Nacho Libre

Director: Jared Hess
Starring: Jack Black, Hector Jimenez, Ana de la Reguera, Richard Montoya
Running time: 92 min.
Rating: PG

** (out of ****)

It's a terrible feeling when an actor you're a big fan of makes a bad movie. Jack Black is funny. Hilarious even. He was terrific in High Fidelity, Shallow Hal and Orange County. Was was also the best thing in King Kong. However, he's one of those actors who needs to be given direction and focus to be effective. If the story isn't strong or tight enough, he can fly off the rails and the consequences can be unpleasant and annoying. I thought that happened with School of Rock. Such is the case with Nacho Libre, a movie that tries desperately to be subversive and cool but in the end is just empty. Jack Black is fat. He's wearing a ridiculous wrestling costume. He's winking at you, letting you know he's in on the joke and it's funny. That's the movie.

Black plays Brother Ignasio, a monastary cook who dreams of becoming a Luchador (a Mexican professional wrestler) so he can improve food service for the kids and hopefully impress the beautiful new teacher, Sister Encarnacion (Ana de la Reguera). He finds a tag team partner in frighteningly skinny street peasant, Esquelto a.k.a "The Skeleton" (Hector Jiminez) and they soon realize they can get paid pretty well to be beat up every night. That's not enough for Ignasio though. He wants to win. With a tablecloth and a sewing machine Nacho Libre is born.

I really wanted to like this movie. I tried really hard, but it just goes nowhere. Some of the wrestling scenes are actually pretty funny (especially a tag team match against scary midgets), but once you get past that the movie just limps along aimlessly. I actually found myself looking at my watch at times, which is pretty pathetic when you remember this thing is only 92 minutes long. The movie doesn't make fun of wrestling and actually has alot of respect for it, which I liked. Unfortunately though, it's not funny and downright annoying at times. I giggled a few times but most of the movie just consists of Black in ludicrous regalia mocking his lines as he delivers them in an intentionally bad accent. That's actually hilarious for the first fifteen miutes, but a movie needs more. If you hope to gain any insight on Lucha Libre wrestling or even how they made the movie with the special features on the disc, don't hold your breath. It's just Jack Black rehearsing wrestling scenes.

What's mind blowing about the movie is that it was made by incredibly talented people. It was directed by Jared Hess, who made Napoleon Dynamite and was co-written by Mike White, who wrote Orange County. Napoleon Dynamite told a story with memorable characters that went somewhere. It was campy and intentionally ridiculous like this film but it was about something. The characters may be more likable in this film but they sure aren't as entertaining. One of the big flaws with this movie is they seemed determined to recreate the Napoleon-Pedro friendship with Nacho and Esquelto. You can strangely see the movie trying to be another Napoleon Dynamite as both are about outcasts who struggle to gain acceptance. Except one film is actually about it, while the other is just going through the motions. Given the way it was made, Nacho Libre is probably destined to become a cult classic if it isn't one already. But that still won't make it any funnier.

Lost Season 3 Finale

Last night Lost delivered one of the most captivating, yet maddingly frustrating episodes in the show's history. With scalpel in hand Jack (Matthew Fox) performed surgery on the villainous "other," Ben (Michael Emerson) to remove a spinal tumor only to intentionally cut his kidney and threaten to let him bleed out unless "the others" agree to let Kate (Evangeline Lilly) and Sawyer (Josh Holloway) go. If you want to know what happens you have to wait...until February 7, 2007! Next year!

In either a really ballsy or really stupid move, ABC listened to all those complaints about too many repeats last year and decided to fix the problem by airing no repeats this season. Instead, they're taking the show off the air for over 3 months and praying the viewers come back. The question is with ratings already slipping slightly, will anyone care when it returns or will they be too frustrated? I will be back in February and I'll tell you why. Despite claims to the contrary, Lost is still at the top of it's game.

A lot of viewers seem to think Lost is no longer the best serialized drama on television anymore and that title now belongs to NBC's Heroes. Heroes, while a great show, is only in it's infancy and has yet to even develop to a point where we can care about any of the characters outside it's gigantic"save the world" premise. It's still too early and there's so much going on to establish things, it has yet to settle into a groove. Even though Lost has been accused of just posing more questions than it's answered, it has actually answered alot of them at the end of last season and into the first six episodes of this one. The amount of information we're getting and advancement of storylines have been just right.

