"People don't realize this, but loneliness is underrated."

The only reason Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who uttered that line, doesn't appear on my Underrated List is time. If I had more time, each letter would have multiple entries. Even so, my A to Z guide to everything in movies you've been missing should have enough to pique your interest.

"And, finally, here are some completely gratuitous pictures of penises to annoy the censors and to hopefully spark some sort of controversy."

I don't actually discuss any full frontal male nudity in my latest Culture article, but I do tackle the heyday of gratuitous sex scenes: 80s action movies. You're welcome!

What's that? Two articles in two weeks? I guess you're lucky, kid.

Pop Culture Round Up: September 6-12

I think I will try to pretend that this will result is something truly amazing and not a reminder that the show might be a lot better if it were called 12.

"Indie film is dead! Again! Still! For real this time!" We'll see.

Oh, no wait, the Australian thinks so, too.

I totally rocked this quiz. I have been pronounced "Dylan McKay smooth."

"Memory, comprehension and problem-solving skills all improve in people who apply mental exercises used by actors." Yay! Bring on the elderly improv groups.

This might be brilliant.

I realize that I was pretty young when it came out and that I haven't seen in in years, but I thought Grumpy Old Men was funny because it was funny and appealing because it's nice to think that we'll still have friends and fun when we get older. Now thinking about getting older just makes me sad.

Great. Now can we do something about the dearth of great female characters in movies?

You know what? Good. Post secondary is too expensive to begin with, especially in the US.

Again, if I made a habit of linking to GFY, it'd fill this post every week, but what? Why haven't I heard about this Etta James biopic starting effing Beyonce sooner? Why is this happening?

I can't explain why, but this casting news is exciting!

Even if we are saddled with another Paul Haggis-mussed script, this trailer still looks totally bitchin'.

This story manages to be funny, sad, weird, and great simultaneously.

Pop Culture Round Up: August 23 - 29

Kitties need to rock, too.

It claims it was published on the 21st, but I am certain I have read this somewhere before.

Everyone wants Jay Baruchel now, too. Well, everyone except 24 Heures Montréal. They saw some "Ray Baruchel" kid in Tropic Thunder.*

Hey, remember when Italian cinema was experiencing a Renaissance that we didn't know it needed? Now we apparently need to worry if it will last.

Ha! I can't wait to see how crazy hateful this might turn out.

And equally funny (fake) Sorkin news.

WTF, Sara? The Women, Ghost Town, and Lakeview Terrace all look fucking terrible.

This was not as exciting as I wanted it to be. Dan's with some new chick? Whatever.

"You will note: there is a rampant high tide of colonisation." I have noticed that, actually!

Lamenting silence.

I originally misinterpreted this subtitle to mean convention as in rule or method instead of convention as in meeting, so I was like, "What, using parliamentary rules of debate?"

Why does Orlando Bloom feature so heavily in this trailer? Is there a person alive who associates him with that city in particular?

I did think that this rumour might be "totally awesome," for about half a second.

Sadly, none of these are Ms. Hauser, Veronica's angry, theiving, racist Health teacher. Or Professor Landry, her adulterous, murderous criminology professor. Or Mr. Rook, her molesting Ancient History teacher. Wow, there weren't a lot of good teachers on that show.

Funny, recent Woody Allen.

Gear up for fall with NY Mag's Fall Movie Preview.

OMG, this is totally true.

Find out what made the cut as "the scariest disaster movie of the decade." Hint: it's got polar bears!

Cattle and deer have a sixth sense! Beware!

Having read the AV Club's Fall TV Preview, I can safely name of number of new shows I plan to check out: 3. And I'm expecting two of those to suck.

Jennie and Shannen hate the new 90210? Check it out for yourself. They kind of do.

That's all great and good if you live in the US. When will Hulu be available here?

I'm pretty sure we're just stuck on anyone who can successfully live outside the law.

How mean does it make me to find this ever-so-slightly amusing?

Well, yeah, Kiefer. Also, spoilers!

Bye, Dan! I'll miss you, and I'm sorry I didn't read the Vulture back when you made that video because it is killer.

Rob's Amazing Poem Generator** came up with a Feria Films poem:

Feria Films It’includes plenty of news makes everything better
than the studio is
redundant.As a sexy vampire?Labels:
baruchel, PC posted by
aunt Patricia Clarkson to watch
all about to
this about the
images will never live With monks. Okay, Another beef
that I wonder if
this
and
it is. old, Hag
Entertainment Weekly Kids with heart to
scenes,
drama
I was being
made unless
someone tosses his indie tone poems which
help I love. of a spoiler
heavy interview.

