REVIEW: XXX - I'm hopping on a plane in a few hours for Pennsylvania -- too far away from Bucks County for a pilgrimage to where Signs was shot, unfortunately -- so this review will be brief. But then, I'm probably not going to tell you anything about XXX (opens today) you probably haven't figured out from the commercials.

For all the talk of XXX and its bulging, Barry White-voiced star, Vin Diesel, ushering in a new era of espionage thriller, James Bond shouldn't worry about cashing in Her Majesty's 401(k) plan just yet. As Xander Cage, an adrenaline junkie anarchist who is recruited by an NSA specialist (Samuel L. Jackson, dutifully paying the bills) to serve his country as a secret agent, Diesel is undeniably charismatic. And while not given much chance to "act," Diesel is a competent enough line-reader - unlike, say, his Fast and the Furious co-star Paul Walker, whose performance in that film was so bad it made Keanu Reeves look like Sir Larry Olivier.

What keeps XXX from being anything close to a first-rate spy flick is that director Rob Cohen (also from The Fast and the Furious) has no clue how to structure a story that isn't just generic filler packed with copious explosions and impossible stunts. And excluding the second scene of the movie, where we are introduced to Cage as he steals a snobby Senator's red corvette, drives it off a bridge, then pulls his parachute at the last second -- all the while being videotaped from multiple angles -- not one of the film's numerous action sequences delivers a real rush. Cohen directs these scenes like a 10-year-old who has just been given a bundle of fireworks; rather than let each one off individually, building to a thundering crescendo, he just lights the whole bag on fire and hopes you are so desperately craving entertainment that you will be awed by the spectacle of it all, despite not really being able to see all the action unfold.

I have more to say about XXX, including a survey of what other critics are saying -- but alas, my flight awaits. I'll be sans computer all weekend so look for my next post Monday morning.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

A STAR IS BORN - CS correspondent and Burn Hollywood Burn co-host (more on that in future posts) writes in with his comments about Lovely & Amazing.

Let me clear up any confusion from the top -- this is a pal of CS who will be chiming in from time to time if I find something interesting/newsworthy to add to the current buzz going on right now in the Feedback Forum.

I went to see Lovely & Amazing last night and the movie is only part of the story. The acting is excellent throughout, but Jake Gyllenhaal, in particular, shines in a limited role. I know it's become vogue to try and predict the next big star in Hollywood, but I really think if he snags a few more meatier, quirky roles like Donnie Darko, he could be on his way.

Catherine Keener is also very good, which assures she won't be nominated for an Oscar. Her acting technique is abrupt, but I think it's funny and works well for the movie. As for Lovely & Amazing, it works in fits and starts; it's a grab bag. "A series of disjointed vignettes about life" would more accurately describe the movie than any plot description you'll find on Rotten Tomatoes. If famed screenwriter William Goldman was reviewing the film, he no doubt would have complained that the script was transmogrified into a sequential order so that a few of the main characters might have perspective at the end. Unfortunately, Nicole Holofcener wrote and directed the movie, so this argument is somewhat moot. Also notable are several Seinfeld references, which I guess means Holofcener has good taste.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

BIG FAT WORD OF MOUTH - For weeks I've been telling myself to go see My Big Fat Greek Wedding before it leaves town. Now I'm glad I didn't rush down to the multiplex because it doesn't figure to be going away anytime soon. In fact, the manager told me business has been steadily increasing, which is almost unheard of in the movie business, especially for a film that has been playing in the same place for 6 weeks.

A comedy about a young Greek woman (Nia Vardalos) who makes the mistake of falling in love with a man who isn't Greek (John Corbett), Wedding's $3 million box office take last weekend may not seem like much until you consider that it was made for just $5 million. Since its initial limited release in New York and L.A. 16 weeks ago, Wedding has earned more than $40 million.

To put this into perspective, consider the numbers for K-19: The Widowmaker, which cost a reported $80 million with $25 million alone going to star Harrison Ford. The submarine action-drama has made just $30 million in three weeks, and last weekend it grossed less than Wedding ($2.8 million), despite playing on almost 2,000 more screens (2,634 to 657). Wedding averaged $4,570 per location, more than four times K-19's total of $1,084.

"Clearly, word of mouth is spreading and helping the picture find its audience," explained The Hollywood Reporter in a June 28 article (click here to find the link) about the production and distribution of Wedding and its surprising financial success. At the time, the little arthouse-sleeper-that-could had made $16 million in 10 weeks and had actually seen its previous weekend receipts go up 1 percent even though it was being shown on the same number of screens as the weekend before.