Just think of how much more we know now. We know "the others" were on the island for a while and saw the plane crash (they even had a village complete with a book club), We at least know there's an outside world that's aware of their plane crash. We also know the time frame as demonstrated in that awesome scene where Jack gets to see footage of the Red Sox winning the World Series. This debunks any theory of the island being some kind of purgatory or hallucination. I still stick with my original theory that everything, starting with and maybe dating before the plane crash, is a government experiment. We finally have some kind of culmination of the Jack/Kate/Sawyer triangle with Kate picking Sawyer. In last night's flashback (one of the show's best) we also discovered Kate left her cop husband out of guilt that she was hiding her criminal past from him. Plus, they killed off Mr. Echo (which was a wise move-he served his purpose). I don't know what more anyone could possibly want out of a season.

If the show is to continue, there still has to be some mystery and questions left unanswered. That central question is, who are "the others" and what do they want? The introduction of Juliet (Elizabeth Mitchell) further complicates that question, at least for Jack. The character is intriguing because she doesn't seem to be on the same page as "the others" even though she is one. The scene where she let Jack know she wants him to kill Ben on the operating table was shocking. I think the writers know where they're going with this, even if we don't have a clue.

Whether Lost will be remembered as legendary among television dramas is entirely up to ABC at this point. The time will come when they have a choice to make: give in to greed and let the show run well past it's saturation point or leave on top wrapping everything up clearly and crisply, ending the series on the highest note possible. The latter doesn't happen too often. The next season or two of Lost will really tell the story of its future. However, it's way too early for viewers to start losing their patience with a show that has, at the very least, earned the benefit of the doubt.

Saw III

Director: Darren Lynn Bousman
Starring: Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, Angus Macfadyen, Bahar Soomekh, Dina Meyer, Donnie Wahlberg
Running Time: 113 min.
Rating: R

***1/2 (out of ****)

For some reason the Saw movies have always been categorized as horror films when they're really not. They also have the reputation of being gory, bloody and disgusting. This isn't true, at least for the first two films. It's true now. Saw III is absolutely brutal and easily one of the hardest "R" I've ever seen. It makes Hostel look like Toy Story. Still, at their core the movies are psychological thrillers, especially the original which may have been the best in that genre I've seen in the past ten years. With that film, writers James Wan and Leigh Whannell did something really special by creating a villain with an interesting motivation and a story that was intricate, complicated and multi-layered. Unthinkable for just a "horror movie." I thought a sequel was a bad idea as there was no chance anything could top to the original's cleverness and creativity. I was right, but the sequel came closer in quality than anyone thought it could. Saw III comes even closer. Anyone who loved the previous two won't be disappointed.

I'll be very careful as I explain the plot of Saw III, as the fun in these movies come from the twists and surprises, and let me tell you there are plenty in this third installement. The movie picks up exactly where Saw II left off, with the door being closed on Detective Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) as he lies leg chained in the dark basement, having fallen victim to Jigsaw's latest game. If you're wondering how John Cramer a.ka. Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) could possibly still be alive after nearly being at death's door with an inoperable brain tumor for the past two films, your concerns are quickly addressed. He's really in bad shape in this one. However, that won't stop him from continuing his mission of teaching people to appreciate their lives by putting them through brutal games and tests with the help of his new apprentice, Amanda (Shawnee Smith). One of the most interesting things about the series is how Jigsaw isn't a killer, at least not exactly. He gives all of his victims the chance (however slim) to save themselves and if they do then good for them. They're free to go. Those are the rules. He actually has a strong moral code. You could say he's moral in his immorality.