*Print only, apparently. Couldn't seem to find this online.
**This makes me want to generate a poem for pretty much every review now.

The Very Short Take

A challenge: to write no more than one paragraph plus a one sentence plot summary on each of the seven (7!) recently viewed titles that will follow.

Chaplin (1992)

Summary: British vaudeville perfomer Charlie Chaplin (Robert Downey, Jr.) moves to America, becomes film sensation, marries a bunch of different women (Milla Jovovich, Deborah Moore, Diane Lane, Moira Kelly), purports to have a "wild side."

I think that we supposed to think that he had a wild side because of his many ladies, but I found that bit hard to swallow since he married them all. Sure, if he had slept around, I would have agreed, but it hardly seems all that wild to divorce people who, say, fake pregnanices to trap you into marrying them. Downey Jr is fantastic as always and wonderfully likeable as the Tramp. Overall, kind of long and not always that interesting. Well, I liked Kevin Kline as Doug Fairbanks. B

And since I'm already on to Kline . . .

The Big Chill (1983)

Summary: Seven college friends (Kevin Kline, Glenn Close, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum, William Hurt, Mary Kay Place, and JoBeth Williams) gather together for the weekend following the death of their friend Alex.

Fantastic soundtrack! Too bad the movie isn't very good at all. Everyone gets together to bitch and moan about how none of their lives are what they thought they would be 20 years after they graduated from college. Of course they're not. At least these people have the good sense to recognize that the fact that they can get together again after long separations and still feel this natural with each other is something special. Sure, the cast gives off a great feeling of lived-in intimacy, but the plot pushes those feelings so far beyond the bounds of sanity that I balked. Ah, well, still gives off enough warm fuzzies to be tolerable. B

Behind the Red Door (2002)

Summary: A dying man (Kiefer Sutherland) cons his sister (Kyra Sedgwick) into caring for him in his final days, while facing their violent past.

Stockard Channing's also along for the ride. You know, there are these movies where the performers outshine their material by far. This is one of those movies. It's not very good, although I'm always ready to throw myself in with the three leads. Too bad the pacing couldn't have been picked up to make the plot seem more interesting. C

Speaking of such movies . . .

It's All About Love (2003)

Summary: John (Joaquin Phoenix) flies into New York in order to finalize his divorce from famous figure skater Elena (Claire Danes), only to discover that her life may be in peril.

Once you've seen one movie with subplots about flying Ugandans and snow in July, you've seen 'em all. Even Sean Penn's teeny cameo was wasted. Simultaneously being about nothing and making no sense in a mean feat, but writer/director Thomas Vinterberg pulls it off. I think he was trying to say something about disconnection and loneliness, but the execution was hidden. D

Should I have a deep, burning desire to see Phoenix, Danes, and Penn on the screen together again, I think I'd rather watch their three scenes in . . .

U Turn (1997)

Summary: A drifter (Sean Penn) accidentally rolls into a crazy/backwards small town, his car is taken hostage by an insane mechanic (Billy Bob Thornton), and a husband (Nick Nolte) and wife (Jennifer Lopez) each hire him to kill the other.

I certainly hope Phoenix and Danes are happy with themselves. Their three scenes were the only things that kept me from going out, locating director Oliver Stone, and kicking him repeatedly. You, sir, are the most overrated director whose "art" I have ever had to suffer through. Get over yourself. Quick. The 30 seconds in the movie after Penn beats up Phoenix where Phoenix informs Danes that he "had to defend [her] honour, baby" and then Danes yells at Penn's retreating back, "YOU KILLED HIM!" are the only reasons I won't fail this movie. D-

Bottle Rocket (1997)

Summary: Once Anthony (Luke Wilson) is released from the mental institution, he, Dignan (Owen Wilson) and Bob (Robert Musgrave) form criminal gang, are forced to go on the lam, and eventually hook up with Mr. Henry (James Caan) and his superior gang.

You know, when I was first watching Wes Anderson's feature length debut, I found it more inspired but less assured than the work that followed. Thinking back on it, it's a lot funnier than I gave it credit for at the time, but I'd prefer watching something like Rushmore. I like Anderson much more once he's perfected creating this insular worlds that seem impossible but manage to be believable. B+

Pretty Persuasion (2005)

Summary: 15 year-old Kimberly Joyce (Evan Rachel Wood) brings chaos to her high school and creates a media frenzy when she and two friends (Elizabeth Harnois, Adi Schnall) accuse their English and drama teacher (Ron Livingston) of sexual assault.

