CINEMASCOPED CRITICS & READERS POLL RESULTS - The summer movie season officially ends this weekend -- according to the current double-issue of Entertainment Weekly, anyway, which starts its Fall Movie Calendar on Sept. 6 -- so now seems like the perfect time to post the results of the first CinemaScoped Critics & Readers Poll. Just over two weeks ago I e-mailed 34 newspaper, magazine, and online movie critics and asked them to tell me 1) their favorite film of the year so far and 2) the movie they are most looking forward to. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit disappointed with the response. Only 11 of those 34 wrote me back, and two of them are former colleagues of mine from The Daily Iowan. Alas, only 2 readers felt compelled to submit their votes. However, CS understands that everyone, professional critic or otherwise, has busy schedules. I would sincerely like to thank all of the critics and readers who took the time to respond. If you missed your chance to vote but still want to voice your opinion, e-mail me at CinemaScoped@hotmail.com. I'll publish all of the late responses sometime in the next week or two.

Before jumping to the results, I suppose I should share my picks. Like many of the respondents, I was unable to narrow down my answers to just one movie. But hey, it's my poll and I'll cop-out if I want to.

Best Film(s): In alphabetical order, my favorite films of the year so far are: About a Boy, Signs (reviewed 8/6), and Thirteen Conversations About One Thing (scroll down for review).
Most Looking Forward To: Also in alphabetical order: 8 Mile, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Gangs of New York, and Punch-Drunk Love. (I'll highlight each of these films in more detail in the coming weeks.)

CRITICS

Jeffrey Anderson, San Francisco Examiner
Best Film(s): My favorites so far (in order): I'm Going Home, Werckmeister Harmonies, Spirited Away, Last Orders, Possession, Spider-Man, What Time Is It There, The Rookie, and Minority Report.
Most Looking Forward To: Brian De Palma's "Femme Fatale", Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York", Paul Schrader's "Auto Focus", Francois Ozon's "8 Women", Paul Thomas Anderson's "Punch Drunk Love," Spike Jonze's "Adaptation," George Clooney's "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," and, of course, the new Bond and Star Trek flicks...Also David Cronenberg's "Spider," but I don't think that has a distributor yet. Same with Roman Polanski's "The Pianist."

Eric Baker, The Daily Iowan/CinemaScoped contributor
Best Film: Thirteen Conversations About One Thing
Most Looking Forward To: The Two Towers

Rob Blackwelder, SPLICEDwire
Best Film(s): 1) Lagaan: Once Upon a Time In Inida 2) The Rookie 3) Italian for Beginners 4) waydowntown 5) Igby Goes Down
Most Looking Forward To: Secretary, Invincible, Heaven, Frida, The Weight of Water, Die Another Day, Solaris, About Schmidt, Adaptation, Punch-Drunk Love, The Two Towers, Gangs of New York, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, The Pianist

Chris Hewitt, St. Paul Pioneer Press
Best Film: Frailty
Most Looking Forward To: N/A

Glenn Lovell, San Jose Mercury News
Best Film: "Frailty" in a walk
Most Looking Forward To: N/A

Lou Lumenick, New York Post
Best Film(s): Minority Report
Most Looking Forward To: Gangs of New York

Rick McGinnis, Movieblog
Best Film(s): The best film I've seen all year was Jia Zhangke's "Platform". I've made two big discoveries so far in 2002 -- Bollywood and Sixth Generation Chinese cinema. Of course, "discovering" them was like suddenly noticing the Rocky Mountains or the Mississippi, but "Platform" was a real highlight for me, all the more impressive since it wasn't exactly short, and hardly a thrill-a-minute action film, so it had to be good to keep me rapt from beginning to end. I like a film that tells me a bit about the world that I couldn't have imagined, and Jia's film was like a history lesson on China through the post-Mao period, told from a distant spot in the provinces, not from the centre, in Beijing or Shanhai.
Most Looking Forward To: I'm looking forward to the remake of The Four Feathers -- an epic adventure tale set in British colonial north Africa -- and Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. I'm curious how well Moore will deal with the "changed" America after 9/11. Will people have any patience for his brand of patriotic skepticism any more? We'll see. As for The Four Feathers, I'd be a bit less interested if it weren't directed by Shekhar Kapur (Bandit Queen, Elizabeth); a colonial tale directed by a citizen of a former colony -- it's got to have something going for it, right? Anyway, those are my answers, and I'm sticking to them.

Bruce Newman, San Jose Mercury News
Best Film: Road to Perdition
Most Looking Forward To: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

Steven Rosen, Denver Post
Best Film(s): As far as Hollywood movies go, the best this year for me is Insomnia. For foreign, there have been numerous good ones -- Y Tu Mama Tambien, Fast Runner, Late Marriage.
Most Looking Forward To: I'm especially looking forward to The Hours.

