The Barnesyard

Looks like De Palma might have an easy road to being bumped...he is currently leading 4-1, but I know that there is an anti-De Palma contingent out there that has yet to voice their opinions. Cast your vote in the comments page of the Bump It or Dump It post...polls close Friday morning.

I've got a couple of pieces in this week's News and Review, so check it out. I have a Bring It Home on the movies page, and another In the Mix review in my usual spot on page 378F.

"OK, Antonio...in this scene, I need your acting to be really terrible."

*********************

Welcome to the latest edition of Barnesyard Bump It or Dump It...in honor of the release of "The Da Vinci Code", I was going to put Ron Howard to the vote, but perusing his filmography, it seemed too much like leading a lamb to the slaughter. I mean, once you get past "Apollo 13" and "Gung Ho!", what is there?

Instead, I thought I would put one of the most divisive filmmakers in recent history on the block...Quentin Tarantino called this man his favorite director, while others have dismissed him as a hack. He's certainly one of the most overqualified film directors -- instead of having relative in the industry, the New Jersey native studied physics before settling on a career in movies, and his father was a surgeon. He shot the video for Springsteen's "Dancing in the Dark", and he also did uncredited rewrites on the opening scrawl of "Star Wars: A New Hope". Ladies and gentleman, shall we Bump Mr. Brian De Palma, or shall we Dump him? First, a brief filmography...

Greetings (1968)
The Wedding Party (1969)
Hi, Mom! (1970)
Get to Know Your Rabbit (1972)
Sisters (1973)
Phantom of the Paradise (1974)
Obsession (1976)
Carrie (1976)
The Fury (1978)
Dressed to Kill (1980)
Blow Out (1981)
Scarface (1983)
Body Double (1984)
Wise Guys (1986)
The Untouchables (1987)
Casualties of War (1989)
The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
Raising Cain (1992)
Carlito's Way (1993)
Mission: Impossible (1996)
Snake Eyes (1998)
Mission to Mars (2000)
Femme Fatale (2002)
The Black Dahlia (Fall 2006)
Toyer (2007)

DAN SAYS:

THE GOOD (B or better) - Sisters; Phantom of the Paradise; Obsession; Carrie; Dressed to Kill; Blow Out; Scarface; Body Double; The Untouchables; Femme Fatale

THE BAD (C or worse) - The Fury; Casualties of War; Bonfire of the Vanities; Raising Cain; Snake Eyes

THE INDIFFERENT (B-C) - Wise Guys; Carlito's Way

HAVEN'T SEEN - Greetings; The Wedding Party; Hi, Mom!; Get to Know Your Rabbit; Mission to Mars

THE VERDICT:

Is Brian De Palma a hack? Yes, but let me qualify that: he's the most sublime, brilliant hack in the history of American film. Hacks fairly dominate the industry, so why have no distinction between good ones and bad ones? De Palma mostly rips off Alfred Hitchcock -- not just particular shots, but The Master's atmosphere of psychosexual voyeuristic intrigue. De Palma's twist is to cut Hitchcockian style with the most of voyeuristic and psychosexualized of genres -- the horror film -- to create a thoroughly theatrical and frequently self-aware style truly his own. De Palma at his best is essentially a steroidal Hitchcock, and he seems to take immense pleasure in dazzling the viewer by constructing elaborate shots that employ all the tools and tricks of filmmaking...he makes films that are insanely pulpy but fun to watch.

De Palma's first truly De Palma-esque film is "Sisters" from 1972, a slasher flick mystery that smashes up peeping toms, Siamese twins, and inept authority figures. "Obsession", "Dressed to Kill", and "Body Double" are in the same vein, all enjoyable moviewatching experiences. "Phantom of the Paradise" is a fun musical-horror film with a brilliant part for Paul Williams. "Carrie" and "Scarface" are classics of their kind -- sublimely over-the-top with performances of rare intensity. De Palma's crowning achievement is "Blow Out", which combines assassination paranoia, a seemingly unrelated slasher story, a pungent government critique, and about 70 other things -- John Travolta gives the best performance of his career.

After the highly entertaining hit "The Untouchables", De Palma decided to make unwatchable tripe (as opposed to the brilliant tripe of his early career) for the next 15 years. Most are just terrible ("Casualties of War", "Raising Cain", "Snake Eyes"; I've never seen "Mission to Mars", but I can't remember ever hearing one ood thing about it), only a couple watchable, with brief moments of inspiration ("Carlito's Way", "Mission: Impossible").

In 2002, he made a return to form with "Femme Fatale", a series of dream sequences, voyeuristic pursuit scenes, and multiple identities -- hopefully, it proved to De Palma that ripping off Hitchcock is what he does best, and nobody does it better. His newest film seems right in his wheelhouse -- an adaptation of James Ellroy's "The Black Dahlia", starring Josh Hartnett and Scarlett Johannsen.

It's obvious which side of the fence I'm on -- I believe that De Palma's output from the early 70's to the mid 80's rivals (but doesn't surpass) those of Scorsese, Altman, Spielberg, Coppola, and the rest. I count 3 legitimate classics (Carrie, Blow Out, and Scarface), and succession of near-classics, mini-masterpieces, and personal favorites (Sisters, Phantom of the Paradise, Obsession, Dressed to Kill, Untouchables, and Femme Fatale).

BUMP IT!

OK, I've had my say...now it's up to the will of the people. Brian De Palma -- BUMP IT OR DUMP IT?

It's been a good two weeks since I've been posting regularly, but the new offices in East Sacramento (in case you weren't aware, "East" translate roughly into "better than", except when you're talking about coasts or Germanys) are all set up, and The Barnesyard LLC can finally get down to the business of creating an environment of unbridled joy and prosperity throughout the globe, and shoving it in the face of this jerkwater burg in the process.

I've been watching a lot of movies, a few of which are the sole intellectual property of Chico Community Publishing and the Sacramento News and Review, and cannot be reprinted or displayed without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.

To recap the rest of the films I saw, here is a brand-new feature I like to call: The One-Sentence Review.

"Glory Alley" (1952 - Dir.: Raoul Walsh) New Orleans-set story of washed-up boxer struggling to redeem himself has plenty of good atmosphere but lacks punch. GRADE: B-.

"Art School Confidential" (2006 - Dir.: Terry Zwigoff) Entertaining but not-funny-enough satire on art world snobbery wastes good supporting work by John Malkovich and Jim Broadbent. GRADE: B-.

"Poseidon" (2006 - Dir.: Wolfgang Petersen) Hopped up on goofballs; Jim Lane loved it, which just goes to show. GRADE: C.

"Breakfast On Pluto" (2005 - Dir.: Neil Jordan) Meandering, deadweight picaresque about Irish glam-rock transvestite searching for his mother is even worse than the bad reviews would lead you to believe. GRADE: C-.

"Another Woman" (1988 - Dir.: Woody Allen) Moderately ambitious Bergman knockoff contains strong performances and brilliant moments of insight, but still feels a bit hollow and contrived. GRADE: B.

"United 93" (2006 - Dir.: Paul Greengrass) Verite treatment of 9/11 hijacking story avoids exploitation and manipulation, instead achieving a you-are-there effect by recreating the queasy confusion as we watch the day's events unfold. GRADE: A-.

"Just My Luck" (2006 - Dir.: Donald Petrie) Lohan's first "adult" rom-com is really just the usual vapid teen fluff with a smattering of s-words thrown in, but the pre-bulimia bosom looks good. GRADE: D+.

"The Pope of Greenwich Village" (1984 - Dir.: Stuart Rosenberg) Bizarre characterizations by Mickey Rourke and Eric Roberts propel this smash-up of "Mean Streets" and "Midnight Cowboy", but nearly every character and story line needs to be fleshed out more. GRADE: B-.

"The Da Vinci Code" (2006 - Dir.: Ron Howard) Long and boring. GRADE: C-.