By far the best of the bunch. Wood continues to prove herself as one of the best actresses ever, delightful here as a manipulative teenaged hellion, and she inspires great work in everyone who surrounds her. It's too bad they pushed it too far at the end. B+

Desert Saints (2002)

Short: Banks (Kiefer Sutherland) is a hit man who uses women to do the work that may get him caught, then he kills them. For he latest and last hit, he picks up Bennie (Melora Walters), a sultry hitch-hiker with a secret past. Scanlon (Jamey Sheridan) and Marbury (Leslie Stefanson) are feds hot on his trail, and a simple enough hit quickly dissolves into a game of betrayal.

Let's all agree that it has been quite some time since April reviewed a Kiefer Sutherland movie. Aren't you impressed?

You should be.

You should not, however, be impressed with this movie. A ho-hum betrayal tale between cops and criminals doesn't do much for me when it's as formulaic as this one. Of course, that explains why writer/director Richard Greenberg and co-writer Wally Nichols haven't done anything since. There's nothing in the screenplay or direction to catch the audience's attention and/or maintain it.

Sutherland, as always, demonstrates that he's a formidable villain with a tongue laced with double talk and cruelty. He seems nice enough one minute, but that can change in a snap.

Walters wasn't nearly as good, but I liked her anyway. Everything I read described her as "sexy", and, while I wouldn't agree with that, I would go as far as to say that she did more than just put up a tough girl front.

Overall, though, I can't in good conscience recommend this one. It's not enough to anything to be worthwhile and not bad enough for me to dismiss it. C

To End All Wars (2001)

Premise: True story of POWS in WWII would were forced to build a railroad through the Burmese jungle.  More specifically, the true story of Ernest Gordon (Ciarán McMenamin), who started a university in their camp after he was captured with his entire Scottish regiment.  He taught philosophy.  His commander, Campbell (Robert Carlyle), resented Ernest’s efforts and focused on escape and/or overthrowing the camp instead.  Ernest found inspiration and direction instead in Dusty (Mark Strong), a self-sacrificing idealist.  Meanwhile, the sole American, a merchant marine named Reardon (Kiefer Sutherland), sought to make the situation as profitable as it could be for him.   

Who is impressed at how long it has been since I watched/reviewed a Kiefer Sutherland movie?  I said I was through, and I was. 

Nonetheless, Carlyle is one of the greatest actors ever, and I heard this film was great.  All in all, I felt I owed it to myself to see it. 

And it did not disappoint.  Not only is this one of the best war films I have ever seen, but I also believe it is the best Sutherland film I have ever seen. 

Editor’s Note: when I say “best war film”, I mean the best film set during a war.  I don’t know how it compares in terms of accuracy or realism about combat/POWs. 

Carlyle is truly a chameleon.  For all I make of Phillip Seymour Hoffman as one, I don’t believe he possesses the raw talent of Carlyle, the absolute ability to transform himself into anything.  There are very few actors that are as powerful to watch. 

McMenamin, despite being Irish rather than Scottish, holds his own against some overwhelming co-stars and does a pretty good Scottish accent while he’s at it.  He’s got these crazy coloured eyes that are so expressive, you can barely take your eyes off them. 

Why, oh why, hasn’t Brian Godawa written anything else?  I feel really ripped off knowing that fact.  Slighted, even. 

And David L. Cunningham (director), what an amazing voice you have – so strong, quiet, subdued. 

This film will rip your heart right out of your chest.  I don’t recall the last time I saw something so heartbreaking (minus the personal heartbreak of the King Arthur fiasco). 

Please don’t misunderstand me.  I wasn’t walking around with a mistaken idea of what life was like for POWs.  The film will break your heart in a million different ways that have very little to do with their treatment. 

It deals freedom and sacrifice in ways that you and I cannot even imagine. 

Because it is true, I do imagine that we all need to see this film over and over again. 

1969 (1988)

Premise: Two friends, Scott (Kiefer Sutherland) and Ralph (Robert Downey Jr.), attend college to avoid the draft. After Ralph flunks out, they go on a road trip to hide from the draft board in the summer of '69. (I just couldn't resist ;))

Okay, I know I said no more Kiefer Sutherland movies, and I was serious. I put two movies on the exempt list, Desert Saints and Behind the Red Door. 1969 was not among them. Em protested for it, but I apparently gave it the air back hand. That said, I was channel surfing before I was supposed to go to Em's house one night, and I saw Flatliners and 1969 after it. As if, I thought, as if. So I checked the program description, and, sure enough, it was the right 1969. Now, let's think about this: If I has seen that 1969 was on, didn't tell Em, and cracked and told her later (as I likely would), she would have given me a back hand and not an air one. So I told her, and she came over. So you can't really hold me responsible, now can you?