Philip Wuntch, Dallas Morning News
Best Film: Road to Perdition
Most Looking Forward To: N/A

Nate Yapp, The Daily Iowan/Classic Horror
Best Film: Spider-Man
Most Looking Forward To: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

READERS

Joe Horaney, Iowa City, IA
Best Film: 1. Signs 2. About a Boy
Most Looking Forward To: The Two Towers

Kymm Zuckert, New York, NY
Best Film: Favourite movie so far this year is tricky, because though I have liked many movies this year, there hasn't been one that I have become obsessed with, like Moulin Rouge and Ghost World last year, or Gladiator and X-Men the year before. I can easily tell you the one that I hated the most -- that was the loathsome Chelsea Walls, which had me praying for death about five minutes into it. I think I'll go with About a Boy, which I thought was simply marvelous.
Most Looking Forward To: Just one? I am looking forward to many movies, Solaris and Ghost Ship and Red Dragon and Welcome to Collinwood and and and (see me cheating by mentioning more than one?)... but the one that I am most looking forward to seeing, the one that I will see on opening day is: Secretary. James Spader AND bondage in the workplace? Life doesn't get any better than that.

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

The post below was scheduled to be published Friday morning -- apparently, I didn't hit the right button. My apologies to anyone wondering why the hell I didn't write anything on Friday. As it turns out, I did not make it to the Wilco doc, I Am Trying To Break Your Heart, during my weekend trip to Chicago. I did see 24 Hour Party People and Miguel Arteta's The Good Girl, with Jennifer Aniston and Jake Gyllenhaal. Look for those reviews later in the week. This afternoon I'll post the CinemaScoped Critics & Readers Poll results of the best film of the year so far, and the most eagerly-anticipated upcoming film.

THIS WEEKEND - Summer is almost over -- which means, remarkably, that the movies actually get worse. Studios release all their sure-to-be stinkers just before Oscar season, treating moviegoers to such dreck as the Matthew Perry-Liz Hurley "comedy" Serving Sara and Undisputed, the prison boxing movie with Ving Rhames and Wesley Snipes. Also opening today is Andrew Niccol's (Gattaca, Truman Show) Simone. Al Pacino, Hollywood satire...sounds good, right? Well, it did on paper. All the previews, however, have looked perfectly dreadful. CS is on the road in Chicago this weekend hoping to catch some higher-brow fare like the Wilco documentary, I Am Trying To Break Your Heart, and Michael Winterbottom's 24 Hour Party People. Check back next week for reviews.

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

REVIEW: BLUE CRUSH - Since CS contributor Eric Baker hasn't shut up about Blue Crush since he saw first saw the trailer a few months ago, I decided to enlist his help in writing this review -- which will actually be a dialogue of sorts. We'll exchange our thoughts about the movie throughout the day, or at least until we run out of ways to say that Kate Bosworth is hot. If you'd like to join the discussion, please post your thoughts in the Feedback Forum. Now, before I (further) offend any female readers, I'll turn it over to Eric.

Eric (10:52 AM): Blue Crush isn't going to find its way onto a Sight and Sound list anytime soon, but it is what it is -- feel-good summer eye candy. The acting is passable, though the script is completely predictable. It's true Kate Bosworth is hot, and director John Stockwell knows what sells movies so he keeps most of the main cast -- Bosworth, Michelle Rodriguez, and Sanoe Lake, who is a professional surfer -- in skimpy outfits throughout the movie. Still, as I'm sure the learned CS will tell us, the audience last night was mainly female, and this is primarily a women's empowerment film (at least that's how it's being promoted). I don't buy it. First, there's a subplot with an NFL quarterback (Matthew Davis) who happens to be in Hawaii for a week for the Pro Bowl. Of course, he sweeps her off her feet. I'd like to believe we live in an age where you can make a movie about strong women without throwing in the Cinderella fantasy. But unless you've got sturdy writing and acting talent, like Thelma and Louise, I don't think guys are going to go see this kind of movie unless there is action or babes; and I don't think women are going to see it unless there is a romantic subplot -- which is a shame because what they presumably paid all the money for, the incredible surfing shots, were pretty cool, even though it was noticeable when Bosworth's stunt double was surfing the "pipe" rather than her. The movie probably would have appealed to me more in an IMAX setting, but the dinky theater I viewed it in still did it justice. In the final analysis, it made me want to go surf. Maybe that wasn't super-producer Brian Grazer's goal, but it's something, right?