"The Terminator" (1984 - Dir.: James Cameron) Heavily dated but still effective chase film...whatever happened to Michael Biehn? (I assumed he was dead or coked-up somewhere, but according to IMDB, he's been working steadily in B-grade flicks all along...the last thing I remember seeing him in was the underrated teen slasher film "Cherry Falls"...he is, however, attached to appear in the Tarantino/Rodriquez collaboration "Grind House") GRADE: B+.

"Take Me Out to the Ball Game" (1949 - Dir.: Busby Berkeley) Pairing of Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra as turn-of-the-century baseball players/vaudevillians yields great dividends whenever they're singing and dancing, but less so when the plot takes over. GRADE: B.

"Gun Crazy" (1949 - Dir.: Joseph H. Lewis) Sexually charged and comparatively realistic noir about gun-obsessed lovers on the lam still entertains despite limited resources...several great scenes. GRADE: B+.

"Cocktail" (1988 - Dir.: Roger Donaldson) Plotless 80's time capsule in the Simpson-Bruckheimer mold starring Tom Cruise (a victim of some of the worst hair continuity in the history of film...it's never blow-dried the same way in successive shots) at his most cocksure as a flashy bartender that everyone finds fascinating for some inexplicable reason...bad-fun for the first third, then just bad-bad...makes "Coyote Ugly" seem sublime by comparison. GRADE: C.

And that should just about get you up to speed. I have an eye appointment this afternoon, but if I have enough time, I'll put up a longer review of "X3: The Last Stand", as well as the newest installment of Barnesyard Bump It or Dump It.

Dub, in answer to your question: yes, the shirtless sax player in "The Lost Boys" IS even sexier on the big screen. You wouldn't think it possible for the man to be any sexier, but there you have it. I hadn't the seen the film in years, and I didn't remember that Haim's character has a Tiger Beat-esque poster of a tank-topped Rob Lowe on his closet door. He has another beefcake poster of a teen star in his room, but I couldn't figure out who it was (maybe Ralph Macchio?) Joel Schumacher: genius.

GBomb, thanks for the link about the Dylan movie. I was wondering when Todd Haynes was going to make another movie, but I didn't expect anything like that. The concept of casting multiple actors in one role regardless of gender has already been done recently by Todd Solondz in "Palindromes", but the movie still sounds pretty damn batshit crazy and potentially unwatchable. As batshit crazy and unwatchable as Dylan's "Masked and Anonymous"?...the game is afoot!

See you all next week!

Man, remember when I used to have a blog that I would post stuff on? Those were the days. I have been absolutely swamped at work today...I won't bore you with the details, but sufficed to say that if any of you run into a member of the Michigan Legislature on the streets, be sure to punch them in face for me (and before you bother to ask: yes, even Leon Drolet).

At any rate, I haven't much time for casual viewing these days, as most of the reviews I've been writing are the intellectual property of Chico Community Publishing. I did see "The Da Vinci Code", which is total bollocks. That's not surprising, but here's what is: Tom Hanks gives the best performance in the movie, by far. He gives a nicely understated lead performance, and lets normally reliable character actors such as Ian McKellan, Alfred Molina, and Paul Bettany overact like inept hams. "The Da Vinci Code" reminded me a lot of "V For Vendetta" -- if you're on these films' ideological wavelength, you'll feel pressured into liking it, yet they're both utterly deficient as entertainment. Nothing happens! I have heard Hanks' cryptographer character compared to a contemporary Indiana Jones, but if you recall the Spielberg adventure trilogy, you'll remember that Indiana Jones occasionally did things. You know, things that are interesting to watch and not boring. Watch the movies again...I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I am going to watch "The Lost Boys" on the big screen in Davis at 10 p.m. tonight. Dub: best film ever or your just favorite? Or is simply the only Joel Schumacher film that shouldn't have its original negative thrown into a giant bonfire and destroyed forever?

Bruce Willis Confirms "Die Hard 4" is Ready to Roll

Thanks, Alice.

With the Barnesyard Bump It or Dump It polls officially closed, the Val Kilmer vote is deadlocked at 6 Bumps (FFT, Conway, Brambles, Biz, Charles, and The Armeniac) and 6 Dumps (me, Darcey, Dub, Mario, Michelle, and Miller). Usually, I would just flex my despotic muscles and cast the deciding vote myself, but after all the "Worse Than Hitler" cracks that the press has been making about me, I'll defer to the will of the people and leave the deciding vote up to the first person who hasn't commented on the issue yet. Becks? Alice? Brian? Jesse? A-Max? Anyone???!!!

I should have posted earlier this week that The Barnesyard would be taking a brief hiatus. We are moving offices again this weekend, this time to East Sacramento. Little Richard said he would stop by some time on Sunday for his usual prayer meeting/bisexual orgy, and then we can officially re-open for business. I'll have reviews of everything I've seen this week, but here's a brief in-theater guide for your weekend.

"Art School Confidential": B-
"Just My Luck": D+ (although Lohan's rack merits a solid B)
"Mission: Impossible III": B
"The Notorious Bettie Page": C+
"Poseidon": C
"Thank You For Smoking": C-
"United 93": A- (no joke, this is the best film of 2006 so far)

These are the only films currently playing in theaters that I've seen. "The Da Vinci Code" and "Over the Hedge" are the weekend's high-profile release. The Indian film "Water" plays at the Crest. See you next week!

Before I begin the Top 5, I would like to publicly shame the Bee's movie critic, Carla Meyer. Not only do I condemn Ms. Meyer for her often baffling reviews (she likes every movie, but they all get 2 1/2 stars...what's that about?), but for blatantly ripping me off in the third paragraph of her review of "Poseidon" in today's Bee:

"Wait, 'U-571' actually starred Matthew McConaughey, who's a lot like Lucas, give or take a Texas accent and sense of humor."

She didn't actually use the words "Poor Man's McConaughey", but she might as well have. Ms. Meyer, I have been calling Josh Lucas the Poor Man's McConaughey for YEARS! This is my bit, it's always been my bit, and it always will be my bit. Back off.

And now on to the Top 5...

By the end of the 2004-05 NBA season, I had decided that the Kings could not return to the level of a contender without first doing two things: trading Peja Stojakovic and firing Rick Adelman. For whatever reason, the team decided to ride it out with those two for another season, and it was to their detriment. They were the two softest elements of a team that prided itself on softness, and their day had passed. They no longer had the players around them to be successful. Of course, if you listen to the relentless spin machine at 1140 or read the idiot columnists at the Bee, you'd think this move was not only suicidal, but unprecedented in the history of sports. Therefore, this week's Top 5 will debunk the Top 5 myths about why firing Rick Adelman was a bad idea.

5) "He was a winner." It's true that Adelman has won over 700 games in the regular season. That's what makes him a good and respected coach who will probably have a wide range of job offers to choose from. But what makes a coach great is taking it to the next level in the postseason. The fact is that Adelman's teams have underachieved too often in the playoffs -- all told, they are 5-8 in playoff series under Adelman. They have a 3-8 playoff record the last two years. They constantly don't show up for important games. A first-round exit would have been good enough 7 or 8 years ago, when the Kings were coming off a decade of futility. But once you get to the level of a contender and fail, it's a hell of a comedown to keep ending your season early. After a while, you realize that "moral victory" is just another word for loss.

4) "He's not being judged fairly...this is a results-oriented town." One of the numbskulls on 1140 actually said that Sacramento was a high-pressure, "results-oriented town" the other day. If Adelman were coaching this team in New York or Chicago or Boston or or Philadelphia or Los Angeles, he would have been fired years ago. The coaches in those cities know what pressure is like -- they're expected to win all the time, every time, especially when they have a recent history of success. It's because Sacramento is a relatively small town with low-level media scrutiny that guys like Adelman and Jerry Sloan in Utah can hang around for so long without winning a title. Does anyone remember Garry St. Jean? He coached the Kings for 4 or 5 years, and they had 1 playoff appearance and 1 playoff win in that time.

