ROGER DODGER - In my review of 'Igby Goes Down' a few weeks ago (10/3), I commented on the fact that I wasn't really buying the contention from almost every critic that writer/director Burr Steers' screenplay was all that "smart." Sure, there are a lot of pop culture references and clever insults, but rarely did the script provide any genuinely provocative moments where you learn something new about the world, or at least the way you look at it. For that, you have to go to the true "smart" movie of the year, 'Roger Dodger' (opened 10/25 in NY/LA), which I had the opportunity to see at the Chicago International Film Festival. Going in, I didn't have any expectations. I only selected the movie because I like Campbell Scott (who plays the title character) going back to 'Singles' and 'Big Night', and the synopsis on the festival's Web site proclaimed it to be "deft and humorous," while describing Roger as "a cynical copywriter who 'makes people feel bad' for money." (Note to marketing people: I'll fall for anything advertised as "deft" and "cynical.") First-timer Dylan Kidd opens the movie with a slightly 'Reservoir Dog'-esque conversation scene in which Scott's character lays out his theory about how as the human race continues to evolve, men will basically be rendered useless -- a theory that is proven correct later that night when his boss (Isabella Rossellini), with whom he has a purely sexual relationship with, decides his services won't be needed anymore. Right away it's clear that Roger is a bit of an enigma. He's basically that annoying guy we all met in college -- a didactic, abrasive know-it-all who dominates conversations displaying his infinite wisdom -- but he's so charismatic and sarcastic that you don't mind listening to him. Throughout this opening scene and for much of the film, Kidd utilizes a hand-held camera and a lot of extreme close-ups. People will walk right in front of the camera, objects in the room occasionally obstruct your view, and the whole time you never really get to see the characters in their surroundings. My initial reaction was to dismiss this technique as a slightly pretentious attempt at being artistic, but eventually I began to understand Kidd's decision. These characters (chiefly Roger) are so cerebral that their world-view doesn't really extend much further than the person across the table from them. Do you really need to see the restaurant they're sitting in? Can it really be different than any other posh Manhattan establishment you've seen before (whether in person or in the movies)? What's really bold is that Kidd makes a movie set in Manhattan that basically chooses to ignore the fact that it is set there -- unlike 'Igby' and another recent NYC movie, 'Tadpole'. After being dumped by his boss, Roger is surprised at his office the next day by his 16-year-old nephew, Nick, from Ohio. Nick is a virgin and wants desperately for his uncle to take him out on the town and teach him all the secrets of getting laid, something Roger is more than happy to do. I saw the movie with CS contributor Sam Hallgren and we were both surprised by how much we liked the movie and Scott's performance in particular. Sam writes: "Campbell Scott and Javier Bardem (in 'The Dancer Upstairs') have delivered two of the best performances I have seen all year (by far), and, really, two of the best performances I can remember seeing in some time. Both, it goes without saying, will be ignored come Oscar time. And both performances do what every "best actor" performance should do -- give the film that they're in (already good, in the best circumstances) an additional layer of meaning or reality that even the screenwriter couldn't have imagined. Campbell Scott brought a level of emotional intelligence to his role that I think very few others would have." I agree completely. Scott nails this role so perfectly that it makes you wish he was a little more visible as an actor these days. Just when you think Roger is nothing more than a cocky, misogynistic slimeball, he displays another level to his character, which is also a credit to Kidd's screenplay. I loved the irony of seeing a guy who portrays himself as always being control whine to his boss, "But, I'm your boy...I'm your boy!", in a way that reveals just how immature he truly is. On Rotten Tomatoes, 27 out 31 critics gave 'Roger' a positive review. The most accurate blurb probably comes from the L.A. Times' Kenneth Turan who writes, "Kidd has made the rare film that's more interesting and complex than it sounds, a feature that shares with its characters a willingness to take risks and ends up, like them, in places they never expected to be." CS bottom line: Intelligent and very funny with Scott delivering the most inspired performance of his career.

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

POOR WOODY - A quick post on my current poll question...We're only seven votes in, but so far five of those seven have said, "When was Woody's last good film?" Being a huge Allen fan -- 'Annie Hall' is not only the definitive romantic comedy, it may be the funniest movie of all-time -- I can't tell you how much it pained me to include that as a possible answer. But I had to admit it. Woody's criticism of Hollywood (one I ultimately agree with) would be more palatable if the quality of his recent films was a little higher. You can go right down his filmography: 'Hollywood Ending', 'Curse of the Jade Scorpion', 'Small Time Crooks', are all three bad movies. The next three: 'Sweet and Lowdown', 'Celebrity', and 'Deconstructing Harry' aren't much better, but each have something I can appreciate. 'Sweet' expresses very well some of Woody's dominant themes -- the artist's struggle to achieve greatness (Penn's character can never be as good a jazz guitarist as his foreign counterpart, Django Reinhardt, much like Woody constantly defers to Bergman and Fellini among others); intellectualism vs. emotion (the egghead Uma Thurman character vs. Samantha Morton's mute). I never could quite get past the fact that Penn is obviously not playing the amazing guitar lines his character is improvising. Admittedly, I play the guitar so I have some idea what it would look like to play those notes, but I'm still surprised that Woody, an accomplished jazz musician, would film such obviously fake playing. 'Celebrity' is great for Kenneth Branagh's Woody impression, something that most critics were turned off by. And 'Deconstructing' shows us Woody's vulgar side and an amazing capacity to poke fun at his own public persona, not to mention those artsy jump cuts that Woody hasn't used since the mock documentary 'Husbands and Wives.' But the bottom line is that Woody probably hasn't made a very good picture since 1994's 'Bullets Over Broadway'. His last truly great movie? 1989's 'Crimes and Misdemeanors'. Before that, 'Hannah and Her Sisters' (1986). As much I respect his prolific ouvre and the fact that he continues to make a movie a year, I don't get that rush of excitement I used to get in anticipation of his next movie. Judging from the poll response, neither do most of my readers...if they ever did to begin with.