Everybody likes to discover some little movie they think nobody else has heard of, and Wedding, based on Vardalos' autobiographical one-woman play, has clearly connected with audiences. Further proof of its strong word of mouth among moviegoers is the fact that the critical reaction, while favorable, has not exactly been glowing. A number of reviewers give Wedding a positive review, but feel the need to qualify their comments. "It uses an old-time formula, it's not terribly original and it's rather messy -- but you just have to love the big, dumb, happy movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding," writes Jeffrey M. Anderson of the San Francisco Examiner. "An amiable, offhanded comedy about ethnic identity and last-chance romance," admits Dave Kehr of the New York Times.

More intriguing is how critics disagree over the way Vardalos represents the ethnic identities characterized in the movie. Leslie Camhi of the Village Voice says, "Vardalos's parodies of Greek family values are loving and witheringly hilarious." Roger Ebert calls it "Warm-hearted in the way a movie can be when it knows its people inside out." And Andrew Sarris of the New York Observer writes, "As a witness to several Greek-American weddings -- but, happily, a victim of none -- I can testify to the comparative accuracy of Ms. Vardalos' memories and insights."

Among the dissenters: Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman explains, "The wedding ... turns the very concept of 'Greek' into the sort of hideous, pandering clichés that look rejected from bad Jewish and Italian sitcoms." John Hartl of the Seattle Times chides, "Vardalos apparently never met an ethnic stereotype she didn't like, and she's got a million of them." And Charles Taylor of Salon hates almost everything about Wedding (big surprise!):

"The movie is like going to a family reunion and finding a smoochy horde descending on you, all wearing T-shirts saying 'It's a Mediterranean Thing'...And I've no doubt that there are cross-cultural irritations in large families. The trouble here is that none of the characters have a spark of individual life. They're all just fulfilling their generic functions."

Judging from its impressive earnings so far, most moviegoers don't agree with Taylor's cantankerous (though humorous) dismissal. I plan to see it this weekend and will have my response posted sometime next week.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

HORDE OF THE RINGS - "I know that some people may think that it's a crass marketing move to double-dip by releasing two DVDs a few months from each other, but I really believe that we have very different products, this one that's available now is what you saw on screen."

That's New Line's Gordon Paddison trying to justify this week's DVD release of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, even though a Special Extended Edition set is scheduled to hit stores November 12. As Paddison said, the current 2-disc set -- which includes three in-depth documentaries, 15 featurettes, and a 10-minute behind-the-scenes look at the series' second installment, The Two Towers -- contains the original theatrical cut of the Oscar-nominated picture.

The 4-disc November release will feature 30 minutes of extra footage, boosting the running time to around three hours-35 minutes. According to IGN, two discs contain the film and the remaining two discs will provide more than six hours of additional content, including Peter Jackson commentary. The rub, of course, is that this edition will only contain the extended cut. So if you want the shorter theatrical version, you have to buy both.

I enjoyed Fellowship and will likely purchase the DVD - but both sets? Not a chance. Fortunately for New Line, I'm the exception. I imagine the 2-disc set is flying off shelves as I type, even though most buyers are probably aware of the more extensive edition coming out in a few months. Hell, I'm still kicking myself for purchasing Memento, The Usual Suspects, Blue Velvet, and a handful of other DVDs, only to shell out the cash again later to buy the special editions. I suppose die-hard Rings fans won't have a problem paying $30 now and $40 later for a more loaded disc, but I won't knowingly buy a disc that will essentially be obsolete in a few months.

[Update 3:04 PM: A friend informs me Wal-Mart and Best Buy are both selling the Rings disc for around $15, not the retail price of $30 mentioned above. I'm still going to hold off, but it certainly makes purchasing the disc now a little more justifiable.]

Some other notable DVD releases this week: The 50s street gang flop Deuces Wild. The disc includes audio commentary by director Scott Kalvert and the original theatrical trailer. I avoided Deuces and still have no desire to see it, but the opportunity to hear Kalvert wax poetic about one of the most viciously maligned movies of last year could score a perfect 100 on Bill Simmons' Unintentional Comedy Rating.

Also new on DVD, Ethan Hawke's directing debut, Chelsea Walls, with cast and crew interviews and bonus footage. If ever a disc screamed for director's commentary, it's this one. Did you catch Hawke's interview in the "Newsmakers" section of last week's Newsweek? I swear I'm not making this up.

Q: This book is all about fatherhood. How has being a father changed you?