3) "Whoever coaches this team is inheriting severe roster problems." Of course, the same people who are pushing this argument are the same people who were picking the Kings to win the 2007 championship a week back. Not only is this an extremely talented roster, but there is still wiggle room to improve via trades (more so than last year, when the trade value of nearly every player on the roster had plummeted). My dream trade: Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Brad Miller, and Jason Hart to the Knicks for coach Larry Brown, Channing Frye, and Jamal Crawford. Joel Przybilla is signed to a mid-level extension contract. You return next year with a starting 5 of Bibby, Wells, Artest, Thomas, and Frye, with Crawford, Kevin "The Fade" Martin, Garcia, Przybilla, and your #1 draft pick.

2) "Who are you gonna get to replace him?" This argument always held no weight -- the implication is that Rick's 700 wins make him irreplacable. But just look at the coaches still going in the playoffs -- 5 of the 8 are still coaching their first team. If you read the cover story in today's Sports page, you know there is certainly no dearth of candidates itching to replace Adelman. The more I think about it, the more I feel that PJ Carlesimo is the right man for the job. History has shown that coaches coming directly from the college game fare worse than coaches who have tenured in the NBA as assistants. When PJ first came into the league out of St. John's, he was too high-strung and combative -- I'm sure Sprewell wasn't the first player to fantasize about chocking PJ, just the first to act on it. But now that he has spent some time as an assistant on the Spurs, he seems to have mellowed considerably, and the combination of his basketball knowledge, his wider understanding of how NBA players expect to be treated, and his experience working in a winning system make him the ideal man to coach the Sacramento Kings next season.

1) And the winner is...why Good Golly Miss Molly, it's our old friend Sacramento's own The Georgia Peach, Little Richard, aka The Quasar of Rock. Little Richard is another ideal candidate to replace Adelman -- he is a living legend who would command instant respect from the players; also, he's an admitted "size queen", so he might finally help the Kings develop that defensive-minded big man they've coveted for so long. Geoff Petrie, do the right thing and bring Little Richard in for an interview immediately.

Moving from one batshit-loony actor to another, our next subject for scrutiny is the legendary flake Val Kilmer (Darcey suggested this one, mainly because she hates him so much). He had a great early career, and for a while it seemed like he had the potential to become an A-list superstar along the lines of his "Top Fun" costar Tom Cruise. Obviously, that never happened: his detractors would argue he's too cold and aloof for stardom (not for nothing was his "Top Fun" character nicknamed Ice Man), while his supporters would suggest that he's too smart and self-aware to tolerate action-movie theatrics. More likely, his notorious on-set misbehavior marked him as "too difficult", and his collection of post-Batman duds suggest he was being passed over for quality scripts and got stuck with the chaff. Here's a brief filmography:


Top Secret! (1984)
Real Genius (1985)
Top Fun (1986)
The Man Who Broke 1000 Chains (1987)
Willow (1988)
Kill Me Again (1989)
The Doors (1991)
Thunderheart (1992)
True Romance (1993)
The Real McCoy (1993)
Tombstone (1993)
Batman Forever (1995)
Heat (1995)
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)
The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)
The Saint (1997)
At First Sight (1999)
Joe the King (1999)
Pollock (2000)
Red Planet (2000)
The Salton Sea (2002)
Masked and Anonymous (2003)
Wonderland (2003)
The Missing (2003)
Spartan (2004)
Mindhunters (2004)
Alexander (2004)
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

DAN's TAKE:

THE GOOD: Top Secret!; Real Genuis; Top Gun; True Romance

THE BAD: Tombstone; Heat; Batman Forever; Red Planet; Wonderland; Alexander; probably most of the movies I haven't seen, such as Real McCoy, Ghost and the Darkness, The Saint, At First Sight, Salton Sea, Spartan, Mindhunters, etc.

GREAT IN A LOUSY FILM: Willow; The Doors; The Island of Dr. Moreau; Masked and Anonymous; Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

THE VERDICT: The first three films of Kilmer's career almost make him bump-able on their own. "Top Secret!" showed a flair for comedy used all too infrequently of late, "Real Genius" made him seem like star material, and in "Top Gun", he steals every scene he's in. There is one moment where Ice Man is trying to say something nice to Maverick, and Kilmer stretches the line out for about three minutes, taking deep,sharp breaths, shifting, stuttering, rolling his eyes, and so on. It's like a mini-opera of tics, as though he and Cruise decided to compete to see who could do the most things while acting.

I never saw "Kill Me Again", but it's supposed to be good. "Willow" wasn't his fault. "The Doors" was a turning point -- the film is ungodly on most levels, but Kilmer as Morrison isn't one of them. He gives a remarkable, possessed performance, although reports of his onset behavior (he ordered cast and crew to refer to him as "Jim" even when not shooting) couldn't have helped his rep.

From that point on, Kilmer made a series of duds (most of which I would never see), and seemed determined to establish himself as the hammiest young actor in Hollywood. Some people love "Heat", but I think it's paper-thin and not entertaining. Similarly, his droll performance in "Tombstone" was singled out for praise, but it struck me as tired and effortless schtick. Since I refuse to acknowledge the existence of "Batman and Robin", I will always know Kilmer as the worst Batman ever (Clooney as Batman? Yeah, like THAT would happen!).

Most of Kilmer's duds have no excuses -- they're terrible, and he's terrible in them. "Red Planet" and "Wonderland" are flat-out unwatchable. He gives the worst performance in "Alexander", and that's against some brutal competition. In the past 15 years, Kilmer has proven to be a lot more tolerable and amusing in small roles than in leads, yet it seems like there is an awful lot of good will on his side. Just think of his performance as the Ghost of Elvis in "True Romance": you're more tickled by the knowledge that it's Kilmer wearing the gold lame suit just out of frame than by anything he does as an actor.

"The Island of Dr. Moreau" shows off the best and worst in Kilmer. The movie was a well-documented disaster, perhaps the most hilarious non-comedy this side of "Battlefield: Earth", and paired Kilmer up with another great hambone flake, Marlon Brando. In the middle of "The Island of Dr. Moreau", Brando's character is killed, and for no reason whatsoever, Kilmer just starts doing a Brando impersonation for the rest of the film. Is Kilmer winking at the audience or just trying to compete with Brando's craziness? It's all incredibly amusing, but at the same time, Kilmer doesn't wear an ice bucket on his head, doesn't don a moo-moo and white pancake makeup, and doesn't play piano beside a midget version of himself playing a tiny piano (as Brando does in the film). That's the thing about Kilmer -- his penchant for insanity and non-sequiter make his performances potentially interesting, but he doesn't put the effort into being a egomaniacal lunatic that Brando did.

He had a minor return to form in "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", but that film was overpraised by critics. Nothing he has done in the past decade matches up to his one-episode role as a pot-dealing sherpa in the first season of "Entourage". This is a tough call -- I have some affection for Kilmer, and the man has certainly compiled a collection of singular performances, but he's usually just terrible. He had enormous potential but it has gone alomst completely unrealized from the early 90's on. Therefore...

DUMP IT.

I've had my say. The final decision will be left to the citizens of Barnesyard Nation. I pose the question: Val Kilmer -- BUMP IT or DUMP IT? Please vote early and often. Polls close Monday morning.

"Get Rich or Die Tryin'" (2005 - Dir.: Jim Sheridan)

I have put off writing this review for nearly two weeks, but last night I had a dream where I had a public feud with 50 Cent. The dream started with a going-away party at my place in Elk Grove -- I got very drunk and started vandalizing and destroying everything I could find. Apparently, 50 Cent thought this was pretty uncool (hey, the man has standards), and essentially blackballed me from the industry and soiled my name amongst my friends (effectively killing my shot to direct his upcoming sequel, "Get Richer or Die Tryin'-er"). At one point, Jay Baker slapped me and yanked my hair for no reason (I assume...Jay?), so I smacked him in the mouth. By the end of my dream, all of my friends had turned their backs on me, and I was living in Portland, writing for a small publication and helping to raise an infant girl with a gay couple (although even the baby didn't care for me too much).