Adam (12:55 PM): The idea of having a "serious" discussion about this movie is almost as laughable as Matt Davis -- who was very good in Tigerland, by the way -- being an NFL quarterback. Nevertheless, I must respectfully disagree with your contention that Blue Crush does not live up to its feminist billing. It's true that the white knight comes to sweep her off her feet. However, the romance between Anne Marie and Matt is left wide open when the movie ends. He doesn't say, "Hey, let's get married," or "Why don't you come back to the mainland with me and live in my QB mansion?" I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect -- and the movie, in fact, suggests -- that Matt and Anne Marie would not end up staying together. You'll recall that during the "big speech" portion of the movie, when Anne Marie confronts Matt about their future, or lack thereof, the conversation moves away from love and ends up being about her own personal goals. Matt asks her what she wants and her answer includes things like, "Being able to pay all my bills in the same month," "See a woman on the cover of Surf magazine," and, of course, "Win the Pipe Masters competition" that she has been training for. Not one of her aspirations involved meeting the perfect guy or, more specifically, becoming his wife. I agree that the movie is entirely predictable and loaded with cliches, but I never felt insulted by Blue Crush -- not in the way, say, XXX offended me. I'd call it a "guilty pleasure" except it may actually be too well-made. I can't see myself flipping channels some Sunday afternoon, seeing Blue Crush on the screen, and becoming glued to it like one does with truly great stupid movies like, oh I dont know, Road House or Diggstown. (Lawdog, I'll be waiting for your post in the Feedback Forum.)

Eric (1:45 PM): Well at least you still respect me. I have to disagree with your characterization of Blue Crush for two reasons -- though I also can't believe we're attempting to have a serious discussion about this movie.
1. The "big speech" is totally contrived. She goes into the hotel wading pool in her dress because the clock struck midnight on her Cinderella fantasy, and we're supposed to believe she is a strong woman? Everything leading up to her declaration about what she really wants in life sounds like a plea for help -- I suppose to make her "turnaround" all the more dramatic, but the dialogue was just to clunky for me. Anne Marie: "What should I do?" Matt: "Why don't you tell me what you want to do?" Anne Marie: "OK. I want to . . ." 2. The movie in no way suggests that they don't end up staying together. Anne Marie's goals are never listed as mutually exclusive of Matt, and in fact the QB and his O Line buddy Leslie end up at the Pipe Masters competition where Anne Marie ends up "laying some pipe." Add to that the closing shot, which has Anne Marie playing tonsil hockey with Matt as photographers snap away, and you've got Hollywood circa 1940. Speaking of dogs, where are my dawgs in the Feedback Forum, yo?

Adam (3:05 PM): I didn't realize anybody was speaking about dogs. Anyway, the actual ending to that exchange was Matt saying: "Just be the girl I met on the beach who would never ask a guy what to do next." So she got confused and needed a man's perspective to get her head screwed back on straight. I see what you are saying about the Hollywood ending, but I still say the movie pretty clearly makes the case that if forced to choose between her man and her surfboard, she wouldn't have to think about it very long. You've come a long way, baby. To close out this little dialogue, I wanted to mention something that did disappoint me about the movie. You say the surfing shots "were pretty cool." But the movie doesn't show a lot of surfing so much as it does people getting "crushed." I understand that the movie is focused on a specific area of Oahu and a competition known for its awesome and dangerous waves, but standing up and falling down isn't exactly surfing. It sort of became like watching figure skating to me -- not that I, um, ever watch figure skating. There's little creative distinction in the skaters' routines; you're basically just waiting for someone to wipe out. Same thing here. You don't even see Anne Marie prove herself on a decent-sized wave until the very end. We're just supposed to believe that she can do it, but chooses not to because she is still trying to get over a near-drowning incident three years before. Speaking of which, I did like how every time she got introduced somebody had to point out that she was a promising surfer before she suffered a "near-drowning incident three years before." It's sort of like being Pete Best and having everyone introduce you as, "Pete Best, the drummer for The Beatles before they replaced him with Ringo Starr."

