasty-funny, and once I found out it was Danny DeVito, I said, "I have to do this."\nQ: Danny DeVito seems to be very visual and you are more improvisational and physical. How did that work out?\nA: There are no boundaries with him, there aren't even little road cones. It's just basically this sense of try anything and he'll take the best. Because he's so visual, I think that's why you kind of push the physical comedy, which is great. That combined with his own nasty sense of humor -- he has this kind of demonic laugh that you know if he's going for it, it must be really dark. And he just wanted to go more. He's not afraid of anything and that's why I wanted to do it.\nQ: Was this like exorcising the demons?\nA: It's nice to go the other way once in awhile just to confuse people, like "Is this that nice man?" You know, it's when you find out there's a porno version of your movie called "Snatch Adams," you go, "Oh my God!" And it's kind of interesting to toy with people on that level, and that's why it's been fun for me to do and also so interesting for the films themselves because they kind of toss people's perceptions on their ear.\nQ: What was one of your favorite moments from filming?\nA: There's a great one! You know the scene where he (Smoochy) pulls out The Cookie (think Interpretive Cookie Art à la Larry Flynt) the first time, you know, there are all these sweet little kids around and this one little kid about 8 years old looks up and goes, "What the fuck?" And that was the first time he pulled out The Cookie and so that was the real reaction of this little kid responding to The Cookie and they didn't get it on film. And it was the most bizarre thing. It was like a little cherub saying it.\nQ: How was working with Edward Norton?\nA: He was great. He's a great actor. I mean, you look at him, everyone's talking about me doing a dark roll. He's coming from the dark side doing a kind role, because you know, he has played some of the nastiest and powerful characters like in "American History X" and "Primal Fear." My God, what a frightening psychopath. And in this he's playing an innocent, very sweet and yet, by the end slightly more realistic, more cynical, more of a survivor. And he's a great actor. He's really got the chops. It's great to work with him. I've been lucky enough to work with people like him and Pacino and all these other people and you just learn, which is a great thing.\nQ: In this film, Randolph is quite offensive and he's doing this in front of impressionable children. Did you have any discomfort doing this in front of them, and if so, how did you deal with these things?\nA: The first day they wanted me to just come and do those things and say those things about The Cookie right in front of all of them, and I said listen, I have to do two things: I have to tell the parents that we're doing this -- you know, I don't want anybody having to explain things that they're not ready to explain to a child -- and then also let them know what was going to be said. And the only word they were uncomfortable with, and this was Canada, was the word "dick," because they said one of the children might be named Richard.\nQ: When you got the script, how did you feel reading and were you a little apprehensive?\nA: No, not at all. I laughed my ass off when I read it. The only other time I've laughed out loud is when I got a copy of "The Birdcage" and I went, "Wow!" Was I worried about it having an edge? No, I mean, my stand-up's like that.\nDanny Devito\nQ: What was it like working with Robin Williams, Edward Norton and Jon Stewart?\nA: The experience was really exciting. It's always exciting directing movies, but when you have people who are very prone to improvise and constantly have a lot of fun, which is good by the way, your experience is broadened. It's made more exciting because you do the script, which we stuck by pretty closely, but I also allowed all the actors a few takes to let it loose. And the one person you have to be careful to say that to is Robin, because he just goes. It was lots and lots of fun.\nQ: Working as an actor, producer, and director, which role would you say you prefer?\nA: Well, I love the business. I think it's the greatest industry. We have the ability to create and work with people and to do all the things that I love to do. I really enjoy working as a producer because you get to work with people like Quentin Tarantino, (Steven) Soderbergh and all the different directors and collaborate with them and try to get their vision on the screen. And acting I've been passionate about since I was in my early 20s. And directing is a glorious thing to be able to do -- to take that script and visualize it and work with the actors. So, I really couldn't pick one to do, if I couldn't do the other two, I guess I would say directing would be first because it would take up a lot of the time in the day, which it does, and you have more time to sit and draw pictures and think of music and do all the things that I love doing.\nQ: How do you make the decision to push something and how do you know when to draw the line?\nA: In terms of taking risks, I think that's what life's all about if you're an artist. If you take risks, you're going to grow and you're going to try things. You also have to have a barometer, I guess, inside which kind of pulls you into like how far you're going. I usually pull back a bit. Even though sometimes it doesn't seem like it, I do censor myself in terms of the kind of shots that I'm doing and how far I'm taking the audience or pushing the envelope. I try and be respectful to the script and the sensibilities of all the characters, whether or not I'm taking it over the edge. It's something you have to guard really close, and sometimes maybe your foot slips over the edge, but it's more exciting for you as an artist to take that risk as long as you're not really hurting anybody. The risks are part of the joy of it.\nQ: There are some who are arguing that the kids-business-as-hell-hole concept is old, something that's already been done by such shows as "The Simpsons" with Krusty the Clown. As the director of "Death to Smoochy," what would you argue makes this film an original approach to this storyline?\nA: I actually watch "The Simpsons," you know. I've appeared on "The Simpsons" a couple times, but they've never done it on "South Park." That's my only reference these days. I felt when I got "Death to Smoochy," it was a really unique and exciting vehicle, something I could take chances with, bring a lot of style to and get Robin Williams and Edward Norton and Catherine Keener on the board, finding out what their interpretations of these characters would be and that was what really inspired me to do the movie.