I have no idea what messages this dream was trying to deliver, except to prove that loading up on spaghetti and Dots before bed is a terrible idea. Whatever the case, I can only hope that writing this review of "Get Rich or Die Tryin'" will exorcise 50 Cent from my mind forever...

***********

"Get Rich or Die Tryin'" is an obvious attempt to repeat the formula of Eminem's similarly semi-autobiographical "8 Mile" -- hire a reputable, non-exploitative director; emphasize the gritty atmosphere and against-all-odds inspiration; rewrite the biographical details just enough to imbue a mundane backstory with the force of legend; coax an earned emotional performance out of your lead.

In large part, the film hits every nail except the last one -- 50 Cent/Curtis Jackson (in the film, his name is Marcus and he goes by the rap name Young Caesar) is a black hole in the center of the film. He has only two modes of performance -- a hard glare or a shy smile -- and unlike Eminem, doesn't give up much of himself as an actor. As we follow his character from young inncocent to tortured, crack-slinging adolescent to ambitious adulthood, we barely get a clue about what makes him tic.

To be fair, the movie is only marginally worse than "8 Mile" -- the earlier film had better performances, but it was also awash in sentimentality. "Get Rich..." piles on as many cliches, but at least people are shooting each other while it all goes on.

The film was directed by Irishman Jim Sheridan, who may seem like an odd choice to direct a 1980's-set New York hip-hop story...however, the film actually covers a lot of the same cultural/temporal space as Sheridan's previous film, "In America". "Get Rich..." even includes a scene where children watch fireworks from inside an ice cream parlor that is a direct crib from his earlier film. Sheridan is a competent director, so the film moves well and looks better than you might expect. However, competence is the only element that Sheridan brings to the table.

The plot of "Get Rich..." seems to mix elements of 50 Cent's life with elements from a million crappy b-movies: after his mother is killed when 50 is a young boy (Sheridan managed to cast a child who looks uncannily like 50 Cent), the kid drifts into the burgeoning world of crack-selling. He makes his reputation, but meets a sweet girl who inspires him to start rapping. His enemies conspire against him, he goes to jail, and eventually 50 is shot several times on the street. Terence Howard (who gave a more accomplished and realistic performance as an ambitious rapper in "Hustle and Flow") plays a hood who befriends 50 in jail, and I'll give a dollar to anyone who can explain this character's transition from scene to scene -- depending on the moment, he's either a sympathetic sidekick or wants to kill everyone.

It's a relatively entertaining movie for a while, but it grows risible during the rap scenes -- everyone keeps telling Young Caesar/50 Cent that he's a brilliant artist with so much to say, and that his rhymes give voice the harsh truths of the street. But in the end, the message seems to be that if you get shot in the torso enough times, you can write inane lyrics about candy stores and clubbin' and play Long Island bar mitzvahs while still coasting along on your street cred.

Mediocre even in its good moments.

GRADE: C+

After the usual weeks-long hiatus, it's time for another installment of Dan and Dub's World Famous Duelling Reviews. This week, Bergman regulars Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman star as an average couple struggling to hold on to their identity in a time of war in the Swedish master's 1968 film "Shame".

"Shame" (1968 - Dir.: Ingmar Bergman)

DUB'S TAKE:

The question is: how do you make a war film without inadvertently exciting the audience with battles and explosions and action sequences? It was a question Truffaut asked back when he was a critic (citing Chaplin’s “Soldier Arms” and the Marx Brothers’ “Duck Soup” as the two greatest war films made to that point, because they were the only two to adequately represent the absurdity of war), and with few exceptions, it is something many filmmakers (especially American) still have not come to terms with.

So, for the answer, we may turn to a filmmaker who, probably more than any other filmmaker in history, knows how not to infuse his audience with a shot of adrenaline. The filmmaker is Ingmar Bergman, and the film is “Shame,” from 1968. And the way he deals with it: he does not show us a war, so much as he shows us the battleground. The particular battleground in this case is a small Swedish island, and, not to be too melodramatic, the souls of two civilians who live there.

The souls belong to Jan and Eva (exceptionally played by Bergman repertory staples Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann), a middle aged married couple who are poor but seem to love each other well enough to survive. They are both musicians, but due to the impending war in Sweden, their orchestra has folded, and they make their living by picking fruit and selling it to the few people around who can still afford it. Jan is sensitive and weepy, and tries to keep from thinking about the war. Eventually, though, an army invades their island, and they both become caught up in it.

The two sides that are battling for control of the island are never made clear. The armies look as though they are wearing gear from World War II, though the film is set in the then-present 1968, and each side looks pretty much the same. And, of course, they act pretty much the same too – the invaders hold guns to Eva’s head and force her to participate in a propaganda newsreel; later, she is taken prisoner by a nationalist colonel as a suspected insurgent because of it.

But Bergman’s film is not simply about the politics of war. Throughout the film, we watch these characters try to come to terms with what is going on around them and cannot. There is a complete breakdown in morality, and this breakdown is not something that stops in the battlefield. The characters fall victim to the depravity of war, not by fighting in it, but simply by being consumed in it.

The performances and direction are simply amazing, as is the photography by Sven Nykvist. One of Bergman’s strongest attributes, I think, is the way that he communicates with his audience. He knows it’s a movie, and the audience knows it’s a movie, so why be afraid to utilize that? In once of the most disturbing scenes in the film, part of Jan and Eva’s house burns down; the couple stand directly in front of the camera, staring straight ahead at the audience, absolutely destroyed by the event, while the fire burns behind them. It is an astounding shot, stunning in its beauty and its tragedy.

“Shame” reminds me of a previous Duelling Review entry, Vittorio de Sica’s “Two Women,” (1960), which starred Sophia Loren as a mother trying to flee war-ravaged Italy with her daughter. Both films deliberately avoid any focus on the soldiering of war – surely, American and British film had focused enough on the soldiers by that point – and instead concentrate on the people who are trying to live a normal life while everything around them is destroyed by war. In “Two Women,” innocence is destroyed. In “Shame,” it is morality. The perspective of these films is refreshing, even if the provocation for it is not.

Grade: A

*********

DAN'S TAKE:

I have only seen a handful of Ingmar Bergman films, and I have been consistently struck by what a natural-born filmmaker he is -- he has a remarkable self-assurance with actors, visual style, and narrative. Although he often employs intangible story arcs and elements of surrealism, in many respects he is a lot closer to Hollywood filmmakers like John Ford, Hitchcock, and even Steven Spielberg than he is to European contemporaries like Godard or Antonioni. Like Steven Spielberg, he has an uncanny ability to place his camera exactly where you feel it needs to be placed. Unlike Spielberg, he doesn't feel the urge to deep-fry every one his films in a thick batter of bathos.

Bergman's showmanship and restraint are put to good use in "Shame", a modest but effective anti-war piece about an average peasant couple on a remote, unnamed island who find their entire lives swept up in the storm of a war they can barely comprehend.

As the film opens, the couple has been together many years without children, and have gotten to the point where they are comfortable but barely tolerant of one another -- the husband is overly sensitive and a bit spineless, while the wife has become cold and emotionally distant. In short, they're not in a good place for an enormous moral and physical ordeal, yet news reports of an approaching armada are generally dismissed -- they have been hearing unsubstantiated rumors of a military invasion hitting their peaceful island for years, and can't make heads or tails of the political strife anyway.

With sudden chaos and urgency, the invasion is upon them, and their lives and personal identities become completely scrambled. The first scenes of the military invasion are the best scenes in the film -- thrilling, emotionally unsettling, prescient, and beautifully photographed (there is a brief overhead shot of a plane on fire that I still baffles me -- how was Bergman able to shoot something so awesome and epic on a shoestring budget?).