FULL FRONTAL = NOT-SO-FULL THEATERS - I heard a radio report this morning calling Steven Soderbergh's little digital experiment, Full Frontal, one of the biggest bombs of the summer. I don't know if that's completely fair. Box Office Mojo estimates Harrison Ford's K-19: The Widowmaker cost $100 million to make, with an additional $35 million spent on marketing. It didn't work. To date the film has made just $33.8 million. That's not a bomb. That's a nuclear meltdown...which is fitting, I suppose, considering the movie's subject matter. By comparison, Full Frontal cost about $2 million with another $2 million for promotion. Granted, it's only grossed $1.9 million in three weeks, but Miramax will surely at least break even in the end. There's no doubt the film has been a disappointment, however. After opening the movie in New York and L.A., Miramax hoped to expand to other cities on a wave of critical adulation and positive word-of-mouth. Instead, the critics tore it apart and the movie has been losing momentum. Last week it played on ten fewer screens than the previous week and saw its receipts drop 38%. A slight Soderbergh backlash had to be expected. Already a critical darling after Out of Sight (1998) and The Limey (1999), the overwhelming success in 2000 of Traffic and Erin Brockovich -- which made him the first director since Michael Curtiz to be nominated for Best Director twice in the same year -- propelled him to the top of Hollywood's A-List. Soderbergh's next movie is a remake of Solaris, the 1972 Russian science-fiction film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, based on the book by Stanislaw Lem. It stars Soderbergh favorite and production partner George Clooney, and is scheduled to open wide the Wednesday before Thanksgiving (11/27). In a five-part interview with Film Threat, Soderbergh recently described Solaris as "a combination of 2001 and Last Tango In Paris." It doesn't exactly sound like box office gold, does it? Fortunately, Soderbergh isn't content -- and never was -- with being a Hollywood hit producer. The line for Solaris may be small, but I'll be one of the first people in it.

* Thanks to Full Frontal's poor reception, it has yet to play on a screen anywhere near me. But CS Chicago correspondent Sam Hallgren contributed this astute review:

If the idea of experimentation in film does not, or has not ever interested you, you will likely find Steven Soderbergh's new film Full Frontal unnecessarily... messy: The cinematography is messy; the narrative is messy; even the acting is messy. Inspired in part by the legacy of Dogme 95 filmmakers like Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg (click here to learn how to make a Dogme film), the film was shot, for the most part, on digital video and edited on a Mac with DigiPro. Unlike many of the films that have come out of the Dogme 95 school, however, Full Frontal won't make you feel like you've just been molested. It's less an experiement, really, than it is, or appears to be, an opportunity for Soderbergh to blow off some steam - to make a movie without the pressure to make $100 million.

Soderbergh seems to need this play-time. For a relatively young filmmaker, his filmography is already littered with no-budget one-offs that aren't intended for mass consumption (Schizopolis, The Limey). His best films - Out of Sight and, too a lesser degree, Traffic - feature the best of both his pop and his experimental instincts. I think it's a great gift to cinephiles that one of the very best young directors working in Hollywood spends his time between big-budget studio projects, not by taking a 4-year hiatus, but by making a small film that allows him to push the boundaries of his craft. You may not like watching a grainy Julia Roberts mope around for two hours. And you may not understand the movie-within-a movie narrative that Soderbergh plays with. You may, in fact, wonder what the point of the whole thing is at all. But never once did I question Soderbergh's commitment to the piece.

According to the movie's advertising, Full Frontal offers a look at behind-the-scenes Hollywood. While offering some of that, it's really the least interesting part of the film (the exception is a wonderful scene between Julia Roberts - playing an actress - and her assistant. (It's the most honest and funny bit of acting I've ever seen Roberts do). The rest of the film works the periphery of the entertainment industry, offering choice bits to Catherine Keener (doing an occasionally inspired variation on her Being John Malkovich character) as a quickly unraveling HR director, and the movie-stealing Nicky Katt as a pretentious actor starring in an unintentional homage to Springtime for Hitler.

To Soderbergh's credit, the actors don't sabotage the film by having too much fun or by winking at the camera; but Soderbergh is winking - too often he reminds you that you're watching a movie. And this, really, is the film's biggest flaw: It doesn't take itself quite seriously enough to sustain the narrative (what there is of one to begin with).

Full Frontal is flawed, but I expect that this was the point. Experimentation is very often synonymous with self-indulgence, but I have always found Soderbergh a particularly unselfish director. He likes actors; he likes stories; and he respects his audience. If Full Frontal is marketed correctly, the film will get an audience that parallels its (tiny) budget - an audience made up primarily of those self-selective members of the movie-going public that know what they're getting into.

There may not be a need for more films like Full Frontal, but there is a great shortage of filmmakers like Soderbergh.

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

NEW ON DVD - Finally, Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown have been released in 2-disc Collector's Edition sets ($15.99 each at Best Buy). Regrettably, neither disc features QT commentary. Other notable new releases: Joe Dante's Gremlins and Gremlins 2, both loaded with extra features; Iris, an uneven biopic about author Iris Murdoch that features great performances from Judi Dench, Jim Broadbent, and especially Kate Winslet; also out today is the Mel Gibson Vietnam drama We Were Soldiers. The disc includes audio commentary by writer/director Randall Wallace, ten deleted scenes with director commentary, and a behind-the-scenes documentary entitled "Getting It Right." Here is my original review of We Were Soldiers from March 7th's Daily Iowan:

* The Vietnam War divided the nation so savagely during the late-60s and early '70s that it seems only natural for the films that document this conflict to project a certain schizophrenia.