'High Crimes' guilty of following cliche structure and story

High Crimes - PG-13\nStarring: Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman\nDirected by: Carl Franklin\nShowing: Showplace West 12\nThere's just something about being stormed by the F.B.I., having your husband arrested and finding him charged with nine counts of murder that seems to put a damper on the day. Especially after you've just done a nice round of Christmas shopping. But of course, when the most pressing issue up until this point has been following the ovulation predictor so that you and hubby can "make a baby," well, you just know something of apocalyptic proportions must be in store. Played with the ever-arched eyebrow of Ashley Judd, this is the situation that Claire Kubik, a successful Bay Side lawyer, finds herself thrust into.\nCarl Franklin's latest effort really isn't a bad film. But it's nowhere near great, nor remotely as good as his preceding work on "One False Move" or "Devil in a Blue Dress." Instead, "High Crimes" is guilty of rigorously trying to follow all of the rules. Some of this might have to do with Franklin, but this primarily falls on the shoulders of the writers, who seem to have sacrificed anything original, anything actually worth a story, for simple, pre-set structure.\nBut "High Crimes" still manages some redeemable qualities, which can be attributed to the chemistry between Judd and Morgan Freeman. Judd and Freeman team up for a second time after the far superior "Kiss the Girls." This time, Freeman plays our off-the-wagon, "wild card" lawyer who's there to teach Mrs. Kubik a few things about military justice. As always, Freeman is apparently incapable of giving a bad performance, regardless of the quality of the film. Together, with Judd, the two play off one another nicely and manage to bring some life to an overall flatlining film of formula.\n