Crucially, neither the invaded island nor the invading troops are ever identified by name or political distinction -- like De Sica's "Two Women" (covered on Duelling Reviews a few months back), Bergman is making a film about average people with no interest in world events who suddenly find that war is being fought in their front yard, and how far outside of themselves those people have to go to survive. The film's topic is, if anything, even more vital today than when it was made. "Shame" was made mainly as a reaction to the Vietnam War, but there just as many parallels to the wars being fought in the Middle East today, especially in a scene where a frightened Ullman is interviewed by violent enemy soldiers who want to document the citizens they've just "liberated". Later in "Shame", the soldiers' film (in which Ullman's voice is overdubbed with party propaganda) is used as evidence by her own government to indict her.

"Shame" isn't perfect -- even with a relatively short running time, it's a bit poky and self-important -- and I can only assume I will see better Bergman movies in the future, but it's impeccably put together and extremely gripping, and the acting is marvelous. As Dub says, it's the rare war film that doesn't make war seem the least bit exciting or glorious -- it's not about soldiers fighting battles, but about the debilitating and dehumanizing effects of war on civilians.

GRADE: A-

**************

On the next installment of Dan and Dub's Duelling Review, we will review the John Cassavetes' film "Opening Night", starring Gena Rowlands.

"I could kill each and every one of you with the awesome power of my shit-eating grin."

********

The polls just closed a few minutes ago, and mega-star Tom Cruise has been OFFICIALLY DUMPED by the citizens of Barnesyard Nation (good ol' democracy...never fails us). I didn't think Cruise would get bumped, but I didn't expect him to get dumped quite so soundly. The finally tally: 10 dumps against 4 bumps -- Cruise held off the complete blowout late when Charles decided to bump him twice ("Good hustle play by Charles Albright." -Jerry Reynolds). There isn't a bigger star in the world than Cruise (although his recent exhibitionism has apparently dulled the shine a bit), but there is also no denying the will of the people.

Thomas Cruise Mapother, consider yourself OFFICIALLY DUMPED. Ouch, that's gotta hurt.

This seems like a pretty popular bit, so I will try to come back with the next edition by the end of the week.

"Bubble" (2006 - Director: Steven Soderbergh)

The last two times that Steven Soderbergh moved away from his comfort zone of crafting better-than-average star vehicles and attempted bold cinematic experiments, the results were "Full Frontal" and "Solaris", so it's understandable to be leery of his latest attempt to "stretch". "Bubble" is the first film in Soderbergh's groundbreaking (and in many respects, conceptually pointless) collaboration with Mark Cuban's production company, which is seeking to decimate the shrinking "window" between theatrical and home release -- the movie was simultaneously released for theaters, home video, and Internet download back on January 27. Of course, "Bubble" is a small enough effort to qualify as a low-risk, first-run experiment.

The film was shot on location in the midwest starring local non-actors whose personal lives paralleled their onscreen roles fairly close. Two lonely workers and unlikely friends at a depressing, dreamless Ohio doll factory -- a shy, slender younger guy who lives with his parents and a needier older woman who lives with and takes care of her ailing father. Their mundane routine is disturbed by the hiring of an irresponsible young mother at the factory. The boy and the girl inevitably drift towards each other (they're the only people their same age -- the area is depressed and most of the young adult townsfolk have probably moved away).

There is nothing even remotely resembling "action" in "Bubble", even when the young woman turns up murdered, with her two fellow factory workers among the most likely suspects -- the film is about depressed people in a depressed region of the country who behave as though they have little to look forward to. Plot and character development are rolled out slowly (the no-frills, 71-minute running time helps a lot). A detective shows up on the scene, conducting his murder investigation in a very straightforward, dispassionate fashion. When the young guy and the older woman talk about the girl's murder (who isn't a mere victim, but a very conniving, richly drawn character).

"Bubble" is no masterpiece...the film is determinedly small, and doesn't contain the emotional and textural layers that a more ambitious director might have brought to the material. However, it's also not a shrill, pretentious fantasia a la Von Trier's similarly themed "Dancer in the Dark", and the acting is pretty good, especially Debbie Doebereiner (a KFC manager for two decades before getting cast in the part) as the older woman. Worth a look for the interested.

GRADE: B.


************

"Memoirs of a Geisha" (2006 - Dir.: Rob Marshall)

Although I haven't read the book, I get the feeling that in its translation to film, "Memoirs of a Geisha" fell prey to a common trap for modern-day bestseller adaptations -- the immense pressure to placate fans of the book by including all the major highlights in the film version. Of course, you can't include everything, or the movie would be 12 hours long. On the other hand, it becomes easy to spread the story and characters way too thin, to the point that the plot darts about purposelessly, and the characters never stay in one place long enough to generate interest.

The story concerns a young Japanese girl who is sold into servitude at a geisha house full of scheming women and powerful men. She makes initial, fruitless attempts at escape, but after an inspiring encounter with a kind man known as "The Chairman" (Ken Watanabe, dreamy), she falls in love and dedicates herself to becoming a famous geisha in order to place herself in his sights.

"Memoirs" stars a trio of well-known Asian actresses -- Gong Li, Michelle Yeoh, and Zhang Ziyi. Unfortunately, only Yeoh finds any depth in her character, a top geisha who takes Ziyi under her wing. Zhang Ziyi plays the main character, but for all of Ms. Ziyi's delicate beauty and ferocious attitude, she's a pretty middling actress (she also proved this in the superior "House of Flying Daggers" [2004 - Dir.: Zhang Yimou; GRADE: B] -- better as a presence than as an actress).

If you're going to watch "Memoirs of a Geisha", it would be pointless to watch it unless it's in the letterboxed format -- for all its narrative shortcomings, the film is a triumph visually. The production and costume design, cinematography, editing, and music are all superb -- stunning, sumptious, sensual, and all the other ten-cent pull-quote adjectives you can think of. The movie looks gorgeous even when it probably shouldn't -- as a director, Rob Marshall's only discernible aesthetic is "pretty". It works, to a point, but the more disturbing aspects of the story are all prettied up, too.

A decent film, but some of you might love it.

GRADE: B-.

************

UP NEXT: Dan and Dub's Duelling Reviews -- Ingmar Bergman's "Shame"

Last January, me and Mike Dub compiled a list of our Top 102 films of all time, the most comprehensive catalog of favorite movies that either of us has ever put together. At the time, I was just coming out of an extended hibernation, so I just posted the lists and let them go without much content (although the majority of the headline quotes I've been using over the past several months have come from films on my list). I also made several lists about the lists, tallying up top directors, consensus picks, and countries of origin. Before I get into that, here is a reprint of the two lists:

DAN'S TOP 100 (plus 2 for luck):
1) The Searchers
2) Citizen Kane
3) Taxi Driver
4) Singin' in the Rain
5) Vertigo
6) The Apartment
7) Magnolia
8) Chinatown
9) It's a Wonderful Life
10) Dr. Strangelove
11) Some Like It Hot
12) Pulp Fiction
13) The Godfather
14) The Man Who Wasn't There
15) Casablanca
16) Rear Window
17) The Purple Rose of Cairo
18) Fargo
19) Annie Hall
20) Mishima: A Life in 4 Chapters
21) Jean de Florette
22) Ali: Fear Eats the Soul
23) McCabe and Mrs. Miller
24) Tokyo Story
25) Nashville
26) Apocalypse Now
27) American Gigolo
28) Goodfellas
29) Reservoir Dogs
30) The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
31) Blow Out
32) About Schmidt
33) The Graduate
34) Bonnie and Clyde
35) Crimes and Misdemeanors
36) City Lights
37) Dog Day Afternoon
38) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
39) Midnight Cowboy
40) Airplane!
41) Star 80
42) The King of Comedy
43) To Have and Have Not
44) The Passion of Joan of Arc
45) Double Indemnity
46) Boogie Nights
47) The Conversation
48) Touch of Evil
49) Raiders of the Lost Ark
50) Raising Arizona
51) Bringing Up Baby
52) One From the Heart
53) 2001: A Space Odyssey
54) Bridge On the River Kwai
55) Requiem For a Dream
56) Once Upon a Time in America
57) The Third Man
58) Modern Times
59) Badlands
60) The General
61) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
62) The Man in the White Suit
63) Sunset Boulevard
64) Fight Club
65) Dumbo
66) Raging Bull
67) Miller's Crossing
68) Psycho
69) Blue Collar
70) The Wizard of Oz
71) The Manchurian Candidate
72) Radio Days
73) It Happened One Night
74) The Right Stuff
75) The Bicycle Thief
76) Network
77) True Romance
78) Bully
79) His Girl Friday
80) Starship Troopers
81) Strangers on a Train
82) Glengarry Glen Ross
83) The Rules of Attraction
84) Night and the City (the original)
85) The Bellboy
86) A Hard Day's Night
87) Jaws
88) Rebel Without a Cause
89) The Westerner
90) Rififi
91) Ed Wood
92) The Killing
93) The Deer Hunter
94) A Night at the Opera
95) Anatomy of a Murder
96) Manhattan
97) Rushmore
98) Sabrina
99) Enemies, a Love Story
100) I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang
101) The Last Detail
102) Rio Bravo