Stanley Kubrick's 1987 Vietnam drama, Full Metal Jacket, is split so cleanly in half that it feels more like two separate stories than one narrative. The first part follows Joker (Matthew Modine) and his fellow Marines as they transform from young men to killing machines in basic training. The second part shows the consequences of this transformation once the fighting starts. (Notably, Joker at one point tries to explain to an officer why he is simultaneously wearing a peace symbol and sporting the words "Born To Kill" on his helmet.) Kubrick's only mistake is that the first half is so thoroughly rendered and unsettling on its own that the second half never quite matches its intensity.

We Were Soldiers, based on an account of a 1965 battle in the Ia Drang Valley, reveals a similar structural split, only the exact opposite is true. It's the relentless combat sequences during the final two-thirds of the movie that compensate for the heavy-handed first act.

The year is 1965, and the U.S. military is planning its initial attack on the People's Army of Vietnam. The man responsible for training the first batch of fighters is Col. Harold G. Moore (Mel Gibson), a tough-as-nails, Harvard-educated soldier whose task is to prepare his boys for battle against an enemy that is fighting in its own backyard with more troops at its disposal.

Moore immediately takes a liking to an idealistic young lieutenant named Jack Geoghegan (Chris Klein), who has a pretty wife (Keri Russell) and a newborn baby at home. Known for his roles in Election and the American Pie movies, Klein has always struck me as a bit too dopey and naïve. But here, his youthful ignorance seems appropriate. Despite all of his training, he really has no idea what he is in for. None of the men do, except perhaps Moore, who is determined not to repeat the mistakes of a French squadron that was massacred by the Vietnamese 10 years earlier.

Much of the dialogue during these scenes in Fort Benning, Ga., is laughable in its earnestness. The characters never seem to be saying their own words as much as mouthing the inflated ideology of first-time director and writer Randall Wallace, the screenwriter behind Braveheart and Pearl Harbor. Thankfully, once the battle begins, the constant clatter of M-16 fire eliminates the need for such dialogue. Wallace's depiction of war is often shocking in its grisliness, with blood spattering everywhere. Borrowing from Saving Private Ryan, Wallace gets the camera so close to the fight that blood even lands directly on the camera lens.

What ultimately keeps "Soldiers" from being as effective and enjoyable as Black Hawk Down, the recent film about a failed U.S. mission in Somalia, is that it is undeniably preachy. But Wallace's moralizing is perhaps forgivable when you consider the specific setting of the conflict in question. The battle of the Ia Drang Valley was the first major engagement between the U.S. and North Vietnamese armies, before the war became a no-win proposition, before the country erupted against it. "Soldiers" tries -- too hard, perhaps -- to reflect this old-fashioned idealism, free of the cynicism toward war that was a byproduct of the Vietnam era. There's no marijuana smoke wafting through the jungle, or Credence and Buffalo Springfield blasting on the soundtrack -- just soldiers fighting for a cause.

We also have to consider who is telling the story. Black Hawk Down is based on a book by Mark Bowden, a reporter who had to complete extensive research to tell his story. His goal was to provide a straightforward, objective account of the battle in Mogadishu.

"Soldiers" is based on Moore's memoir, "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young," co-written with Joseph Galloway, a former army journalist portrayed in the movie by Barry Pepper. These men aren't objective observers trying to recreate events. They were there. They saw the horror. They watched thousands of American boys die terrible deaths.

We Were Soldiers' constant sermonizing might be hard for cynics such as myself to swallow, but you can't really blame Moore, Galloway, and Wallace for seeking redemption for all those whose sacrifice was -- and perhaps still is -- overlooked by a bitterly divided country.