Men with guns, boys with toys

No Man's Land - R\nStarring: Branko Djuric, Rene Bitorajac\nDirected by: Danis Tanovic\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nDanis Tanovic's debut film, "No Man's Land," has been critically acclaimed, collecting a large list of award nominations and wins, and rightly so. Winning for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, Best Foreign Film at the Golden Globes and Best Screenplay at Cannes. Tanovic wrote and directed the film, along with composing and singing some of the music for the soundtrack. Tanovic becomes one more director in the ever-growing field of multi-hyphenated, multi-talented individuals who seem to bring a Midas touch to every aspect of film they deal with.\nSet against the bitter civil wars of the former Yugoslavia, Tanovic brings a stark realism to the film that comes from his experience as a documentary filmmaker on the front lines with the Bosnian army. Tanovic's humor is scathing and black with such quips as one Serbian soldier shaking his head and scoffing, "It's such a mess in Rwanda!" The story surrounds a Bosnian soldier and a Serbian soldier trapped in a trench between opposing front lines, thus the title. There is also another Bosnian soldier in the trench who is booby-trapped with a ball-bearing mine. With only one gun between them, the boys-with-toys metaphor is strong as they each force one another to do things and admit that their side started the war "because I have a gun and you don't!" But with each passing moment, the comedy crawls away and gives itself over to an absurdism that is closer to the truth. By the end, things are seething, hatreds must be avenged and there are no heroes, only the dead and those left dying.\nWhile Tanovic's anger is felt throughout the film, it never gets in the way of the humor, nor the realism, but instead weaves it together into a potent film with a sucker-punch. By the end, Tanovic is not only commenting on the pointlessness of his own country's war, but on war itself, the pretentiousness of United Nations humanitarian aid and the self-serving media of warfare. Not only is Tanovic working close to home, but so are his crew and actors. This authenticity bleeds right across the film.\n

Men with guns, boys with toys

No Man's Land - R\nStarring: Branko Djuric, Rene Bitorajac\nDirected by: Danis Tanovic\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nDanis Tanovic's debut film, "No Man's Land," has been critically acclaimed, collecting a large list of award nominations and wins, and rightly so. Winning for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, Best Foreign Film at the Golden Globes and Best Screenplay at Cannes. Tanovic wrote and directed the film, along with composing and singing some of the music for the soundtrack. Tanovic becomes one more director in the ever-growing field of multi-hyphenated, multi-talented individuals who seem to bring a Midas touch to every aspect of film they deal with.\nSet against the bitter civil wars of the former Yugoslavia, Tanovic brings a stark realism to the film that comes from his experience as a documentary filmmaker on the front lines with the Bosnian army. Tanovic's humor is scathing and black with such quips as one Serbian soldier shaking his head and scoffing, "It's such a mess in Rwanda!" The story surrounds a Bosnian soldier and a Serbian soldier trapped in a trench between opposing front lines, thus the title. There is also another Bosnian soldier in the trench who is booby-trapped with a ball-bearing mine. With only one gun between them, the boys-with-toys metaphor is strong as they each force one another to do things and admit that their side started the war "because I have a gun and you don't!" But with each passing moment, the comedy crawls away and gives itself over to an absurdism that is closer to the truth. By the end, things are seething, hatreds must be avenged and there are no heroes, only the dead and those left dying.\nWhile Tanovic's anger is felt throughout the film, it never gets in the way of the humor, nor the realism, but instead weaves it together into a potent film with a sucker-punch. By the end, Tanovic is not only commenting on the pointlessness of his own country's war, but on war itself, the pretentiousness of United Nations humanitarian aid and the self-serving media of warfare. Not only is Tanovic working close to home, but so are his crew and actors. This authenticity bleeds right across the film.\n