Here's what's worse: this movie is pretty darn good. Can you imagine it, a good Kiefer Sutherland movie? Blows your mind, doesn't it? It's hard to describe, actually. The films occurs on multiple levels, and I cannot begin to describe them to you now. Serious, it's a multifaceted plot. Which I think is high praise of Ernest Thompson's screenplay and direction. It's like he wants you to experience first hand everything that you may have missed.

Sutherland's his usual talented self, and I'm right now trying to remember if I have had a chance to talk about Downey Jr. yet. I don't think so. Drug addiction aside, Downey Jr. is crazy talented. I mean it. His performances are effortless, shocking, charming, and balanced. It's almost as though he can perform a waltz through his acting on the screen. Wow, I had no idea I thought so highly of him.

The film's one downfall is Winona Ryder. She's actually not that bad in this film, but she has absolutely no chemistry with Sutherland. In fact, she has more chemistry with Downey Jr. In any case, there is nothing more boring to watch than a romantic pairing with no chemistry.

The strange thing about this film is that it is multi-layered yet it is plotless. Does that make sense? I suppose not. Perhaps you'll just have to see it for yourself, if you can ever find it in a video store.

Bright Lights, Big City (1988)

Outline: Following a confused cocaine user (Michael J. Fox) over the course of a week, during which his absentee wife (Phoebe Cates) returns home, he gets fired from his job, and culminating with the first anniversary of his mother's (Dianne Weist) death.

This movie is so stupid. It's boring and awful. Look at us, we are doing lines. Look at us, we are buying more cocaine. Look at us, we aren't even really addicts (as he gets through some time without going through withdrawal), we just don't want to bother with our lives. Stupid, boring, and awful. The most exciting parts were the sub-headings for each day. See, Fox is supposed to be a writer, so each day begins with a type written disclaimer. Trust me, the six or seven of them are the most interesting parts of the film.

Also, Cates' character is a famous model. Everyone talks about how great she looks, how beautiful she is. Don't get me wrong, she's a pretty girl, but there's no way she would be a model. It's the late 80s, so that means we are closing in on the rise of the super model. That considered, she wouldn't have made it. I know this sounds kind of mean. The point I am trying to make is that the film is poorly cast. The only thing believable about Cates is that she would have married Fox, who is, as always, winsome.

The screenplay, written by Jay McInerney, was based on his best selling novel of the same name. Something has got to have been lost in the translation from page to screen because this story should not be a bestseller. As for the direction, well, I've never see anything else James Bridges has done, and I feel bad saying stuff about him considering that and the fact that he's dead.

Also, what was the point of having Kiefer Sutherland as Fox's only friend. He's character has few scenes, and they aren't at all interesting. I don't get why he is the second name billed and the put him on the box. This movie is one of many that has prompted me to go on a Kiefer Sutherland fast. I don't care how sexy or talented he is, he has made scores of crap movies, and I don't want to bother with them anymore.

Overall, you have no reason to want to see this movie. I mean it - even if you read the book, you shouldn't bother with this movie.

A Time to Kill (1996) and Runaway Jury (2003)

Premise 1: After the rape and attempted murder of his ten year-old daughter, Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson) decides to take the law into his own hands and kills the two men accused before they ever go to trial. He turns to Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) to defend him, and Brigance does, with the help of a beautiful law student (Sandra Bullock), a lecherous divorce lawyer (Oliver Platt), and his alcoholic former boss (Donald Sutherland).

Premise 2: After her husband his gunned down, a woman (Joanna Going) sues the gun company. Wendall Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) takes the case, and the gun company hires Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) to help them select the best possible jury for them by any means possible. Meanwhile, Nick Easter (John Cusack) infiltrates the jury and, with the help of Marlee (Rachel Weisz), offers up the jury to the highest bidder.

N.B.: Yes, this is two movies in the same blog. Two John Grisham movies. And that's the point.

Here's my beef with John Grisham: he's the male equivalent of Danielle Steele. I'm not saying his court room dramas are the same as her romance novels. I hear he does amazing things with character development. Or was that Tom Clancey? In any case, he churns out what is basically the same story over and over again, and people buy in scores. Then, they get made into movies which even more people flock to in droves. So I'm wondering . . . why?