A: Fatherhood hasn’t changed me. It’s changing me. I was driven to write this book because it was asking me to change in all these ways, and I didn’t know if I could do it. I was dealing with all those questions that ... questions ... I’m sorry. My brain just completely downshifted

Q: How do you find time to act and direct and write?

A: They’re so interconnected. I met my wife acting. It’s taken me around the world. I come at writing as an actor. What am I talking about?

In all fairness to Hawke, he admitted to being pretty hung over from a reading of his new book in Central Park the night before. I caught him on Inside The Actors Studio with Jimmy Lipton a few months ago and I thought he was one of the more instructive guests I've seen on the show. Seriously. Some actors, like Meryl Streep, have enormous talent but have trouble explaining their "craft"; while others, like Hawke, are mostly mediocre and yet very good at articulating what they do.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

HE'S NO WILLIAM PETERSEN - Is it just me, or does Edward Norton look too young to play weathered FBI agent Will Graham in the upcoming Silence of the Lambs prequel, Red Dragon (opens Oct. 4, click here for the film's official site)? I caught a glimpse of the one-sheet for the first time Sunday night and I'm beginning to doubt whether I can take him seriously in the role.

The choice of Rush Hour director Brett Ratner to helm Red Dragon, based on the Thomas Harris novel of the same name, was a dubious choice to begin with. My doubts about the film -- previously adapted for the screen in 1986 by Michael Mann as the slightly cornball-ish but creepy Manhunter (1986) -- were quelled a bit when the final cast was unveiled. (Click here for Jeffrey Wells' take on the decision to re-make Dragon.) Let's face it, you can't really argue with Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, and, of course, Anthony Hopkins, reprising his role as Hannibal Lecter (played first in Mann's version by Brian Cox).

But now Norton's boyish looks -- he's actually 33 -- have me worried again. Maybe it's the fact that the underrated William Petersen (now of CSI fame), with his perpetually salty gray hair, looked older than his years in Manhunter. For what it's worth, IMDb says Petersen was born in 1953 which means he too was just 33 when he played Graham. Still, we're supposed to believe that Graham has so much skill and experience as an FBI profiler that he was able to catch Lecter. [Do any Thomas Harris aficionados out there know how old Graham is in the book? If so, please share.] Somehow Ed Norton just doesn't seem gritty, savvy, or just plain beaten down enough - a suspicion confirmed by the new Red Dragon trailer.

Overall, it's one of the more effective previews I've seen recently, beginning with Fiennes' spooky narration of a letter he is writing to Lecter ("Good Dr., I have admired you for years..."). Then again, maybe the trailer works so well because Norton doesn't show up until 40 seconds in (unlike the decidedly less compelling first trailer that focuses from the beginning on Graham). Standing stiffly in front of Lecter's cell, soliciting his help in tracking down an elusive serial killer known as the "Tooth Fairy," he seems to be doing a rather bland Jodie Foster impression.

I'm curious to know whether anybody else has a similar reaction. Even if Norton doesn't quite fit the role, watching Hopkins devour tongue-in-cheek lines like: "I do. I have oooodles," when Graham says he doesn't have much time, and "I'll call you if I think of anything else. Would you perhaps like to give me your home number?", is still as fun/scary as hell as it was in Silence of the Lambs.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

REVIEW: SIGNS - M. Night Shyamalan may be "The Next Spielberg," but as I sat in the crowded theatre watching his religious-themed, pseudo-sci-fi drama Signs, I couldn't help but think of Tom Hanks - not the Hanks of Forrest Gump and Philadelphia, but the "Everyman" Hanks of The Green Mile, Cast Away, and Saving Private Ryan. Unlike any other current actor, Hanks is the ultimate "crowd-pleaser"; with every smile, laugh, burst of anger or sadness, he can provoke the audience to respond in kind.

Shyamalan pulls off a similar piece of magic with Signs, which stars Mel Gibson as Graham Hess, a former minister and widower forced to examine his faith - or lack thereof - when a mysterious set of crop circles appears on his Pennsylvania farm. Except perhaps for the film's heavy-handed and unnecessary final shot, Shyamalan subtly teases our intellect and emotions with near perfect precision throughout. There are few films, and few directors, that can provoke an almost uniform response from an audience. And yet, there I sat, watching everyone laugh, listen quietly to important pieces of dialogue, and jump out of their seats in unison.

Remarkably though, Signs is a crowd-pleaser that doesn't conform to any of the current entertainment standards in Hollywood. The film manages to be sentimental without veering into sentimentality. And while having a definitive style, the film is anything but stylish. The pacing is deliberate, with long takes that allow the audience to watch the actors follow a thought or action from beginning to end - which is particularly enjoyable to see since both Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix, as Graham's aimless but likeable brother Merrill, give two of the best performances of their careers.