When a good Gandhi goes bad

Sexy Beast - R\nStarring: Ben Kingsley, Ray Winstone\nDirected by: Jonathan Glazer\n"Sexy Beast" is Jonathan Glazer's feature directorial debut, and he couldn't have asked for a better welcome. Hailed by critics and garnering a long list of nominations and awards, including an Oscar nomination for Ben Kingsley, "Sexy Beast" is well worth owning for the supporting actor's performance alone. Regardless of the fairly dainty Special Features section, Glazer's film is excellently directed, expertly acted and masterfully scripted, making it a nice but overlooked DVD to impress your friends with. "Sexy Beast" is a Guy Ritchie film filtered through the Vegas velvet-smoothness of "Ocean's 11." \nThe screenplay was written by two playwrights, and I wouldn't be surprised if Glazer had some practice in theatrical directing himself. The script and composition of this film are wonderfully woven together. Glazer rarely resorts to fancy camera movements and awkward angles to give his film a razor's edge. Instead, he simply sets up the scene, knowing precisely when to cut and where to cut. He knows how to manipulate silence into a deafening roar, bringing things to a full boil. And the script only gives the audience what is absolutely necessary, letting viewers fill in the blanks. Often, Glazer and his actors have done such an expert job already, those "blanks" are the clearest moments.\nTo watch Kingsley in this film is to watch a man who has mastered his art. The man who personified Gandhi, who made us believe in Schindler, is the same man that will cause your breathing to come to a screeching halt and your skin to crawl with goose bumps at the very mention of his name: Don Logan. As played by Kingsley, he is one of the most vicious, unhappy, profane men in the history of cinema. His acid-laced mouth spews vulgarities like shredded silk. It may be horrible to hear, but it's wickedly wonderful to listen to. You will have little wonder why Kingsley has been nominated and is well deserving of a win at this year's Academy Awards.\nAlong with Kingsley, Ray Winstone and several other actors and actresses give beautiful and complex performances ranging in emotions from true love to sheer terror. Included on the DVD are two trailers, a TV spot and commentary by Kingsley and producer Jeremy Thomas. The commentary adds even more depth to the film, especially with Kingsley's insight. For true film connoisseurs or those who simply want to catch a decent flick, this one is worth your time and your money.\n

Watch this movie and die of boredom

Resident Evil - R\nStarring: Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriguez\nDirected by: Paul W.S. Anderson\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nWith a Wes Craven directed "Alice" being filmed and "Tomb Raider 2" à la Jolie in production, the current pop trend of converting video games into "blockbuster" movies is where the money seems to be. But where the money is, the quality is not. Viewing the trend's track record speaks for itself. And Paul W.S. Anderson's "Resident Evil" is just one more sputtering glitch in the system. From bad acting to a truly scary script, this letdown has the life expectancy of an infant in a zombie ward.\nAnyone who has ever been to a recent movie can recall the dully annoying advertisements and trivia questions that precede the film. With "Resident Evil," this actually serves a purpose. Sometimes these slides contain definitions of various movie terminologies. Tonight, the term was "Stinger: a single, sustained note or series of notes played to provide emphasis for a specific dramatic event." Without stingers, "Resident Evil" is about as frightening as watching an old man gum a popsicle. Every creeping zombie, every gun drawn, every corner turned you can count on the sound of a combusting orchestra to cue you, "This is spooky!" The director probably could have cut down on the budget if he would have just said, "Boo!" during all moments of supposed tension.\nAnd as shamelessly cliché as this seems, the characters and script for this movie are nothing short of hokey. The dialogue in this thing was apparently transcribed straight from a really bad video game. Set in a research facility called The Hive, it is run by a supercomputer referred to as the Red Queen. The Red Queen is holographically represented by a little girl with the ever-creepy British accent, who uses spooky words like "implore," and says things like, "You're all going to die down here!" Which, of course, is followed by a heart-pounding stinger. When asked what the zombies' motivation for munching on flesh is, we are told in a disturbing child's voice, "The need to feed!" Please. The only need here was for something called a rewrite.\nLikewise, Michelle Rodriguez is apparently hell-bent on proving she has more testosterone than "Stone Cold" Steve Austin. With a constant "I-take-bitch-as-a-compliment" smirk smeared across her pugnacious puss, her character's range widely arcs from her first delicate utterance of "Blow me," edgily directed toward a male, to the cold-hearted sympathy of "Poor bastards," on observing a room full of drowned scientists.\nThe only thing brain-dead around here seems to be me for having expected the same guy who brought us such classics as "Mortal Kombat" and "Soldier" to actually deliver something worth my time. Don't bother giving up yours.\n