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

GREGORY BATESON LIVES AND NO BABYSITTER = NO MOVIE - Wow...if you haven't checked the Feedback Forum lately, you're really missing out on something amazing. It seems that famed anthropologist, social scientist, and cyberneticist Gregory Bateson has stepped up to defend colleague Margaret Mead's dismissal of 'Punch-Drunk Love' (or, its star and marketing campaign, anyway), despite the fact that both have been dead for over 20 years. I'm truly honored. Anyway, the esteemed Mr. Bateson writes: "The core of Sandler's fans are 11-22 year olds, but that's not all of them. You don't have to be a fanatic to know who he is, and you're forgetting the critics have to watch all his movies, so they certainly are familiar with his reputation. And I consider myself a perfect example: I'm not a Sandler fan in the least, but the fact that he's in the movie gives it instant recognition. And I think the choice by Anderson...of Sandler is for that very reason." I don't dispute for a second that Anderson knew he would get some extra mileage in the press for casting Sandler -- and yes, possibly even sell a few more tickets at the box office. But Margaret's contention was that Anderson was motivated by greed, and by saying he agrees with her, Gregory is implying that he, too, feels Anderson's intentions were less than honorable in some way. I just don't buy it. Anderson is far too serious a filmmaker to waste his time casting someone in a lead role simply to sell more tickets. If Anderson really cared about being a hit at the box office, his three previous films would have been a lot less artistic, and a lot more "audience friendly" than they were. And if Anderson was going for box office gold, he certainly didn't do his math very well because 'Punch-Drunk' has only made $6 million in three weeks of release. Apparently, Sandler's legion of fans are, in fact, staying home. Stars, and fans allegiances to them, are a fickle thing. Just because Harrison Ford was in 'K-19: The Widowmaker' didn't keep it from being a gigantic flop. Sandler's previous hits all cleared $100 million at the box office; 'Little Nicky', meanwhile, made just $38 million. Why? Because even his die-hard fans could tell the movie was going to suck. Sandler alone wasn't enough to get them to go. Bottom line: 'Punch-Drunk's' final gross will be only slightly higher than it would have been without Sandler, and one could even argue that Sandler's presence will hurt its take. What about all of the serious movie snobs out there who have decided not to see the movie simply because Anderson would stoop so low as to cast Adam Sandler? There's got to be a few out there...

As for my review of 'Punch-Drunk,' well, a funny thing happened on the way to the multiplex that I think is worth sharing. Of course, I don't know how many of my readers have children, or really even like kids, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. Having an infant son, our first, means my wife and I don't get to movies nearly as often as we used to -- that, and, as I've written before, I saw movies for free in Iowa City. In Chicago, I have no connections and movies are really expensive. (This all party explains why I haven't been as diligent in my blogging over the past month.) Anyway, being new to our quaint little suburb means we have yet to procure a babysitter. As such, Holden gets to come to movies with us. Now let me explain something before I get too much further: I cannot stand any noise during a movie. And it's not just talking that bothers me -- chomping on popcorn, tapping your foot, any kind of repetetive noise drives me nuts. Fortunately, Holden usually just sleeps through the whole movie, and if he does start to get fussy, one of us immediately takes him into the lobby. So back to the story...We go to buy our tickets for 'Punch-Drunk' this weekend and the dragon lady at the counter informs me that "No children under six are allowed into Rated R movies." At first, I thought her/the theater's concern was about kids seeing "mature content," so I said, "Even with his parents? He's 7-months-old." No dice. Theater policy. Dejected, we walked away and it occurred to me that the real concern was about children being obnoxious and making too much noise during movies intended for and populated by adults. Considering my aversion to any kind of noise whatsoever, I certainly understand the policy. At the same time, my wife and I wouldn't bring our child to a movie if we didn't know that he wouldn't be a disruption. I've never had this problem come up at any other theater. Even the Chicago Film Fest allowed babies into movies. You're going to tell me the random crowd down at the multiplex is more serious about movies than the festival crowd? I'm still angry about it, but I'm curious what all of you think. Is it ridiculous for me to bring a 7-month-old to 'Punch-Drunk Love'? Needless to say, I'll be seeing it by myself tonight with a review for Wednesday. Review of 'Roger Dodger' tomorrow.

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