In his critical review, Slate's David Edelstein writes: "As a scare picture, Signs is good enough. As a religious parable, it's scarier—and I don't mean that as a compliment." Edelstein's problem is with what he sees as the film's "fundamentalist" religious ethos: "Shyamalan is saying that when you reject God, you kill your kids. The idea that an atheist or agnostic parent could be [a] good parent—could instill values of skepticism and intellectual rigor—is outside this movie's purview."

I typically agree with Edelstein, and I appreciate his criticism precisely for such bold assertions. In this case, however, I can't imagine a more misguided interpretation. It's true that Shyamalan isn't concerned with the parenting techniques of atheists and agnostics, but that's like criticizing Ocean's Eleven for not showing how gambling (and theft), while tremendous fun, can also be addictive and destructive.

Signs isn't really about "Religion" and its many variations and ramifications. It's the story of one man's struggles with faith. Graham isn't an atheist or agnostic; he's a man of God who has shunned his faith after experiencing the tragic loss of his wife. His kids (Abigail Breslin and Rory Culkin) don't feel abandoned because he no longer believes in God, but because he no longer believes in anything. He stopped being their father - the man they rely on and look to for guidance - when he more or less gave up on life.

Where Shyamalan does have to be careful is in the way he handles his now trademark "twist" endings. Signs doesn't offer any surprises on the level of Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, but like those films, Shyamalan again concludes - don't worry, I'm not giving anything away - with an ending that shows the protagonist piecing together all of the "signs" he (and the audience) have been given throughout the movie. Even when it works, as it does here, this maneuver is starting to feel a bit like a gimmick or a crutch, or both.

Edelstein's negative review aside, the critical response has been overwhelmingly positive. Rotten Tomatoes shows 107 "fresh" reviews to only 31 "rotten." Among the most glowing, Roger Ebert gives Signs 4 stars and calls it "the work of a born filmmaker, able to summon apprehension out of thin air. When it is over, we think not how little has been decided, but how much has been experienced. Here is a movie in which the plot is the rhythm section, not the melody."

Got a comment or suggestion? E-mail CinemaScoped at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com

WHERE WERE YOU IN '79? - CS friends Scott and Chris attended the Flashback Weekend Horror and Sci-Fi Convention this past weekend in Chicago. Scott's a hardcore horror geek; Chris doesn't know Sam Raimi from Sam Elliott, but he's a huge James Bond geek, so he tagged along to see the special screening of Moonraker complete with a Q & A session with Richard "Jaws" Kiel. [And you admit these guys are your friends? --ed.]

Why am I reporting all of this? Because a pretty funny thing happened to Scott and Chris Saturday night as they waited to see a remastered print of The Evil Dead.

Here's how Chris recounts his cult horror claim to fame: "Scott and I sat in the front row at the old Pickwick Theatre - as an older moviehouse, there wasn't a lot of legroom anywhere else. After the screening of Bruce Campbell's new movie, Bubba Ho-Tep, we waited for the showing of Evil Dead. Campbell was joined by the three actresses from the movie, and the four of them announced that, since they've heard so many complaints about the quality of their acting in the original, they were going to read the script here to demonstrate how much their talents have advanced since 1979.

Evil Dead fanatics began to jump out of their chairs for the opportunity to read for "Scott" - the only actor not present at the screening. The woman who played Shelly pointed directly at Scott (not knowing he had the same name as the character he was to play) and said she wanted him to come up on stage and read the part. But Scott - less afraid of the undead than of public speaking - declined and slunk down in his chair. As I was nudging him to go up and fulfill his Evil Dead destiny, "Shelly" pointed at me and asked if I would try it. Never passing up an opportunity to be the center of attention, I got up and went onstage.

As the cast outfitted me in a vintage flannel shirt, I started to have second thoughts. Some in the audience had seen the movie 25 times. Up until 48 hours ago, I didn't even know who Bruce Campbell was. So I leaned over and whispered into Campbell's ear, "Look...um...I've never actually SEEN the movie. Is that a problem?" Campbell played off my remark immediately, repeating to the audience what I had told him. The uproar was immediate. From the audience's perspective, having me read for the part of Scott with the cast of Evil Dead was like asking Osama Bin Laden to throw out the first pitch at the World Series.