I'm not sure what criteria Dub used to put his list together, but I tried to make my list as accurate a representation of my taste in movies over the past 15 years as I possibly could (I should also mention that, for the purposes of these lists, documentaries and anything Star Wars-related were excluded, and that all films were considered individually, not as part of a series). These are all movies that have moved me in some way -- it's hard to sum up what these films say about me or my tastes, but it's a safe bet to say that films featuring sex, violence, foul language, drug use, anti-heroism, moral dilemma/decay, and general depravity (however it may be defined at the time) rank pretty high on my list of my "do's". If handled with intelligence, realism, purpose, and style, those salacious elements can result in compelling films -- and if not, they're still pretty good.

DUB'S LIST:

1) Citizen Kane
2) Casablanca
3) The Maltese Falcon
4) Dr. Strangelove
5) Annie Hall
6) Taxi Driver
7) Vertigo
8) Pulp Fiction
9) Double Indemnity
10) The Rules of the Game
11) The Last Detail
12) Bonnie and Clyde
13) Chinatown
14) The Godfather
15) Psycho
16) The Conversation
17) Crimes and Misdemeanors
18) Some Like It Hot
19) The Graduate
20) Cool Hand Luke
21) 2001: A Space Odyssey
22) The Asphalt Jungle
23) Singin' in the Rain
24) Animal Crackers
25) The 400 Blows
26) 8 1/2
27) Breathless
28) The Godfather, Part II
29) Rashomon
30) Paths of Glory
31) Kanal
32) Rebel Without a Cause
33) Goodfellas
34) The Wild Bunch
35) Dog Day Afternoon
36) Sunset Boulevard
37) The Killing
38) The Night of the Living Dead
39) M
40) Network
41) Bridge Over the River Kwai
42) Glengarry Glen Ross
43) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
44) West Side Story
45) The Thin Man
46) A Streetcar Named Desire
47) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
48) The French Connection
49) Anatomy of a Murder
50) Duck Soup
51) Touch of Evil
52. North by Northwest
53. Nashville
54. Love and Death
55. 12 Angry Men
56. Fargo
57. The Third Man
58. Rear Window
59. Raiders of the Lost Ark
60. The Lady from Shanghai
61. Rio Bravo
62. Ashes and Diamonds
63. Hamlet (Olivier; 1948)
64. Raging Bull
65. The Hustler
66. The Wages of Fear
67. His Girl Friday
68. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
69. The Apartment
70. City Lights
71. The King of Comedy
72. Reservoir Dogs
73. Red River
74. Bob le flambeur
75. Contempt
76. The Long Goodbye
77. Stalag 17
78. Magnolia
79. Strangers on a Train
80. Sleeper
81. Apocalypse Now
82. Superman
83. Out of the Past
84. It Happened One Night
85. Sweet Smell of Success
86. The Great Escape
87. Blow Out
88. The Grifters
89. Midnight Cowboy
90. La Dolce Vita
91. The Purple Rose of Cairo
92. Goldfinger
93. Back to the Future
94. Carnal Knowledge
95. The Player
96. Jaws
97. The Dirty Dozen
98. Once Upon a Time in the West
99. Philadelphia Story
100. Risky Business
101. Treasure of the Sierra Madre
102. Barton Fink

First of all, let's look at the similarities, and there are quite a few: we share 52 of the 102 films on our lists, almost exactly 50 percent. Obviously, I like Dub's list. I have seen all but 6 of the films on there, and I can honestly say there isn't a bad film in the bunch. There are movies I feel he has overrated (e.g., "Night of the Living Dead", "The French Connection", "12 Angry Men", "Lady From Shanghai", etc.) as well as films that barely missed the cut for me (e.g., "The Player", "M", and "The Asphalt Jungle" among them), but nothing that I dislike. I think Dub has seen about 90 percent of the movies on my list, and I would assume he feels roughly the same way, with perhaps a handful of exceptions.

DAN AND DUB'S CONSENSUS TOP 20 [this list was compiled by taking the 52 films that received nods from both of us and adding up their respective list rankings, with the lowest combined score seeded highest]:

1) Citizen Kane
2) Taxi Driver
3) Vertigo
4) Dr. Strangelove
5) Casablanca
6) Pulp Fiction
7) Chinatown
8) Annie Hall
9) Singin' in the Rain
10) The Godfather
11) Some Like It Hot
12) Bonnie and Clyde
13) Crimes and Misdemeanors
14) The Graduate
15) Double Indemnity
16) Goodfellas
17) The Conversation
18) Dog Day Afternoon
19) Rear Window
20) Fargo

All in all, a list that both me and Dub should feel proud of. If a man raised as a feral beast wandered out of the woods and became interested in the essentials of American filmmaking, this list would be a perfect place to start.

Of course, this also points out the limitations of our lists -- of the 152 films that made the cut on at least one of our lists, the overwhelming majority of them are American-made. I included only 7 non-English language films (and of those, one is a French silent -- "The Passion of Joan of Arc" -- and another was made by an American director working in exile in France -- "Rififi"), while Dub gave the nod to 12. I can explain this oversight in two ways -- first, America makes the best films in the world, always has and probably always will; second, my list was an attempt to make an accurate reflection of my cinematic tastes and experiences from the beginning of my adolescence until now, and until recently, that period has been dominated by American products. Of the 19 combined foreign-language selections, France topped the rest of the world with 9 nods, Italy and Japan tied for second with 3 picks, while Germany and Poland shared third place with 2 movies apiece.

THE DIRECTORS:

I also compiled a list of mine and Dub's consensus top 10 directors. This list was compiled through a system so minute and wonkish in detail, I'm too embarrassed to explain.

1) Billy Wilder
2) Woody Allen
3) Alfred Hitchcock
4) Francis Ford Coppola
5) Martin Scorsese
6) Stanley Kubrick
7) Howard Hawks
8) The Coen Brothers
9) Orson Welles
10) Sidney Lumet

Again, I think me and Dub feel positive about this list, with perhaps one exception: Sidney Lumet, who gained the final slot through a slight mathematical advantage over a few other directors who made the lists the same number of times. Lumet certainly had his day, but I think both me and Dub would consider him a lesser filmmaker than lower-ranked heavyweights like Altman, John Ford, or Ingmar Bergman.

So there you go...more facts about the lists than you could ever care to know. I can't imagine this will be of much interest to anyone besides me and Dub, but we both spent a lot of time on this, so I'll milk it if I want. At any rate, I'll put either of our lists up against that AFI 100 shit any day of the week.

If anyone would like to make a top 10 (or 3 or 20 or 100) list of their own (I'll leave the criteria to your discretion), I encourage you to post it in the comments page.

If you're as tired as I am of all the sex, drugs, and godlessness that dominate the contemporary pop world and the mainstream news media, than perhaps it's time we all took a moment to revisit our old friend Little Richard, who is back with another story of rustic wisdom and moral inspiration in a series that we like to call...