'Lantana': A grown-up mystery

Lantana - R\nStarring: Anthony LaPaglia, Geoffrey Rush, Barbara Hershey\nDirected by: Ray Lawrence\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nThe lantana plant is an invasive shrub that often grows in unwanted areas. On its surface, it yields beautiful flowers that range in colors from purple to orange. Beneath these delicate flowers, however, is a tightly woven system of branches. The tagline for Ray Lawrence's new film, which draws its name from the plant, simply states, "Sometimes love isn't enough." Between the "flowery" metaphor of love and the tagline, you have everything you need to know about viewing "Lantana."\nDirector Ray Lawrence ("Bliss") returns to the screen after 16 years with a film that probes the complex relationships, specifically marriage, that bind individuals together. Adapted from Andrew Bovell's play, "Speaking in Tongues," which Bovell co-wrote the screenplay with Lawrence, "Lantana" is the story of Detective Leon Zat (Anthony LaPaglia). Zat is investigating a case revolving around the disappearance and presumed murder of marriage counselor Dr. Valerie Somers (Barbara Hershey). While this plotline drives the film forward, at its core are the crumbling ruins of two marriages: those of Detective Zat and Dr. Somers' own marriage to her stoic husband John Knox (Geoffrey Rush).\nBoth Bovell and Lawrence take a brutal, and sometimes excruciating, look at humanity's greatest mystery, love. \n"Lantana" is geared toward an older audience, an audience that has seen love move past its days of youthful lust and vigor and into something much more intangible and much more abstract. "Lantana" deals with the deceptions we allow ourselves to believe in, the lies that men tell, the passion women yearn for and the secrets that everyone hides.\n"Lantana" also boasts an incredible cast. Anthony LaPaglia gives a powerful and moving performance as Leon Zat, a man who is going numb to the world around him. Likewise, Geoffrey Rush is perfectly cast as the seemingly hollow and embittered husband of Dr. Somers. The women of "Lantana" give performances full of gnawing ache and longing that seeps from their very pores.\n"Lantana" was not without its flaws. Specifically, Dr. Somers' character seems slightly underdeveloped as her actions begin to grow more and more irrational. But this aside, for those who have both the patience and the appreciation for such character-driven films as "In the Bedroom" or "Monster's Ball," "Lantana" is a beautiful film that is well worth your money and time. Sweeping the American Film Institute Awards in every major category, sadly, this film has been overlooked by the Academy. Don't make the same mistake!\n

Fore-SHOUTING vs. foreshadowing

Dragonfly - PG-13\nStarring: Kevin Costner, Kathy Bates\nDirected by: Tom Shadyac\nShowing: Showplace West 12\nIn Tom Shadyac's new supernatural/spiritual thriller, "Dragonfly," the director poses this simple question: What if Robin Williams saw dead people? OK, actually, it's not Robin Williams. It's Kevin Costner. And Costner is really hearing more than seeing. Nonetheless, if you've ever entertained the tantalizing question of what would happen if "The Sixth Sense" was crossed with "Patch Adams," the latter of which Shadyac directed, then this is your movie.\nShadyac's film is about a doctor, played by Costner, who seems to be getting messages from his deceased wife in the form of cryptic, cross-like dragonflies from children who've had near-death experiences. So, we've got a man grieving over his lost loved one, getting creepy messages from kids that come via interpretive insect art. I can think of at least one film released not too long ago ("The Mothman Prophecies" anyone?) that follows this plot line almost identically, and a few others that come spookily close.\nShadyac's movie falters for several reasons: bad writing, a comatose Costner and deadpan direction. The script in this film clunks along. The direction in this film seems to employ every possibly conceivable ghost-story cliché with howling winds that ominously wake the sleeping, dead kids going "Boo!" and a paint-by-number soundtrack accompanying nether-worldly voices.\nFurthermore, apparently Shadyac and his screenwriters confused foreshadowing with fore-SHOUTING! This movie drops clues like anvils on thin ice. By the time we get to the "surprise" ending, anyone who has halfway followed the plot will see that it has the twist potential of Billy Graham at a Beatles concert. It just ain't happenin', folks.\nFinally, we have the gravely miscast Costner. What happened to the guy who made us believe in apparitions of the corn-kind, government conspiracies and dancing with wolves? Costner's films seem to have drowned with "Waterworld" and resuscitation is quickly becoming a non-option. The closest thing we have of a ghost in this film seems to be poor Kevin's career.\nSadly enough, "Dragonfly" had the potential to be a decent film. It's a movie that desperately wants to believe in itself, but in the end, that desperation is too telling. Shadyac's focus feels off center. What could have made a touching spiritual drama about the healing process one doctor needs to go through, turns into a hokey spook-fest with little depth and lots of melodramatic sap. Save this one for a Lifetime Special with that certain someone.\n