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

REVIEW: THIRTEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ONE THING - After seeing Sunshine State and Tadpole, it's fitting that my arthouse trifecta ended on Sunday with this intelligent, engrossing film from director Jill Sprecher (Clockwatchers). Like Sayles' movie, Thirteen Conversations follows multiple characters who are eventually connected to each other -- although in this case they aren't brought together because they inhabit the same little town. In fact, they live in perhaps the one city where people have a reasonable expectation of anonymity and isolation -- Manhattan. But this isn't the romanticized version of the city that Tadpole presents. John Tuturro's character, a by-the-book physics professor, has his equilibrium tipped when he is mugged and badly beaten. Troy (Matthew McConaughey) is a hot-shot lawyer in the D.A.'s office who learns just how fragile his own moral code is when he accidentally hits a young woman with his car on an empty street, then flees the scene, convinced she is dead. The young woman is named Beatrice (Clea DuVall). We see her before the accident, cleaning rich peoples' houses, explaining to her lazy co-worker that life won't always be bad because she knows someone is looking out for her; understandably, her outlook isn't quite so optimistic after the accident. All three of these characters were content before a traumatic event forced them to re-evaluate their lives. Now they can never be content. They can never go back. They're all searching for happiness -- the "one thing" that all characters, all people, are ultimately searching for. The fourth character in Sprecher's series of vignettes is Gene, a insurance claims manager with a drug-addicted son who gets so fed up with one of his happy-go-lucky employees that he "downsizes" him just to try and wipe the smile off the guy's face. In terms of theme and structure, Thirteen Conversations is undeniably similar to both Altman's Short Cuts and Pulp Fiction. Sprecher effectively utilizes a non-linear construction to unite her characters just as Tarantino did. For example, when we see Gene and Troy meet in a bar at the beginning of the film, we are actually seeing the end of Gene's story, while Troy's fall has yet to take place. I think it's more interesting, however, to juxtapose Sprecher's film with M. Night Shyamalan's current hit, Signs, because both movies explicitly deal with establishing a sense of order within chaos, and finding connections in seemingly unrelated people and events. Both filmmakers purport to show that the world is not as random as we think and that all of our actions have consequences. The difference is that Shyamalan puts his faith in a higher power who is pulling all of the strings, while Sprecher takes a humanist approach. When Beatrice stands on a street corner looking for a sign to tell her that everything will be fine, that there is goodness in the world, it isn't God who answers. It's a man standing on the opposite corner who smiles at her from across the street. Thirteen Conversations is about those little connections -- how a simple gesture, whether it be a smile or a wave at a woman sitting dejectedly on the subway, can make the difference in someone's life and instill hope.

Who got it right: Almost every critic who reviewed it. "The movie is brilliant, really. It is philosophy, illustrated through everyday events," writes Roger Ebert in his 4-star review. The New Republic's Stanley Kauffman says, "The basis of the art in Sprecher's film is that from the start she knew the tone, the scale of acting, the timbre of dialogue -- the key -- that the film needed in order to be itself."

Who got it wrong: EW's Ty Burr, who ridiculously lumps Thirteen Conversations into the same category with another "connection" movie, the sappy Grand Canyon.

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

REVIEW: TADPOLE - The story of a precocious 15-year-old prep student desperately in love with his sexy stepmom (Sigourney Weaver), Tadpole owes a lot to The Graduate. As Oscar Grubman, newcomer Aaron Stanford even looks a bit like Dustin Hoffman, especially when he's being seduced by his stepmom's 40-ish best friend, Diane (Bebe Neuwirth). But part of what makes Tadpole such a charmer is the fact that director Gary Winick and screenwriters Heather McGowan and Niels Mueller are perfectly willing to pay their respects. When Oscar's tryst with Diane is revealed over dinner with his dad and stepmom, Stanley (John Ritter) and Eve, his dad blurts out, "Well, it's all very 'The Graduate.'" During a montage near the end of the movie, where Oscar is shown in various modes of reflection, the soundtrack blares a remake of "The Only Living Boy In New York" -- originally written and performed by the duo responsible for The Graduate's seminal soundtrack, Simon & Garfunkel. Of course, Tadpole's young protagonist exhibits none of Benjamin Braddock's debilitating disillusionment. And why should he? He's smart, passionate, speaks fluent French, and gets to come home on Thanksgiving break to a version of Manhattan that's so idealized it would make Woody Allen blush. Even with the slightly murky digital picture -- Winick shot Tadpole in two weeks for around $500,000 -- the leaves are vibrant with color. Birds chirp sweetly over the quiet din of traffic (in New York City!?). There's no trash on the street, or homeless people begging for change, and the subway always looks clean and safe. It's a romanticized rendition of Manhattan that seems lifted straight out of just about any Allen film, but particularly Hannah and Her Sisters. (Oscar spies the forbidden object of his affection at Thanksgiving dinner just as Michael Caine's character in Hannah pines for his wife's sister (Barbara Hershey) at their Thanksgiving gathering.) This Manhattan may only exist in movies -- or, at the very least, for the extremely affluent -- but I fell for it just as hard as Oscar does for Eve. More than convincing Weaver, Neuwirth, and Ritter to take parts in this low-budget winner, Winick's biggest coup was the casting of Stanford, who, like his character, is mature for his age. He never overplays the comedy, even at its most farcical. And while he's just good-looking enough that an attractive older woman might want to seduce him, his natural teenage awkwardness makes it easy for us to believe he'd spend hours reading Voltaire in search of the secrets to love and life.