This time, Jigsaw kidnaps a doctor (Bahar Soomekh) whom he hopes can keep him alive, or at least keep him alive long enough for his other victim to complete his series of tests. That man, Jeff (Angus Macfadyen), is being forced by Jigsaw to confront the people responsible for the death of his son in a tragic car accident that has consumed him with hatred and revenge for years. This is the most interesting subject they've had in any of the Saw movies and it elevates the entire film because we actually start to care about this guy's backstory. This is also a twist on the usual game Jigsaw plays because this time the victims fates are in the hands of someone else other than themselves. Jeff is forced to either to forgive those responsible for his son's death to save himself or hold on to that anger and punish them, risking his own life. The movie turns into a morality play: vengeance vs. forgiveness. I thought this aspect of the screenplay was incredible and shows why the Saw movies are operating at a level far above any typical Hollywood slasher. They're actually about something.

In a way, I was disappointed the movie felt the need to put in so much gore, brutality and violence if only because it will cause people to overlook the fact that the movie tells a complex story. The most frightening aspect of the film is that this is the tame version. Scenes probably had to be cut just so it could achieve the "R" rating. Let's put it this way: normally just a second of nudity is enough to insure an "R" rating for a film. This movie has a scene of full frontal nudity with torture that lasts for almost five minutes straight, yet somehow the movie made it into theaters without the dreaded "NC-17". Quite an accomplishment. This film is about fifty times more graphic and brutal than the other two and is a cinema landmark in what you can get away with showing on screen. There's a scene of brain surgery being performed in the most graphic detail I've ever seen in a movie. I actually had to turn away, something I've never done before. All of this would be a serious problem if the story couldn't support it, but it does.

You have to feel sorry for Tobin Bell. No matter how great a performance he gives it's going to be overlooked just because of the type of movie he's in. People don't realize how a big part he plays in the success of this franchise. Anyone who lists him in the top five of all-time great movie villains, would get no argument from me. He's up there with Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader. I was worried about Shawnee Smith having an increased role as his apprentice in this film because there's only one Jigsaw. I didn't really want to see him working with anyone, but I was proven wrong. Their relationship adds an interesting dimension to the film and she did a really great job.

This film is far superior to the first sequel largely because of a renewed focus on the test subjects. There were only two which upped the tension and intimacy of the proceedings to levels not seen since the original. I felt the second film, while strong, just had to many characters. There was a tighter focus here so the result was a more involving story. It's going to be impossible to recreate the mystery of the original , but I really like how all three films have a certain storyline continuity, but are still wildly different. We get to see in this film, through flashbacks, a behind the scenes look at Jigsaw's previous traps (including the infamous one from the original) which filled in some plot holes anyone may have been questioning.

The big question now is, will there be a Saw IV? Of course they'll be. It's probably already been written. As long as truckloads of money can be made there will always be a Saw movie. The real question should be, is it necessary? Probably not, but after seeing this I can honestly say I'm looking forward to a fourth installment. There were alot of questions left unanswered at the end of Saw 3 and I can't believe I'm saying this but they haven't yet explored all of their avenues for the Jigsaw character. I not only want to see a Saw IV, I can't wait for it.

American Dreamz

Director: Paul Weitz
Starring: Mandy Moore, Hugh Grant, Dennis Quaid, Willem Dafoe, Sam Golzari, Chris Klein, Judy Greer
Running Time: 107 min.
Rating: PG-13

**1/2 (out of ****)

Imagine a movie where every character is in some shape or form a spoof of a real person. Okay, got that? Good. Now think about someone you know who just keeps talking, but really never says much of anything. Then combine the two and you have Paul Weitz's American Dreamz, a movie that's supposed to be a dark comedy, but by the end, just like that friend you know, it doesn't say anything particularly interesting or memorable. I cannot lie though when I tell you it's still pretty good and if you watch it you'll probably be smiling most of the way through. The actors are having alot of fun and it shows, taking a really awful concept and almost making it work. The whole thing is ridiculous for sure, but it's also strangely compelling.

Sally Kendoo (Mandy Moore) from small town Ohio has just won a spot on the number one reality show in the country: American Dreamz, hosted by Simon Cowell clone Martin Tweed (Hugh Grant). That the movie attempts to spoof Cowell, who is essentially a spoof of himself anyway, is ludicrous, especially since he does a far better job doing it on American Idol than Grant does here. The show's so popular it even attracts the attention of the White House, which is inhabited by President Stanton (Dennis Quaid) who just won reelection, is southern, and also happens to be a bumbling idiot. Sound familiar? His Cheney-like Chief of Staff (Willem Dafoe) thinks it would be a great p.r. move for him to judge the finals of American Dreamz, even if he has to feed him everything to say since he has no brain. Complicating matters, the very likable Omar Obeidi (Sam Golzari), a middle eastern terrorist living with his family in California, is accidently discovered for the competition when it was actually his cousin who earned the spot. Omer is then recruited by his terrorist cel to make it to the finals and kill the President with a bomb. Hilarity ensues.