Children, weep for humanity

Big Fat Liar - PG\nStarring: Frankie Muniz, Amanda Bynes, Paul Giamatti\nDirected by: Shawn Levy\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nWelcome to the world of Jason Shepherd (Frankie Muniz), the main character of "Big Fat Liar," where adults have a collective IQ equivalent to that of a raisin. In this regard, "BFL" might be one of the best anti-drug films to come along since Jared Leto shoved a needle into his arm. \nThis is the only fathomable excuse I can find for every person in this movie older than 14 acting like they burnt out the majority of their brain by the time they hit puberty. To be perfectly honest, we might be justified in hanging Shawn Levy and the writers of "BFL" by their own celluloid under charges of crimes against humanity. Granted, I might be exaggerating my distaste for this film slightly. I am not exaggerating when I say that at a theater filled with children and their parents, I heard one kid laugh. Once. Through the entire movie.\nShawn Levy's "Big Fat Liar" is about a kid named Jason Shepherd who takes a trip to Hollywood with his best friend, Kaylee (Amanda Bynes). Jason is planning on hunting down Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti), a powerful movie producer and, apparently, Satan Incarnate. In a plot line too complicated to explain, Wolf stole Jason's idea for a story called "Big Fat Liar." Now, all Jason wants is for Wolf to call his father and explain to him that he stole Jason's idea. When Wolf refuses, the rest of the movie focuses on Jason and Kaylee turning Wolf's life into a series of pranks until he breaks down and calls Jason's dad.\n"Big Fat Liar," was made by guys who both write and direct for television. It stars actors and actresses based in television. In short, if you're seeing something of a theme here, it's glaringly obvious in the movie. This is something that should have been an After-School Special, and that's all.\nThe only thing "BFL" ever has going for it is Paul Giamatti. Giamatti should have been hilarious in his role. But he is crushed by the sheer stupidity that surrounds him. Even the soundtrack for this movie was ridiculously hokey. When Muniz stops to seriously soliloquize on the value of truth, you can hear violins softly serenading piano notes that tickle like tears.\nI honestly went into "Big Fat Liar" keeping in mind the audience that this movie was supposed to be geared toward. Personally, if I were part of this targeted audience, I would be offended at how completely brain-dead they must have assumed we were.\n