Little Richard Presents: Little Richard's One to Grow On, By Little Richard

Volume 5: "The Rock and Roll Legacy"

"My true belief about Rock 'n' Roll -- and there have been a lot of phrases attributed to me over the years -- is this: I believe this kind of music is demonic. I have seen the rock groups and the punk-rock people in this country. And some of their lyrics are demonic. They talk against God. A lot of the beats in music today are taken from voodoo, from the voodoo drums. If you study music in rhythms, like I have, you'll see that this is true.

I believe that kind of music is driving people from Christ. It is contagious."

...and that's One to Grow On, by Little Richard

As true today as when it was written. God bless you, Georgia Peach...and keep on a-rockin'!! Whoooooooo!!!

************

Next week on Little Richard Presents: Little Richard's One to Grow On, By Little Richard -- the uplifting final installment.

It appears that the Kings are all set to announce that Rick Adelman will NOT be back coaching the Kings next season. This is good news for Kings fans who have grown tired of Rick's underachieving teams and increasingly feckless sideline performances. I will keep you all posted...until then, here are some movie reviews.

"Mission: Impossible III" (2006 - Dir.: J.J. Abrams)

Let me say this straight off: "Mission: Impossible III" delivers the goods. By now, can you hope for anything else from a tentpole summer action film? The action is exciting, the suspense is palpable, the explosions are photographed well, and Tom Cruise sprints and sweats with equal conviction.

Much has been made of TV scion J.J. Abrams' take on the spy series, and the attempts to "humanize" Cruise's Ethan Hunt character by giving him a lovely fiancee and a personal stake in the action. It doesn't amount to much more than a dogpile of cliches -- Cruise as the retired spy pulled back in for one last job; a kidnapped girlfriend to arouse our hero's righteous anger; spy agency superiors who may be working for the enemy, and so on.

By now, the "Mission: Impossible" movie series has even spawned its own line of cliches -- a classy international cast shoehorned into unwritten roles, prosthetic faces yanked on and off, girlfriends in peril, and so on.

Each M:I director has brought his own style to the material -- Brian De Palma made it into an impenetrable Hitchcock-lite espionage drama, John Woo made it cartoonish and barely watchable, and J.J. Abrams, while not bringing anything particularly innovative to the table, displays a knack for making ridiculous action scenes seem immediate and inhabitable that fits well with his realistic-fantasy TV aesthetic. It makes you look forward to future films from Abrams.

Like all of the M:I films, it still glides over areas of character development in its urge to cut to shots of Cruise running fast and dangling from things. But more than either of the other two films, it delivers the goods on a very elemental level of entertainment. Give it a shot.

GRADE: B.

************

"Thank You For Smoking" (2006 - Dir.: Jason Reitman)

This is the sort of "independent", issues-driven film that is frequently referenced whenever someone is arguing against the shallow bombast of Hollywood products like "Mission: Impossible III", but Jason Reitman's "Thank You For Smoking" is infinitely more phony and glib than the average Tom Cruise smirk-and-explosion-fest.
It's the sort of cynical satire that just isn't cynical enough to make it in this day and age -- the film constantly strives for the cheap and easy.

Aaron Eckhart (an actor I generally like who falls flat here in a tailormade role) plays Nick Naylor, a tobacco industry lobbyist enamored with his own bullshit. He argues his way into and out of every situation in his life, and subdues any moral qualms about pocketing large sums of money to promote a product that kills people. He is also part of a trio of corporate lobbyists nicknamed The Death Squad (also featuring shills for alcohol and firearms) who meet for dinner, drinks, and war stories.

Of course, the genuine-article lobbyist would be ten thousand times slimier and more interesting than this doofus chatterbox -- Naylor is like a cuddly, safe version of Eckhart's nihilistic corporate sleaze from "In the Company of Men". Thoroughly defanged, "Thank You For Smoking" is stuck in a cinematic limbo of playing it too soft to be a biting satire, and not being funny enough (or funny, period) to succeed as a wacky comedy.

Incidentally, despite the constant chatter about tobacco, I don't recall anyone smoking onscreen in the film even once. There is an extended sequence in which Nick travels to Hollywood to pitch the idea of putting cigarette product placement in movies. This is supposed to be a cutting indictment of Hollywood superficiality (it does feature amusing character pieces from Adam Brody and Rob Lowe), but the fact that cigarettes are forbidden from appearing in a film about smoking, while people are shown brandishing firearms and slugging alcohol with impunity, speaks more volumes about the film industry's shallowness and hypocrisy than anything Reitman can summon up.

GRADE: C-.

With the polls closed as midnight last night, the first installment of Barnesyard Bump It or Dump It has resulted in a deadlock -- Oliver Stone received five Bumps and five Dumps. As the proprietor of this blog and the creator of Barnesyard Bump It or Dump It, I feel it is my responsibility to play the role of Dick Cheney (not the first time I've compared to Cheney) and cast the tiebreaking vote. Therefore, my vote counts as two and Oliver Stone is officially BUMPED...that said, he better watch his ass.

For the second installment, I thought we would evaluate and judge the career of an actor. In honor of the release of "Mission: Impossible III", I have decided to make Tom Cruise our next subject. Despite the fact that Cruise is undoubtedly the most popular and reliably bankable lead actor in Hollywood, his acting is generally treated with critical derision. Is he a soulless smirk machine with limited skills, or a throwback to the manufactured stars of yesteryear? Here's a brief filmography:

Taps (1981)
The Outsiders (1983)
Losin' It (1983)
Risky Business (1983)
All the RIght Moves (1983)
Legend (1985)
Top Fun (1986)
The Color of Money (1986)
Cocktail (1988)
Rain Man (1988)
Born on the Fourth of July (1989)
Days of Thunder (1990)
Far and Away (1992)
A Few Good Men (1992)
The Firm (1993)
Interview With the Vampire (1994)
Mission: Impossible (1996)
Jerry Maguire (1996)
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Magnolia (1999)
Mission: Impossible II (2000)
Vanilla Sky (2001)
Minority Report (2002)
The Last Samurai (2003)
Collateral (2004)
Mission: Impossible III (2006)
3:10 to Yuma (rumored for 2007; this would be a remake of the 1957 Delmer Daves western with Cruise in the Glenn Ford; current status unknown)
The Few (2008 -- proposed Michael Mann project)

DAN'S TAKE:

THE GOOD: The Outsiders; Risky Business; All the Right Moves (ah, Hollywood...where else could an actor named Thomas Mapother play a guy named Stefen Djordjevic?); Top Gun; Magnolia; Minority Report

THE BAD: Legend; Days of Thunder (although he DOES play a character named Cole Trickle); Far and Away; A Few Good Men; Interview With the Vampire; Jerry Maguire; Eyes Wide Shut

THE INDIFFERENT (although Cruise tends to bring more spark and determination to the roles than they deserve -- the kid certainly doesn't lack for effort): The Color of Money; Rain Man; Born On the Fourth of July; The Firm; the Mission: Impossible series; Vanilla Sky; The Last Samurai; Collateral; War of the Worlds

THE VERDICT: In many respects, Tom Cruise is the type of Hollywood movie star that is rarely seen these days. He's sort of like a contemporary Errol Flynn, Gene Kelly, or Douglas Fairbanks, a born star with limited acting abilities (sweat, smirk, sprint, repeat) who has excelled because of his genuine onscreen physical presence. Expressive physicality is the hallmark of Cruise's ouevre, and not just in demanding action parts like sword-fighting scenes in "The Last Samurai", the all-in-one-take running scenes in "War of the Worlds", and the bare-knuckle boxing scenes in "Far and Away" -- he brings a kinetic quality to almost all of his performances, whether he's prancing around a pool table in "The Color of Money", stalking the seminar stage in "Magnolia", or flipping bottles in "Cocktail". Like a lithe Harrison Ford, Cruise possesses what EW critic Owen Gleiberman has termed "the will to action", and he's believable and successful in action roles for the same reason that Gene Kelly was believable and successful playing dancers -- physical ability and effort. Cruise tends to take a go-for-it! approach to acting -- no one gives as much of himself to a movie, even when you wish he wouldn't.