In a way, this movie kind of reminded me of Wag The Dog. That satire was about how the media can manipulate and skew our view of reality. Except this is about...well, nothing really. It seems to be about the media and their power over us, or our addiction with it. Is this trying to mock us for watching too much reality tv or taking it too seriously? We do. Big deal. Or is this a poltical satire? I'm not sure, and neither is the movie. It introduces so many satirical elements that by it's dark, twisted ending we're not at all sure what any of it is about. Nothing seems to come together like it should, or in a way that connected with me at least.

Terrorism and American Idol don't exactly go together like peanut butter and jelly for a motion picture comedy, so the movie really has no choice but to give us some kind of idea about what it's trying to convey. Yet, it doesn't. It's a shame too, because there is alot to admire about the sometimes clever film, mainly Mandy Moore. She's beautiful, a great actress and an even better singer. She takes what should be, and was likely written as, a caricature and turns it upside down, slyly spoofing her own good girl image. Looking at her you don't figure she could pull off a villainous role, but here, as in Saved!, she's definitely proven to be up to it. I loved the sub-plot of how she used her injured war hero boyfriend (Chris Klein) to help her win the competition at the urging of her scheming manager (well played by SNL's Seth Myers). I also have to admit the title song of the show is also pretty hilarious. Even though the target is way too easy, Quaid must have spent many late nights studying tapes of George W. Bush because he does pretty much nail it. There's a great scene toward the end where he loses the connection in his earpiece to the Chief of Staff and he can't even talk, much less even function. The look on Quaid's face is priceless.

Paul Weitz previously directed the American Pie movies, and more recently one of the best romantic comedies of the past few years, In Good Company. This movie isn't nearly as funny as the former and it doesn't have nearly as much to say about life as the latter, but it will keep you entertained for sure. The movie is so "of the moment" in it's satire and pop culture targets you have to wonder if it will look even more ridiculous (if that's possible) in like, say, twenty years. While I'm sure Weitz thought he had a lot to say about something, what that is isn't exactly clear.

Click

Director: Frank Coraci
Starring: Adam Sandler, Kate Beckinsale, Christopher Walken, David Hasselhoff, Henry Winkler, Sean Astin
Running Time: 107 min.
Rating: PG-13

** (out of ****)

With Click, Adam Sandler has officially made his worst movie. It takes one joke and hits us over the head with it over and over again, nearly forcing us into submission. Worst of all, it doesn't even have the conviction to stay true to it's roots as a slapstick comedy and delivers a final act so out of line with the rest of the picture you'd think somebody stole the final reel and replaced it with the ending of another film. It asks us to believe the impossible. Not that Adam Sandler has a universal remote that controls his universe, but that he's an architect married to Kate Beckinsale and a semi-responsible adult and parent. This is a kinder, gentler Adam Sandler and it doesn't work at all.

Sandler plays Michael Newman, one of those dads who's too busy with work to find time for his wife (Beckinsale in a completely thankless role) and kids. He's expecting a huge promotion from his clueless boss (David Hasselhoff) and must work around the clock to get it, virtually ignoring all of his familial duties, including a camping trip and Fourth of July picnic. He makes a stop one night at Bed, Bath and Beyond looking to purchase a universal remote control and finds himself in the "Beyond" section with a wackjob named Morty (a looney Christopher Walken) who pushes a cool new remote on him. This is the movie's one joke as the remote control allows Michael to rewind, pause, mute or fast forward any part of his life. I wonder if he'll abuse it. Only we find out later, it has a memory (like TIVO) and everything starts spiraling out of control when the remote takes over, attempting to carry out every function from memory it thinks Michael wants.