But Campbell and the others stuck with me. We read a good share of all the dialogue in the movie (of which there is remarkably little). Very early on it became clear that first-time writer/director Sam Raimi took a little time to advance and mature as a screenwriter. Lines like, "We can't bury Shelly..she's our friend," show that the learning curve for Hollywood scriptwriting is steep indeed. And I think that was the point. Campbell and the ladies of Evil Dead were, in addition to having a little fun, trying to show that it wasn't just their lousy acting that made the movie so unintentially funny; it was Raimi's hokey script.

The audience eventually warmed to me, probably because my lines were delivered with absolutely no sense of context, much like the original Scott. Campbell asked me after the reading why I wasn't available to do the part in 1979. I told him I was 4 years old. After the screening, one hard-core fan asked if I was a plant from the convention, put there to meticulously butcher Scott's lines for scores of Evil Dead fans. I just smiled. I didn't want to tell him that I was just there to see Moonraker.

Got a comment or suggestion? E-mail CinemaScoped at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com

THE SIGN SAYS... - As expected, Signs topped the weekend box office with $60.3 million. Unexpectedly, and somewhat depressingly, Dana Carvey's tedious The Master of Disguise was third with $13 million (Read my review posted Friday morning.) I'll have my Signs review up as soon as possible.

Also, look for a "brush with greatness" story from the Flashback Weekend Horror and Sci-Fi Convention that took place in Chicago this past weekend, and a review of Bruce Campbell's horror-comedy Bubba Ho-tep from CS correspondent Scott G. I'll have those posts up later today or tomorrow.

Got a comment or suggestion? E-mail CinemaScoped at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com

HORROR FANS UNITE - For all you cult horror fans around the Midwest, the Flashback Weekend Horror and Sci-Fi Convention starts today and runs through Sunday at the Chicago Marriott O'Hare. A number of influential and important horror stars, writers, and directors I have never heard of will be there.

OK, I know Bruce Campbell, who will be on hand Saturday for a special sneak preview of one of his new movies (probably Bubba Ho-tep), followed by a screening of the Sam Raimi classic that made him a B-movie star, The Evil Dead (1982). A remastered 35mm print will be screened with an introduction by and Q & A with Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, Theresa Tilly, and make-up artist Tom Sullivan. Sunday night includes a screening of Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn (1987), also with a Campbell Q & A.

Got a comment or suggestion? E-mail CinemaScoped at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com

REVIEW: THE MASTER OF DISGUISE - When introducing this blog on Wednesday, I proclaimed that I'll "do the work for you" when it comes to getting all of the latest movie news and reviews. Well, consider my time spent watching Dana Carvey's sputtering new vehicle, The Master of Disguise (opens today), the cinematic equivalent of 75 minutes on a prison chain gang.

Maybe you've seen the previews and thought, 'Hey, it could be kind of funny. Carvey was hilarious on Saturday Night Live'. Yes, Carvey was hilarious on SNL...so much so that when he was the guest on Dennis Miller Live a few weeks ago, fellow SNL-alum Miller declared him to be night-in, night-out the funniest performer the show has ever had. And he might be right. But Carvey, like so many SNL-ers, has never been able to translate his comedic talents to the big screen (Clean Slate, Opportunity Knocks, Trapped In Paradise).

Here Carvey plays Pistachio Disguisey, a bumbling waiter who can't figure out why he is compelled to constantly imitate his patrons. When his father and mother (James Brolin and Edie McClurg) are kidnapped by a flatulently-challenged villain (Brent Spiner), he has to discover his family heritage and learn how to become a true Master of Disguise in order to rescue them.

The movie is an embarrassing jumble of loosely connected bits intended to showcase Carvey's sharp mimicry skills. The problem is that while it's great fun to watch someone effectively lampoon people you recognize, it's almost zero fun watching someone satirize generic "everyday" characters - an overweight Texan and his gum-flappin' wife in a fine Italian restaurant who just want "the spaghetti," for example. It might work in a 3-minute SNL skit, but over the course of a whole movie, the characters just grow tiresome.

Curiously, Disguise's few memorable bits are homages to other movies (none of which have any connection to this movie or each other) - a parody of Bo Derek's famous beach scene in 10; Father Merrin's eerie arrival in The Exorcist; a riff on Pacino in Scarface; and a dead-on Robert Shaw impression from Jaws. Unfortunately, Carvey's target audience - remember, this is rated G and being heavily advertised on Nickelodeon - seems to be kids ages 6-10 suffering from severe head trauma. I doubt most parents will even get these references. For what it's worth, the movie also features the most inept Star Wars spoof ever committed to celluloid.