It isn't plot. All the plots are exactly the same. In fact, in these two movies, the juries hand back one hundred percent implausible verdicts. Oh, and outside sources that wish to control the outcome of the trial terrorize the people involved. Oh, look, plot twists. True to life? On the first count: no. On the second two: yeah.

And it sure isn't the characters. Could they be more one dimensional? See, you think they are interesting and complex at first because of all the crazy things happening to them. But, the plot will tell you, time and time again that they good guys are rewarded and the bad guys end up angry and alone. Good guys never comprise their morals (even if it seems like they are going to or seems like they already have), and bad guys are completely immoral, willing to hurt anyone or anything as long as it will benefit their "cause". (N.B. "White power" isn't a cause. Not at all. Because whites always have the power. Seriously, how many really oppressed white people do you know who have to suffer under the oppression of blacks? None? How about Hispanics? None, again, eh? Surely Asians/Southeast Asians, right? Really? None. Except for rare exceptions such as white slavery? I never would have guessed.)

Well, maybe it's the cast. A Time to Kill: Jackson, McCounaughey, Bullock, Platt, Sutherland, Kiefer Sutherland, Charles Dutton, Brenda Fricker, Ashley Judd, Kevin Spacey, the list goes on and on. It's a star-studded extravaganza! Runaway Jury: Cusack, Hoffman, Hackman, Weisz, Bruce McGill, Jeremy Piven, Jennifer Beals, Luis Guzman, Dylan McDermott, etc. A Time to Kill beats Runaway Jury by one name listed. Still, an impressive lot.

Okay, one point for cast. What about direction? Joel Schumacher is responsible for A Time to Kill, and his filmography is nothing to shake a stick at. Frankly, he's the thriller writer's dream come true. Runaway Jury's Gary Fleder hasn't quite got the experience of Schumacher (19 to 5), but his previous works, Don't Say a Word and Kiss the Girls show that he's no slouch in the director's chair. Yet another man that knows the balance between action and thriller, providing carefully measured doses of both.

Okay, we are up to two negatives and two positives. That puts us back at zero. So what is it then? Both movies have different screenwriters and composers, which are the only other points of comparison I can come up with. And that leads to my dilemma: I know all these bad things about these two movies, yet I like both. They are really quite good. I asked someone whose opinion on film I generally trust, and she admitted to liking not only these two John Grisham movies but also two others.

So far, here's the possibility I've come up with: Grisham offers a near perfect blend of reality and fantasy. The plots always seem based in reality, yet the events within can border on the ridiculous. They are the perfect escape movies: emotional, violent, sexy, sad. Just like I have judged his books: perfect for the airport, bus commute, or gym. All sorts of things are happening, yet they do not required your devoted and undivided attention. It's not the stream of consciousness stuff like James Joyce's Ulysses or T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men. And that's okay. In fact, it's better than okay. It's great. Stream of consciousness isn't for everyone. And certainly not all the time. Grisham is then, I suppose, a divertissement.

Dead Heat (2002)

Summary: Heart problems force a 35 year-old Boston cop (Kiefer Sutherland) to retire, and his wife (Radha Mitchell) gives him the boot. His ne'er-do-well step brother (Anthony LaPaglia) convinces him to buy a race horse and hire a jockey (Lothaire Bluteau) who's in deep with the mob.

I'm sitting here right now still laughing at this movie. You might think this means that the movie is funny, but you would be wrong. I'm laughing at how very bad this movie is. Mark Malone, the writer/director, shouldn't be making movies because he is not good at it. Harsh, perhaps, but true. Okay, I admit that I've never seen any more of his work. Luckily, I don't need to. I can tell just from this movie.

That said, as much as I love LaPaglia and Sutherland, their chemistry cannot save this train wreck. They are hilarious and a hoot to watch, and they let me use my talent where I turn any movie into a comedy. What - it's in the action section? What - it's rated R? Trust me, it's a comedy when I am there. Just like Sphere. Now, that was a comedy.

Also, what is with Patric Caird's score? Did he write it in the year 1986 for the band Limozeen? Those kinds of guitar riffs just don't bode well with the public today. And another thing! Who shot this movie? Last time I checked, Boston was pretty cool. I couldn't even tell this movie was in Boston! I'm not saying I have to see Harvard in every shot or the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum, but I can guarantee the place isn't as dull as it looked here. This film might as well have been set in Buffalo for all they did with cinematography.