That said, most of Tom Cruise's films are mediocre or bad. He has shown an admirable predilection for working with seasoned and critically lauded filmmakers such as Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Ron Howard, Sydney Pollack, Cameron Crowe, Michael Mann, Barry Levinson, Brian De Palma, PT Anderson, and Kubrick, but with the exception of PT Anderson, most of those collaborations resulted in lesser efforts and/or career lows for the directors. Cruise has also shown a desire to "stretch" - this is admirable, except that the films that emerge tend to be complete travesties ("Eyes Wide Shut" and "Interview With the Vampire" being the most egregious).

At nearly 44 years of age, he has developed an unseemly Peter Pan quality that indicates his maturation will be just as disturbing as Michael Jackson's. "Magnolia" is the one film in Cruise's holster that displays a talent for searing self-laceration, but we'll probably never know if Cruise even "got" the part, or just created his own intensity on cue.

This one is a tough call, but although I do admire Cruise on many levels, the uninspiring collection of films leaves me no other choice but to DUMP IT.

What about you, Barnesyard Nation? Let your voices be heard. Tom Cruise: BUMP IT OR DUMP IT? Please vote early and often.

Over the past several weeks and months, I have come up with at least half a dozen running bits for The Barnesyard, many of which have been left dormant or unfinished for far too long. Therefore, I am declaring that this week will be Running Bit Week at The Barnesyard. Over the next few days, you can look forward to new installments of:

-Dare Daniel
-Duelling Reviews With Dan and Dub
-Little Richard's One to Grow on
-Barnesyard Bump It or Dump It
-What the Fucking Fuck's Up With That?
-The Top 5

I will also try to include a segment about mine and Dub's Top 102 lists from last January, and a recap of mine and Jesse's NBA predictions from last October. In addition, there will be movie reviews of:

-Mission: Impossible III
-Memoirs of a Geisha
-Thank You For Smoking
-Bubble
-Get Rich or Die Tryin'
-...and whatever else I watch this week

It shall be ever so much fun...won't you join us?

Considering that the Kings could have their season ended tonight at home by the San Antonio Spurs, I think I will hold off on implementing The Barnesyard's extremely popular new feature, Broken Borders: The Re-Nicknaming of Kevin Martin. I find that once the Kings are eliminated from the playoffs, I can't stand to watch basketball for at least a week or two, so that one may be held off until the beginning of next season. Until then, we should all start a more grassroots version of the campaign by inserting Kevin Martin's new nickname -- "The Fade" -- into casual conversation whenever possible.

Until then, I've come up with a new extremely popular feature -- a movie version of that old radio game, Bump It or Dump It. Essentially, I will come up with an actor, director, film, or film style that generally inspires split opinions, give my take on the subject, and then turn it over to the readers to chime in with their opinions.

First on the block: Oliver Stone.

FILMOGRAPHY:

Seizure (1974)
The Hand (1981)
Salvador (1986)
Platoon (1986)
Wall Street (1987)
Talk Radio (1988)
Born on the Fourth of July (1989)
The Doors (1991)
JFK (1991)
Heaven and Earth (1993)
Natural Born Killers (1994)
Nixon (1995)
U-Turn (1997)
Any Given Sunday (1999)
Comandante [Fidel Casto documentary] (2003)
Alexander (2004)
World Trade Center (this summer)
Son of the Morning Star [about Gen. Custer] (2007)

AS WRITER ONLY:

Midnight Express (1978)
Conan the Barbarian (1982)
Scarface (1983)
Year of the Dragon (1985)
Freeway (1996)
Evita (1996)

DAN'S TAKE --

THE GOOD: Salvador; Platoon; JFK; Natural Born Killers; Nixon; scripts for Midnight Express, Scarface, and Year of the Dragon.

THE BAD: Talk Radio; The Doors (except for the concert scenes and Kilmer, it's unwatchable); Heaven and Earth; Alexander; script for Freeway

THE INDIFFERENT: Wall Street; Born on the 4th...; U-Turn; Any Given Sunday.

THE VERDICT: Perhaps no American director besides Robert Altman is as capable of a classic or a travesty, but I will defend misunderstood masterpieces like Nixon, NBK, and JFK to the death...throw in the perennially underrated Salvador and his often overlooked early genre-bending screenplays (Michael Cimino's Year of the Dragon is the gem of the bunch), and you're looking at a BUMP IT, my friend. The bad news: his last film was his worst ever, and his next two projects involve the World Trade Center attacks and the life of General Custer. In ten years, this could switch back to a dump it.

OK, readers, let your voices be heard -- Oliver Stone: BUMP IT OR DUMP IT?

I'm glad a few people besides Jesse have chimed in about Kevin Martin's new nickname. I'm not sure exactly what sort of bleak dystopia would result if only Jesse voted in every election, but the terrorists would have their run of the joint, that much I can assure you.

In an unrelated note, I just realized that it's been quite a while since I talked about Little Richard. So in the interests of equal time, The Georgia Peach is here to tell his side of the story in the latest edition of Little Richard Presents: Little Richard's One to Grow On, By Little Richard.

Volume 4: Life at the Top

"We used to have orgies all the time. Whenever I was in L.A., we'd book a suite at the Carolina Pines Hotel, on La Brea and Sunset. We just let it all hang out. All the hookers, hustlers, and dealers hung around there. And girls. All kinds of girls.

I'd be the one who'd get it started. I'd say, 'Everybody take off all your clothes. Take 'em all off right now,' and sometimes if they were a little slow I would pull them off myself and just lay 'em down. They'd be so shocked they wouldn't know what to say. And they wouldn't know what happened till it was over. Some of them girls would be afraid of me, y'know with my look an' all. They were scared to death, thinking, 'I don't know what this man's gonna do in this room. Keep the door open so I can run outa here, cos he looks as though he's gonna attack any time!'

Some of them would leave before the action started. They'd leave and come back tomorrow, cos they wanted to know what had happened. There were some that even came back in two days. But they all liked to do things..."


...and that's One to Grow On, By Little Richard

********

Thanks, Little Richard, for another of your patented heartwarming yarns about small-town folk and simpler times.

As the Kings continue to play well in the playoffs and 2nd-year swingman Kevin Martin establishes himself as a potential superstar, it has occurred to me that our boy could use a brand new nickname. Thus far, he has been saddled with "K-Mart", which is problematic on a number of levels.

First, it's boring. Any chump can take the first letter of his first name and the first syllable of his last name and then hyphenate the two. It takes no originality or creativity whatsoever, and Kevin Martin is a very original and creative player.

Second, and much more importantly, THERE'S ALREADY A K-MART IN THE NBA!!! His name is Kenyon Martin, and he is already an established star in the league. It's one thing for Chris Webber to call himself "C-Webb", because he's the only C-Webb in the NBA. But Kevin Martin isn't going supplant Kenyon in the hearts and minds of basketball fans outside the Sacramento area, especially if he uses the exact same nickname!

Therefore, I asked Andy and the boys down in Research and Development to come up with some brand-new nicknames for Sacramento's own Kevin Martin, and they came up with some doozies. My ultimate intent is to catapult myself into the public eye by making Kevin Martin's nickname my new pet crusade, much like Lou Dobbs did with the immigration issue (in another nod to Dobbs, I've also decided to become jowelier) -- my crusade would involve calling public relations people, calling the Kings organization, pushing it on an 1140 call-in show, and so forth. And since Kevin Martin is a player for the people, I want the people to decide which pony I should ride.

So without further ado, the first ever Barnesyard Poll (place your vote by leaving a comment, anonymous or otherwise).

Should Kevin Martin's new nickname be:

1) The Fade (both for his fade jump shot and for being the first ballplayer to rock a fade haircut since the release of "House Party 2")

2) Special K (to distinguish himself from Kenyon Martin and all the others with similar names)

3) The K-Hole (because watching Martin play is like getting lost in the k-hole).

Please vote early and often.