Not surprisingly, Disguise is being uniformly panned. A look at "Rotten Tomatoes" shows that out of 22 reviews, not a single one is positive. The NY Times' Elvis Mitchell criticizes Carvey for his lack of edge, "There's honor in bringing a wild streak to comedies for the whole family, which don't have to be an exercise in prudence, like The Master of Disguise." Roger Ebert dubs the movie a "desperate miscalculation," writing, "It gives poor Dana Carvey nothing to do that is really funny, and then expects us to laugh because he acts so goofy all the time. But acting funny is not funny. Acting in a situation that's funny--that's funny." [In Woody Allen's great Crimes and Misdemeanors, Alan Alda's loathsome TV producer explains comedy thusly, "If it bends it's funny; if it breaks, it isn't funny." Note to all you writers out there: A Google search shows that this quote has been referenced so many times in so many articles, whether movie related or not, that you're not being clever if you borrow it.] Finally, Reel's Tor Thorsen calls Disguise, "A comedic train wreck that could very well make Carvey the next Joe Piscopo."

In 1988 or '89 I had the pleasure of seeing Carvey, arguably at the height of his SNL fame, do stand-up at the Civic Center in Des Moines, IA. A rising star named Mike Myers was the opening act. They joined each other on stage at the end to do "Wayne's World," which was popular on SNL but hadn't yet been made into a hit movie. I can honestly say it was the funniest two hours of my life. Carvey can't make even a halfway funny movie, but I suppose he can take solace in the fact that nobody has ever uttered those words and "Joe Piscopo" in the same sentence.

Got a comment or suggestion? E-mail CinemaScoped at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com

WHAT ABOUT MY ALEX THE GREAT EPIC? - Producer Dino de Laurentis (Hannibal) has tabbed Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge) to direct a historical epic about Alexander The Great based on a trilogy of novels by Italian author Valerio Manfredi. Oscar-winning writer Ted Tally (Hannibal, Silence of The Lambs) has adapted them for the screen. Just a few weeks ago, Laurentis had said his first choice was Gladiator (and Hannibal) director Ridley Scott.

Luhrmann is at least the fourth director to be attached to an Alexander epic, going back as far as 1995. (Check out Greg Dean Schmitz's timeline for all the facts.) Usual Suspects scribe Christopher McQuarrie, who wrote and directed the violent but underrated Way of the Gun, was first in line. When he dropped out last October, some guy named Martin Scorsese said he wanted to direct the Alexander story, with his Gangs of New York star Leonardo DiCaprio playing the lead role. (McQuarrie's choice was supposedly Jude Law.)

Meanwhile, Oliver Stone announced in February his own plans for a movie about the famous Macedonian who conquered 90% of the known world before he was 25. HBO even jumped on the Alexander bandwagon with plans for a 10-part miniseries. And did I mention that Alfonso Arau (Like Water For Chocolate) has his own version in the works as well?

Scorsese has since dropped out to make his Howard Hughes biopic with DiCaprio, and HBO has put its plans on hold as well. That leaves Stone, Arau, and Luhrmann to see who can get to audiences first. No word yet on possible casting for Luhrmann's version. Stone was set to go with Heath Ledger, but replaced him in May with another Aussie, Colin Farrell.

Matthew McConaughey's name was being tossed around by Warner Bros. back in 1996 as a possible candidate to portray Alexander, who died of illness at the young age of 33 (click here and here for two other noteworthy guys who died at 33) and is widely believed to have been gay.

It sounds like Jude Law is out, which is too bad because he's by far the best actor whose name has been mentioned so far.

Who would you like to see as Alexander? E-mail me your nominations at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com

I GUESS I'M NOT ALONE - I really don't want to keep harping on Signs, but I just took a look at the transcript of Jeff Giles' live chat that happened on MSNBC.com at noon ET today. When asked which Shyamalan film is his favorite, Giles said: "I like Sixth Sense best, and Signs second best. Signs is funnier than Sixth Sense but Sixth Sense is scarier. I'd say Signs was more touching, but that traffic-accident scene in Sixth Sense where the boy tells his mom that he has a secret--and that he's been "speaking" with his late grandma--is unbeatable in tear-jerking terms."

In case you missed my post from earlier this morning, I wrote: "The scene in the car between Toni Collette and Haley Joel Osment at the end of the film, where the boy finally reveals his secret to his mom, and explains that her dead mother is proud of her, still provokes an emotional response from me whenever I see it."

It's a devastating scene. And it works because Shyamalan trusts the emotional integrity of the words and his actors' ability to convey that emotion. No score or close-ups to direct our response. It's worth breaking out the DVD just to watch it.