There are some funny moments early in the film. Scenes where Michael fast forwards through sex, fights with his wife, an annoying family dinner, and anything involving his dog are pretty good (if not repetitive after a while). Then the movie just flies off the tracks when it tries to tackle life lessons and gets very serious. Dead serious. The way the it does this is so bizarre, it ends up being the most (unintentionally) hilarious thing in the picture. The ridiculous lengths the screenplay goes to to show us that Michael isn't appreciating life by fast forwarding it is unreal. Without giving too much away, let's just say people die, Michael's hospitilized (twice!), three actors each play Michael's kid and there are some really bad make-up jobs. What unfolds is so tonally off from all that preceded it it's as if the filmmakers thought this was It's a Wonderful Life. It also delivers an unearned ending that's a complete cheat and made me think this whole enterprise was even more of a waste than I originally thought.

When David Hasselhoff is the funniest thing in your movie you know there's a problem, and I'm not even sure he was funny or I was just laughing because it was David Hasselhoff. Admittedly, Jennifer Coolidge was also pretty good as the oversexed next door neighbor. I'm sure a comedy about them would have been better than this. I understand the need for Adam Sandler to grow up for his audiences, but can't it be in a good movie? And can't we get a little more of the meaner, irresponsible Sandler we had in Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison? I miss that guy. We get a glimpse of it in this movie in scenes where he feuds with an annoying kid neighbor, but other than that he's missing in action. Sandler is one of our best comic actors and is always fun to watch on screen. I'm still waiting for the movie that can properly mesh the likable, self-deprecating, sensitive version of Sandler with the mean, funny one. It'll come. For now though, reach for your remote. Click is skippable.

The Lake House

Director: Alejandro Agresti
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Sandra Bullock, Christopher Plummer, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Dylan Walsh
Running Time: 105 min.
Rating: PG

** 1/2 (out of ****)

For what it is, The Lake House kind of succeeds. Unfortunately, what it is isn't all that much. I love time travel movies and make it a point to see any film employing the device, knowing it can make even the dullest story exciting and interesting if executed properly. The Lake House has an incredible premise and drops the ball. It's as if the screenwriter realized he had a great idea for a movie and then just stopped, failing to invest the story with anything else, including believability or interesting supporting characters. Imagine my surprise that the romance in the movie actually works, while the time travel story doesn't.

It's 2004 and Alex Wyler (Keanu Reeves) just bought a beautiful glass house on stilts off of Lake Michigan. When he checks the mailbox he finds a letter from a woman claiming to be the previous owner, Dr. Kate Forster (Sandra Bullock) asking him to forward any mail to her new address in Chicago. Except the house, whom Alex's famous architect father (Christopher Plummer) built, was completely uninhabited before he got there. How is this possible? You see, Kate is actually in 2006, two years into the future, and in a neat gimmick they are corresponding through time. A romance develops, but, pun intended, the timing is all wrong.

The gimmick is so neat and has so much potential that it almost kills me to have to declare that it fails, These two people do not behave like any person put in this situation would. I know if I were talking to someone in the future (even if it were just two years) I would be asking all sorts of questions about everything. Who's the President? What good movies came out? Look me up! What am I doing? The movie Frequency took this similar premise and ran with it successfully. That she doesn't even attempt to look the guy up immediately is just beyond belief, even for this type of movie. Of course she doesn't so there can be a "shocking revelation" about his whereabouts toward the end of the film. Only it's not so shocking because it's actually revealed minutes into the picture with sloppy screenwriting. We know how a romance like this ends which is absolutely fine, but to give away the exact details of how it will within the first ten minutes of the picture is a little much.

Then, there's their personal lives, which the less said about that the better, because they are two of the most boring people you're likely to meet. He's a contractor and she's a doctor, but it's amazing they can function in their jobs at all when moping around in a terminal state of depression. I know they're supposed to be unhappy with their lives until they find their true love but this went way overboard. Perhaps the movie's worst fault is it's failure to invest the supporting characters with any interesting backstory. Alex and his brother have a dying father who "only ever cared about his career" and Plummer plays it completely over the top, hamming it up like somebody accidentally gave him the script for the wrong film. Oscar nominee Aghdashloo is completely wasted in a throwaway role as Kate's boss, while Moss-Bachrach was less believable as Alex's brother than any time travel paradox the movie fed me.