To sum up: as an action movie = bad; as a comedy = good.

Flatliners (1990)

Short: A group of medical students get this great idea to flatline to see if there is life after death.

Ha! Ha! Ha! The first line is this movie is "Today is good day to die", and, frankly, if you have to see this film, you would be right. It's an awful movie littered with crass stereotypes. There's the beautiful but difficult female doctor (Julia Roberts), the nervous bookworm (Oliver Platt), the brilliant and talented young man who can't stand the establishment (Kevin Bacon), the guy who's got lots of money and even more attitude (Kiefer Sutherland), and a lothario (William Baldwin) for good measure.

Actually, that sounds like a pretty impressive cast on paper. However, on the screen, they are ho-hum at best. Don't get me wrong, Joel Schumacher (another director that I think has a thing for Sutherland - but who doesn't?) is pretty good director. I just don't know what he expected to do with Peter Filardi's script. Filardi also brought us The Craft, so I don't consider him a man of ability. Or taste. Or skill, for that matter. Alright, I just don't like his movies. Because they are awful. And they have unnatural close-ups. Those kinds of things can really throw a girl off.

What can I say? Good cast and fairly good director can't save a bad script. In fact, nothing can save a bad script. Not talented actors, not a quality director, not a powerful score, not an impressive soundtrack, not picturesque scenery. None of it means anything if a script isn't there. And everyone's sins coming back to haunt them now that they have died? Boring. Weird, but boring.

So there ya go, I wrote about yet another film I didn't enjoy. Don't see it, unless you like watching bad movies. If you are like me, you actually like to watch such movies, so you can make fun of them while you watch them. It's much more fun that way.

After Alice (1999) or Eye of the Killer (2000)

Short: An alcoholic detective (Kiefer Sutherland), following a head trauma, beings to have psychic vision when he comes into contact with a personal object of the deceased. He teams up with another psychic (Henry Czerny) and a parapsychologist (?) (Polly Walker) when a serial killer who has been dormant for a decade begins to kill again.

About the two titles: This is one of those movies that is released on video under a different name. So, if you are looking for it, you have to check both.

Whoa, can I just tell you that I liked this movie? That made me pretty happy. See, there's this thing with Sutherland: he's got huge talent, but the movies he often makes are lacking. Finally, this movie is starting to show a fit. Not quite like a glove, but we are getting closer. I love the way Sutherland plays this character, with him slowly getting his life together at the same time that he appears to be losing his mind.

Jeff Miller's (screenwriter) plot is something to behold. Yes, it's got some violence to it (it's about a serial killer, n'est-ce pas?), but it's got some clever twists as well. There are some moments of corny dialogue, but I've come to recognize that even people on this side of the screen say some lame stuff sometimes. Its major flaw is the couple of holes that are left gaping after the plot is seemingly all sown up. Of course, if you are not as neurotic as I am, you may not notice them.

Paul Marcus has directed only one other major motion picture, Break Up which was in the same vein, but not nearly as good as this one. Yes, I have seen Break Up. Marcus tells a good story, spins tension pretty well, and seems to like working with Sutherland. Good enough for me.

This movie is pretty good. I know I already said that, but it is. It's just the kind of movie I would like; it's got the paranormal, it's got people effecting change, it's even got a little love. And a murder mystery. I do love a good murder mystery.

Dark City (1998)

Short: An amnesiac (Rufus Sewell) wakes up to find a dead body in his room. He receives a mysterious phone call from a man who claims to be his doctor (Kiefer Sutherland) and wants to help him. An inspector (William Hurt) tries to find the man with the help of his wife (Jennifer Connelly). And, of course, he is being chased by some scary men/little boy reminiscent of the Gentleman in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Hush".

Note: It was suggested that I add the year, so that is what 1998 means.

This film was considered visionary when it came out, and I must admit that it is pretty good. Don't get me wrong, the big reveal towards the end is a little stupid, but, if you overlook that, it's none too shabby.

My favourite part of entire production was the score by Trevor Jones. He has also scored other movies I enjoy such as Thirteen Days and Notting Hill, but neither of them were captivating like this score. So, so powerful. The final testament to that, of course, is my new-found desire to play it. Jones' bass infiltrated score is a force to be reckoned with.

Alex Proyas directed the film, and he is also credited with story and co-writer. Wow. The script and the story have their predictable points, but that does not negate their creativity and strength. Of course, they would quickly lose their power if it were not for the ominous cinematography of Dariusz Wolski. Smart, very smart.