In the chat Giles also points out that "Shyamalan made certain that Disney didnt mention the Sixth Sense in ANY of its marketing materials because he wanted to avoid the comparison." Did anybody notice this when watching the trailer? I remember thinking once that they say "M. Night Shyamalan's...Signs" at the end as if everyone in the audience was supposed to know who he was. It never occurred to me that it was precisely because they never mention Sixth Sense or Unbreakable. Certainly a gutsy move, if not the smartest financially.

SIGNS, SIGNS, EVERYWHERE SIGNS - Reel's Jeffrey Wells saw Signs last night and calls it "hands-down the most creepily effective scary movie in years." Wells noted Gibson's fine performance - after spending the five previous grafs (rightfully) criticizing him for some of his recent choices - claiming that "it's 80% to 90% devoid of his usual affectations."

David Ansen saw a similar freshness in Gibson's turn: "He hasn’t dug this deep in years. He reinvents his body language—stiff, awkward—to reveal a man trying to remain in control of a life that has far exceeded his understanding."

My guess is that Wells and Ansen are dead-on since Gibson made it pretty clear in this month's issue of Premiere (no link available) that Shyamalan was the first director in a long time to be totally candid with him and force him to abandon his usual bag of tricks. If only more young directors had the audacity/confidence/talent to call out their complacent stars.

I'll post Gibson's whole quote when I track it down later...

["He wouldn't settle for any of my shortcuts," Gibson says later. "He'd go bzzzzzt!" Gibson makes a loud, obnoxious, game-show buzzing noise. "It was almost Pavlovian. The minute you start swallowing or something--bzzzzztt!" He laughs. "He allowed me to breathe. It's been a long time since I've had a director that would actually jump in there and wrestle that monster."]

RE: SPIELBERG AND MINORITY REPORT - CS reader Sam Hallgren echoes my thoughts about Spielberg generally being one of the most manipulative filmmakers in Hollywood. Sam writes: "Spielberg, despite his twin Oscar nods for best direction, will be remembered by film historians for his chronic, and occasionally distasteful, reliance on cheap manipulation and a debilitating weak spot for sentimentality."

I couldn't have said it any better, Sam. Spielberg's lack of subtlety and overpowering desire to beat his (usually uplifting) message into our heads has always bothered me. And I simply can't stress enough how much better Saving Private Ryan would have been minus the sappy bookends with the old Ryan and family. I always love it when people talk about how great the first 20 minutes of Ryan is (D-Day) because that's not actually how the movie started - but it sure should have. To be fair, however, the scenes at the cemetery ("Have I led a good life?") seem to resonate with most baby boomer men I've ever talked with about the film. No insult here. I'm simply acknowledging that my generation is perhaps too cynical for the kind of saccharine Spielberg likes to serve up. You can decide whether that's a good or a bad thing.

Sam has praise for Spielberg's latest though: "Although "Minority Report" suffers from the same flaws that Spielberg's "popcorn movies" have always endured--an unsophisticated, juvenile sense of humor, shameless sentimentality and a prudish attitude toward sex--it makes up for these weaknesses with Spielberg's preternatural instinct for providing moviegoers with a delirious movie contact-high."

I agree...mostly. The first hour of Minority Report, especially the opening sequence with Cruise trying to foil a crime of passion before it happens, is exhilarating. The second half isn't as thrilling for a number of reasons: Too many plot distractions (In the future they can stop crimes before they happen, but they can't change the locks at Pre-Crime headquarters); Spielberg's contrived, conventional happy ending; and a plot twist that I saw coming about 20 minutes into the movie. And I mention this last point only because it's precisely the kind of thing I never try to figure out. I'm usually along for the ride and not trying to outhink the writer/director. But there's a scene early on that should scream deja vu to anybody who saw L.A. Confidential.

[Spoiler Alert! Don't read on if you haven't seen the movie and don't want the ending given away.]

I have a potential theory about the ending of Minority Report that I wanted to throw out. If anyone has seen this theory put forward elsewhere, please let me know. Is it possible, and wouldn't it be cool, if what seems like the ending of the movie - when Cruise is collared for murder and incarcerated - was actually the ending of the movie? As the prison guard (Tim Blake Nelson) loads Cruise into his cell - a contraption that seems to essentially keep the prisoner in some kind of suspended, sedentary state - he makes a comment about how he's heard that it's like living in a dream. The very next scene has Cruise's ex-wife discovering (somewhat ridiculously) that Max von Sydow is really the bad guy and that her husband is innocent. She then manages (totally ridiculously) to get into the jail and force the guard to release her husband. From there they bring down von Sydow, get back together, and all ends well with them looking to the future with a baby on the way. Tell me it isn't possible that everything that happens after Cruise is imprisoned is really just a dream, as the guard implies - his fantasy of how his life should play out. It certainly would explain why the whole finale seems so absurd, not to mention redeem Spielberg for yet another glossy ending. I haven't read the Philip K. Dick story that inspired the movie, but my guess is that this ending would be closer to what Dick had in mind.