This is the much heralded re-teaming of Reeves and Bullock since they first set screens on fire with 1994's Speed. Since then neither actor has really delivered on the potential they showed in that movie, though Reeves has come closer since no one ever really thought he had potential. I was watching and hoping to see flashes of the old Sandra Bullock. I realize she's older now and has to move on to more middle-aged roles, but do they have to be this dull? I have a feeling audiences still want to see her in perky, likable roles regardless of her age. This doesn't suit her even though she does the best she can with it. Reeves actually fairs much better as his laid back, wooden style really fits the character this time. He's at his best when he's not trying so hard. The good news is these two actors still have great on-screen chemistry together and the romance really works well.

There's a fantastic scene when he encounters her at a party in 2004. He knows. She doesn't. At least not yet. How he handles it is great and I wish the movie had more moments like this because there's definite sparks between these two, which is good because if not the movie would fail completely. I also liked how the house was almost like a character in the film, even though it looks like a stiff breeze would blow it over. I had real mixed feelings on this because the movie has a nice laid back tone and is actually paced very well. Anyone looking for a decent date movie could certainly do worse. With all the tools it had at it's disposal though, The Lake House could have been so much more.

Lucky Number Slevin

Director: Paul McGuigan
Starring: Josh Hartnett, Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, Lucy Lui, Ben Kingley, Stanley Tucci
Running Time: 109 min.
Rating: R

***1/2 (out of ****)

I wasn't expecting much going into the unfortunately titled Lucky Number Slevin. In fact, I didn't really have any interest in seeing it at all despite numerous recommendations. But I'm glad I did. The movie starts as as a whip-smart crime thriller but then somewhere along the way turns into an astonishing tale of redemption and revenge. It takes an ordinary story and makes it extraordinary, which is what the best films are supposed to do. It also has the best twist ending in a crime movie since The Usual Suspects in 1995.

Slevin (Josh Hartnett) has a bit of a problem. He walked in on his girlfriend cheating on him, got mugged and had his nose broken. When he goes to crash at his friend Nick's pad in New York City, Nick's nowhere to be found. What he does find is a perky next door neighbor Lindsey (an adorably quirky Lucy Liu) and two thugs who think he's Nick. Before long we realize Nick was knee deep in some serious shit with two feuding mob bosses: "The Boss" (Morgan Freeman) and "The Rabbi" (Ben Kingley). The film turns Hitchcockian in that it becomes a case of mistaken identity, but Slevin almost all but gives up in attempting to convince these guys he's not Nick. It ain't gonna work. To make matters worse he's being trailed by an infamous assassin named Goodkat (Bruce Willis), who's motives we're not sure about right until the end. With Lindsey's help they attempt to uncover the mystery.

It seems like I've described a gritty crime drama, when in fact the movie's really a black comedy with sly humor and quick, witty dialogue. You really have to pay attention as things move very, very fast. The plot is complicated and intricate with many twists and turns, but never impossible to follow.

This is the first time Josh Hartnett has really been asked to completely carry a film on his shoulders and he does it with breezy confidence in a surprising performance. It also says a lot that he has no problem holding his own with screen legends Freeman and Kingsley, who are in top form. Lucy Lui's character, for all intents and purposes, should be a throwaway role but it isn't. She's a key player in his situation and it's a tribute to the script and her performance that that's never forgotten, even at the very end. The movie cheats a little, deliberating withholding information from us at times, but it's understandable and worth it once we get to the final pay off which does hold up upon repeated viewings and rewards us for paying close attention to every detail.

The movie begins in an empty airport terminal with Bruce Willis' character in a wheelchair telling an urban legend about a horse and a gambling debt to a total stranger. How the movie goes from that to where it ends up, and how it does it, is nothing short of brilliant. Writer Jason Smilovic and Director Paul McGiugan (who previously directed Hartnett in Wicker Park) have done what seems like the impossible. In today's movie world, where every crime movie seems like nothing more than a Tarantino knock-off, they've made an original crime movie that's fresh, smart and exciting. That alone makes Lucky Number Slevin worth everyone's time.