Children, weep for humanity

Big Fat Liar - PG\nStarring: Frankie Muniz, Amanda Bynes, Paul Giamatti\nDirected by: Shawn Levy\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nWelcome to the world of Jason Shepherd (Frankie Muniz), the main character of "Big Fat Liar," where adults have a collective IQ equivalent to that of a raisin. In this regard, "BFL" might be one of the best anti-drug films to come along since Jared Leto shoved a needle into his arm. \nThis is the only fathomable excuse I can find for every person in this movie older than 14 acting like they burnt out the majority of their brain by the time they hit puberty. To be perfectly honest, we might be justified in hanging Shawn Levy and the writers of "BFL" by their own celluloid under charges of crimes against humanity. Granted, I might be exaggerating my distaste for this film slightly. I am not exaggerating when I say that at a theater filled with children and their parents, I heard one kid laugh. Once. Through the entire movie.\nShawn Levy's "Big Fat Liar" is about a kid named Jason Shepherd who takes a trip to Hollywood with his best friend, Kaylee (Amanda Bynes). Jason is planning on hunting down Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti), a powerful movie producer and, apparently, Satan Incarnate. In a plot line too complicated to explain, Wolf stole Jason's idea for a story called "Big Fat Liar." Now, all Jason wants is for Wolf to call his father and explain to him that he stole Jason's idea. When Wolf refuses, the rest of the movie focuses on Jason and Kaylee turning Wolf's life into a series of pranks until he breaks down and calls Jason's dad.\n"Big Fat Liar," was made by guys who both write and direct for television. It stars actors and actresses based in television. In short, if you're seeing something of a theme here, it's glaringly obvious in the movie. This is something that should have been an After-School Special, and that's all.\nThe only thing "BFL" ever has going for it is Paul Giamatti. Giamatti should have been hilarious in his role. But he is crushed by the sheer stupidity that surrounds him. Even the soundtrack for this movie was ridiculously hokey. When Muniz stops to seriously soliloquize on the value of truth, you can hear violins softly serenading piano notes that tickle like tears.\nI honestly went into "Big Fat Liar" keeping in mind the audience that this movie was supposed to be geared toward. Personally, if I were part of this targeted audience, I would be offended at how completely brain-dead they must have assumed we were.\n

'Count' beats being in a prison forever

The Count of Monte Cristo - PG-13\nStarring: Jim Caviezel, Guy Pearce\nDirected by: Kevin Reynolds\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nThis past weekend, Kevin Reynolds' adaptation of Alexandre Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo" swashbuckled its way across the silver screen, carving out smiles and stealing laughter from audiences. Reynolds has rebounded nicely from his last epic flop, "Waterworld," with a story full of intrigue, excitement, romance and revenge. Set in 19th-century France, the movie sweeps from one lush landscape to the next as we follow the demise of Edmund Dantes and the vengeful rise of the Count of Monte Cristo.\nEdmund Dantes (Jim Caviezel) is leading the simple life of a sailor intent on marrying his gorgeous fiancée, Mercedes (Dagmara Daminczyk). But things soon go very wrong. Dantes is betrayed by his childhood friend, the rather wealthy Fernand Mondego (Guy Pearce). Sent to the Chateau d'If under false charges of treason, Dantes spends the next 13 years of his life being cruelly flogged and engraving "GOD WILL GIVE ME JUSTICE" on the stone walls.\nIt is while enjoying his stay at the chateau that Dantes meets Abbe Faria (Richard Harris), who has accidentally tunneled into Dantes' room in a failed attempt at escape. Faria becomes Dantes' key to revenge, as he teaches Dantes to read, write and master the sword, all the while tunneling towards freedom. Faria also gives Dantes one other crucial thing: the map to the treasure of Monte Cristo. It is from this point on that Dantes is able to begin setting into motion the plan of revenge that he's had 13 years to meticulously plan.\nThis movie is all about sword fighting. It's all about tunneling convicts. It's all about buried treasure, knife-wielding pirates, masquerades in Rome, whispered secrets and undying love. It's all about the good guy spoon-feeding his foes their hearts one bite at a time. In short, this movie is all about simply having fun.\n"The Count of Monte Cristo" is far from being a flawless movie, but that's beside the point. Caviezel turns in one of his best performances since "The Thin Red Line" as the Count. And Pearce becomes one of the most dastardly, slithering fiends to ever creep across the screen. \nKevin Reynolds has managed to make a tribute to the days of Errol Flynn and Douglas Fairbanks with a film that comes straight out of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Don't look for "The Count of Monte Cristo" to be garnering any Oscars at next year's Academy Awards. It's not that kind of a film. But if you're looking for a movie that defines why we have the big screen, a movie that defines entertainment in its purest form, then grab a coke, get some popcorn, and get in line.\n