Winick won the Best Dramatic Directing prize for Tadpole at this year's Sundance Film Festival. Here are his top five favorite films about teens, according to the Sundance Channel web page:

THE OUTSIDERS, 1983
directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
For Coppola's sentimental, fable like approach to teenagers.

SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS, 1961
directed by: Elia Kazan
For Elia Kazan's sensitive look at unrequited love and the innocence of Natalie Wood and Warren Beatty.

Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, 2001
directed by: Alfonso Cuaron
Alfonso Cuaron's treatment of a universal story.

RUSHMORE, 1998
directed by: Wes Anderson
Max Fisher's sense of humor with Wes Anderson's sensibility.

FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, 1982
directed by: Amy Heckerling
A time and place that defines the High School experience.

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

REVIEWS: SUNSHINE STATE, TADPOLE, THIRTEEN CONVERSATIONS... - I must be getting old. It seems like only yesterday I was sitting in London's fantastic Everyman theatre for a Kurosawa triple bill with just a quick intermission in-between films to refresh myself. Yesterday I watched three movies back-to-back-to-back and my head was so numb afterwards I felt like I'd just been forced to watch Lara Croft: Tomb Raider with my eyelids pried open like some Clockwork Orange droogie. Fortunately, I picked three pretty interesting films. Sunshine State has just about everything you'd expect from the writer/director of such great films as Passion Fish, City of Hope, and Lone Star: a community in conflict (along racial and historical lines), lost individuals struggling to carve out their identities, and multiple storylines that ultimately converge. Unfortunately, John Sayles' latest also lends itself to all of the usual criticisms of his films: the writing is (at times) didactic and preachy, sloth-like pacing, and uninventive camerawork. I've never had an issue with Sayles' straight-forward cinematography and slow pacing because his visual style has always been secondary to his writing, which features consistently sharp dialogue and fully-developed characters. (There may not be another filmmaker alive who cares about or invests more in his characters -- even the unlikeable ones -- than Sayles.) And if his speechifying sometimes seemed a bit preachy, at least it was always articulate, intelligent, and honest. With Sunshine State, however, all of these quibbles started to gnaw at me. The problem, I think, is rooted in the fact that Sayles tries to weaves together too many storylines without giving us one that is compelling enough to build the others around. The two main stories deal with women. Desiree Perry (Angela Bassett) returns home to Delrono Beach, Florida, to confront her troubled past; Marly Temple (Edie Falco) resignedly runs her father's seaside motel and diner and can't figure out her future. Meanwhile, greedy land developers want to buy Marly's property and turn the seashore into a strip mall; a former college football star returns to the area to cash in; and a banker with a gambling problem unsuccessfully tries to off himself while his shrill wife (Mary Steenburgen) works to stage the town's "Buccaneer Days" festival. Sayles is most successful when he concentrates on Marly and Desiree, played with fire and conviction by Falco and Bassett. But some of the peripheral storylines are never fully integrated into the narrative, which makes the film feel like it is meandering to its conclusion rather than leading us somewhere truly surprising. Lone Star (1996), which I think is one of the best films of the past ten years, had a similar number of storylines, but had the mystery surrounding Sheriff Charlie Wade's murder to hold all the pieces together. With a running time of 2 hours and 21 minutes, and a narrative that never quite feels unified, I can't help but wonder if Sunshine State would have benefitted from the perspective of an outside editor, rather than Sayles himself doing the cutting, as he has done on all of his movies except Matewan and Baby, It's You. That's difficult for me to say as a fan of Sayles' work, but it might be true. It's awfully hard to cut out words and characters that you created, even if it ultimately improves the film.

I'll have some thoughts on Tadpole and Thirteen Conversations posted tonight (or early tomorrow).

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

COMING UP - Along with Blue Crush and My Big Fat Greek Wedding (no really, I'm finally going to see it), I'll have reviews up next week of two of the most critically-acclaimed films of the year so far, Thirteen Conversations About One Thing, and John Sayles' The Sunshine State. Both movies are currently playing in select cities.