Or maybe I'm on crack.

THE NEXT SPIELBERG - That's how the current cover of Newsweek touts M. Night Shyamalan, whose new supernatural-themed thriller Signs stars Mel Gibson as a Pennsylvania farmer investigating a mysterious pattern of circles and lines engraved in his crops (opens Friday). Frankly, I think the comparison does the talented writer/director of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable a bit of a disservice.

Despite all of his acclaim and the quality of films such as Jaws, Schindler's List, E.T., and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, I've never been able to jump on the Spielberg bandwagon. Saving Private Ryan is magnificent at times and yet terribly flawed - most notably, the awkwardly staged and sanctimonious scenes with the older Ryan that open and close the movie. The same is true for his recent sci-fi, not exactly-noir Minority Report . But enough about Spielberg...

As Jeff Giles' insightful profile explains, Shyamalan will probably appreciate the comparison. Giles writes: "Shyamalan is every bit the movie buff that the ’70s auteurs were. His idols are unapologetically pop, though: not Fellini, Bergman and Kurosawa, but Hitchcock, Lucas and Spielberg." Sure enough, Shyamalan lists Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws as two of his all-time favorite movies.

David Ansen raves about Signs in the sidebar review, remarking that it, "like The Sixth Sense and even the misconceived but artfully directed Unbreakable, forces you to lean forward, in anticipation and dread, and absorb. And like all things you stare at intently, his unsettling movies hang around in your head long after they’re over."

Ansen's use of the word "misconceived" to describe Unbreakable, a movie that received mostly tepid reviews and an even colder response at the box office, is curious because it isn't completely clear who he is referring to. Was Shyamalan's conception of the film flawed? Or was it the audience who went in (wrongfully but naturally) expecting The Sixth Sense and left disappointed? Ansen probably means the former; I say the latter; though Unbreakable is far from perfect, especially considering the awful text epilogue that almost ruined the ending of the movie. (Read my original review here.)

While Unbreakable is an underrated movie in my estimation, I might go so far as to say the same about The Sixth Sense. [How can that be? It was a critical and financial smash! In fact, it's one of the top ten highest grossing movies of all-time! --ed.] True, but people remember it more for its surprise ending than they do for Shyamalan's masterful writing and subtle, suspenseful direction throughout. The scene in the car between Toni Collette and Haley Joel Osment at the end of the film, where the boy finally reveals his secret to his mom, and explains that her dead mother is proud of her, still provokes an emotional response from me whenever I see it.

Shyamalan has shown an uncanny ability so far to thrill us without pandering - to entertain and make us think at the same time. How many directors right now can you say that about? Chris Nolan, Steven Soderbergh, P.T. Anderson, maybe a few others. Signs, which Ansen calls "a family thriller intended as an exploration of faith," should further his status as one of Hollywood's most interesting and exciting filmmakers. Is he the next Spielberg, as Newsweek says? I say, why try to hold him back?

I'll have a review of Signs posted sometime this weekend. Hopefully it will live up to my hype.

If anyone out there has managed to see either Wide Awake (1998) or Praying with Anger (1992), Shyamalan's two barely-seen films prior to The Sixth Sense, I'd love to hear about them.

WELCOME TO CINEMASCOPED - This is the inaugural post of CinemaScoped, the U.S.'s first and only all-movie blog. Rick McGinnis' great movieblog beat me to the Web by a couple months, but he's based in Toronto so that gives me something to brag about...doesn't it? ("Our government has apologized for Bryan Adams on numerous occasions!")

For those of you who aren't familiar with blogs (short for Weblogs), Newsweek's Steven Levy recently defined a blog as “an easily updated Web site that works as an online daybook, consisting of links to interesting items on the Web, spur-of-the-moment observations and real-time reports on whatever captures the blogger’s attention.”

And what captures my attention is film. Want to know what critics are saying about a movie? What’s the buzz on the best films coming out? I’ll try to provide that info and more for you in one spot - along with my commentary and reviews, of course - so you don’t have to spend time scouring Web sites and magazines. Let me do the work for you.

I look forward to your comments and hope you enjoy CinemaScoped.