Sutherland, as per usual, steals the show from Sewell. I have difficulty not seeing Sewell as a villain or anti-hero, but his performance is strong. He holds his own, to say the least. Satya Gumbert portrays Mr. Sleep, the scariest little kid. Why is it that evil kids are so much more frightening that evil adults?

Okay, that's all for now. I'm going to see if I can get my hands on that score.

Woman Wanted

Premise: A Yale professor (Michael Moriarty) hires a woman (Helen Hunter) to care for his house and mind his estranged, adult, quasi-shut-in, poet son (Kiefer Sutherland). Both men fall in love with her, and she teaches them to love each other.

Alright, when I first read that title, I was a little concerned about what would follow. Worry ye not, no porn here. In fact, while sex is discussed and inferred, you never see any, so feel better now.

Back to the review: Have you ever eaten baking soda? I'm not suggesting that you all go try it, but I think that most of us have, having been children, eaten a great number of things that we shouldn't have (boiled potatoes among my many). In any case, baking soda gives you a revolting basic taste in your mouth that makes you run your teeth over your tongue in an effort to rid yourself of it.

And that taste was left in my mouth by this movie. To be honest, I don't really know what happened here. Sutherland originally directed the film, but, when he saw the "finished" product, he demanded that he not be credited because the movie was not what he wanted. He claims that something went horribly wrong in the editing room, and that all the scenes that tied the story together had been cut.

In this case, I am inclined to believe him. The plot is just plain nuts. I spent the majority of the time going, "what? what?!". Now, I know I do that a lot, but here it was well deserved. Sutherland's character is wildly anxious, Moriarty's overly lonely, and Hunter's just odd. I understand the motivation behind all their actions, but I feel it was poorly explained in the film. Also, the score made it come across like a Hallmark-made-for-TV-warm-fuzzy instead of the heart string tugging drama it could have been.

If it wasn't clear, this movie left a bad taste in my mouth. I do not recommend it. It is lacking. Lacking in style, in grace, in sense. Great performers, possibly great performances, lay in shreds on the editing room floor.

Beat

Premise: The true story of the 48 or so hours before Joan Vollmer's (Courtney Love), the second wife of William S. Burroughs (Kiefer Sutherland), death. Also, flashbacks of when and how Lucien Carr (Norman Reedus) killed Dave. Story slightly explained by Allen Ginsberg (Ron Livingston).

If you aren't familiar with beat writing or its authors, the historical context of this film may be lost on you. Jack Kerouac is probably best remembered as the definitive beat writer, but he only plays a small part in the film. His Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test is the best place to start if you are interested in learning more.

This film is dark. Very dark. It is concerned with a generation of alcohol-soaked drug addicts highly uncomfortable in their own skin. The way that Gary Walkow's script has the characters speaking to each other suggests that their minds are somehow apart from their bodies. They sound like people who must actually take the time to think before they speak, to slowly form their words and sentences with delicious intent, but they speak too quickly for that to be true. Perhaps the writer never turns off. It reminds me very much of the end of the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot.

Gary Walkow also directed, and he does a brilliant job of it, wringing emotional, exploitative performances from a deeply talented group. I would like to take a minute to point out that people should just leave Courtney Love alone. She is a beautiful and talented woman that shouldn't be blamed for being widowed.

The film is a scant 93 minutes, but its effect on you will last much longer. It is difficult to let go of something so sorrowful. It is difficult not to ponder to love between a husband and wife, and the nature of friendship. Are we drawn together by what we have in common or is there an unifying force that holds us together socially?

There is a question you will need to ask yourself when it is finished. Here it is - did he do it on purpose?

Stand by Me

Premise: Based on Steven King's novella, The Body, the film follows the journey of four boys in the summer before the seventh grade to locate the body of another dead boy. Also, a gang of older boys eventually decide that they want to be known for locating the body and head on out, too. Richard Dreyfuss does an excellent narration.

This movie is so good. I do question the strange number of life or death situations that these twelve year-olds seem to get into, but it is nothing too unbelievable about it. In fact, despite being a Steven King story, it is highly believable.

The story centres around Gordie Lechance, who is played by Wil Wheaton. He does a good enough job, but young River Phoenix outshines him as Gordie's troubled and troublesome best friend, Chris Chambers. It's great to watch scenes between him and the scene-stealing gang leader Ace, played by Kiefer Sutherland. Also, you can glean some pearls of heterosexual wisdom from Ace if you listen carefully.

