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.