Did I mention that this is all set in the fifties? I know that may not seem like much now, but it does a lot for the plot and the characterization.

Spoiler! I don't want to ruin to movie for you, but you will appreciate it much more when you realize exactly whose dead body Gordie is really looking for. I guess that that isn't that much of a spoiler.

Overall, the film is about exactly what childhood friendship is about. It is passionate and fiercely loyal. Dreyfuss strings it all together with his witty and soulful narration. You'll like it - it is too difficult not to.

Truth or Consequences, N.M.

Premise: Eight months after he is released from jail, Vincent Gallo decides to pull a drug heist and escape to Mexico. Things go wrong with his muscle, Kiefer Sutherland, starts killing everyone. Then, they go even more wrong when he tries to sell the drugs back to the man he stole them from. Eventually, everyone ends up at a little desert cottage just outside of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

Just in case this comes up, Truth or Consequences is a real place. Back in 1950, Ralph Edwards, host of the radio show Truth or Consequences, offered national publicity to any city in the U.S. who would adopt the name. Hot Springs, N.M. took the challenge and has been known as Truth or Consequences ever since.

Plus, I like how the title gives this movie its feel. The events are very much wrapped up in the honesty of the characters and the assumptions they make based on that honesty.

This picture is Kiefer Sutherland's feature film directorial debut, and, if you know me, you know I love to see just about anyone's debut. I found it to be slow and sensual. He seems like the kind of man who likes to take his time to get things right. If you aren't used to that or prefer a more jumpy/handheld/indie style that many Hollywood films attempt to copy today, then you probably aren't going to "get" this movie.

As for the performances, Vincent Gallo doesn't really have what it takes to be a leading man. It really is more of an ensemble than a leading man situation, and I believe that is why it is difficult to notice when Gallo is struggling. Kiefer Sutherland's hair trigger cocaine addict blends insanity with intensity well, and his dancing adds some needed comedic relief. Kevin Pollack's character isn't funny at all, and, while he plays it well as he is talented, I am simply not comfortable with him in serious roles. I think it's because I know just how damn funny he is.

Also, Martin Sheen's character does this thing where he puts his finger on his nose and pushes it to the side in one scene. For all of you who get that little inside joke, you will just die.

In the end, it is not the best movie ever, but it is definitely worth a look, if only to see that dance.

The Lost Boys

Premise: Jason Patric, Corey Haim, and Diane Weist move to Santa Carla, CA, the murder capital of the world. They soon discover that the high murder rate is largely due to the city's vampire gang, led by Kiefer Sutherland. Patric is turned into a half vampire, and he and his family must locate and eliminate the head vampire in order to reverse the process.

Oh my, oh my. This movie is so very bad. It's definitely got the cult classic elements in it, but it's still so bad. One character does her best Esmeralda impression (I swear it's the exact costume Victor Hugo described), and Jason Patric cannot, at all, act. He simply cannot. For some reason, the director/screenwriter assumed that this meant that they should have a completely gratuitous sex scene smack dab in the middle of the movie.

Corey Haim, however, best known for portraying Lucas in the 80's classical of the same name, provides much need comic relief. Serious, he has all the best lines. As for Kiefer Sutherland, he makes a fairly good vampire. Vampires/vampire mythology is a highly sexualized metaphor for rape/violence in combination with sex, and Sutherland does his best to bring a much needed sexuality to this movie.
Nit picky point: He bites some guy on the top of his head. Why? That's just stupid. Go for the major arteries! That's where the good stuff is.

Overall, you aren't going to be able to handle this movie if you cannot recognize how bad it is. That is why, of course, it is so good.

Article 99

Plot: Kiefer Sutherland is the new doc at a veteran's hospital, where the administration is in bed with the HMO's. Ray Liotta leads a team of renegade surgeons who perform necessary procedures, regardless of insurance costs. Although initially resistant, Sutherland eventually joins Liotta.

Alright, so that's really only the first fifteen or twenty minutes of the movie, but I feel it is enough for you to understand. I know that the premise of HMO's screwing hospitals/patients isn't entirely an original one, but Howard Deutch's interpretation is a heartfelt one, if a slightly disappointing one.

Sutherland and Liotta give impressive performances despite the one-dimensional roles. It's also a great opportunity to check out some of the earlier work of great actors like Lea Thompson, John Mahoney, and Forest Whitaker.

This film is one that does not require excessive brain power or emotional involvement, thus making it perfect for a snowy Saturday afternoon.