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

REVIEW: AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER - I realize any comments about Goldmember are probably irrelevant since it was released three weeks ago [When would my comments actually be relevant? Good question], but I promised a reaction so here goes. I was surprisingly entertained by this third installment in the spy-spoof series. I say surprisingly because I wasn't expecting much after The Spy Who Shagged Me, which I thought was almost completely incoherent and lacking in humor. It didn't help that Heather Graham, an actress who I usually like from movies such as Drugstore Cowboy, Boogie Nights and a small part in Twin Peaks, had such terrible comic timing as Austin's love interest/co-spy Felicity Shagwell that she made Liz Hurley in the original look like Katharine Hepburn. It may be the most obviously phoned-in performance since Michael Caine graced the screen in 1987's Jaws: The Revenge (more on Caine in a moment). Either that or Graham was simply trying to prove the old adage that comedy is harder to play than drama. Taking over for Graham in Goldmember is the "bootylicious" pop singer Beyonce Knowles. She plays a spy named Foxxy Cleopatra -- an amalgam of Foxy Brown and Cleopatra Jones from the 70s blaxploitation flicks -- who teams up with Austin when Dr. Evil kidnaps his famous spy father (Caine) and takes him back to 1975. Knowles shows some genuine talent in front of the camera, despite having very little to do. She's not a co-star so much as a model whose job it is to look sexy in skimpy outfits, which I suppose makes Goldmember the most accurate James Bond imitation in the series. Myers' smartest casting choice, though, was undoubtedly the addition of Caine as the charming Nigel Powers. When three of Dr. Evil's henchman attack him, Nigel quickly disposes the first two with his fists, then gets the third to surrender simply by insulting him -- "Look at you, you don't even have a name tag." What easily could have been a throwaway scene was probably my favorite joke in the whole movie thanks to Caine's deadpan wit. Another perfectly delivered bit occurs when Austin comes to rescue him from the title villain, a disco fanatic from Holland whose private parts were covered in gold after a smelting accident. "There are only two things I hate; those who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch," Nigel tells Austin. In addition to Caine's scene stealing, I got a kick out of the opening credit sequence -- well, most of it anyway -- featuring a bunch of big-name stars in cameo roles. Slate's David Edelstein loathed it: "The director, Jay Roach, can't give these showstoppers any momentum, and the fun palls quickly: Scattershot but thudding, it made me want to bolt after 15 minutes." The first five minutes were hilarious; once Britney Spears appeared on screen, however, I had the exact same reaction as Edelstein. I sat there stupefied wondering, "Does Myers really think this is funny, or is he simply content with the fact that Pepsi gave him a load of cash to include Spears in the movie?"

Ultimately, Myers isn't breaking any new ground with Goldmember -- most of the jokes are just variations on gags from the previous two movies, and for every joke that works there are two that flop around on the screen and die (When Austin meets the Asian twins "Fook Mi" and "Fook Yu," for example). And while Roger Ebert is certainly correct to suggest that "maybe the original inspiration has run its course," I laughed enough to make it worth my time.

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

THIS WEEKEND - Two new movies opening wide tomorrow -- one has generated waves of positive buzz; the other hasn't produced even a trickle of buzz period. In fact, I've heard so little about Eddie Murphy's new movie The Adventures of Pluto Nash that I can't even give you a one-sentence plot summary. According to its web page, Pluto Nash is "an action/adventure comedy set on the moon in the year 2087." Apparently, Murphy plays a successful nightclub owner who gets into trouble with a "lunar gangster" played by Joe Pantoliano. Paging Quentin Tarantino...Formerly huge movie star and pop culture luminary in desperate need of career resuscitation. Seriously, who is helping Murphy pick roles these days? The last decent "adult" movie he made was Bowfinger in 1999. Since Shrek (2001), his credits include Dr. Dolittle 2, Showtime, and now Pluto Nash. I actually have the option of attending a sneak screening tonight, which would allow me to have a review up tomorrow morning. But I'm guessing I can find something less painful to do with my evening.

Blue Crush could be a classic summer popcorn movie -- formulaic and trifling, but without the pre-packaged lameness of MIB 2, or the overcooked thrills of XXX. Directed by crazy/beautiful's John Stockwell, Crush is about a female surfer (Kate Bosworth) out to prove her worth on the waves of Oahu's North Shore. Guys will like the eye-candy of Bosworth and company in bikinis; girls will dig the sandals-are-gonna-walk-all-over-you-attitude. Throw in a love story with a hunky quarterback (Matt Davis), a slick soundtrack, and some awe-inspiring (if computer-generated) waves, and you've got a hit. Of course, I could be wrong. I just asked three female co-workers, all in their early- to mid-20s, whether they plan to see it. One had never heard of it; one was embarrassed to admit she'd probably go see it; and the other felt it wasn't worth her hard-earned cash, saying, "You mean Coyote Ugly Hits the Beach"? Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman could probably use a towel after writing this review: "Powered by Blestenation's hip-hop remix of Bananarama's great ''Cruel Summer,'' the movie has a purely sense-orama dimension, yet John Stockwell, who cowrote and directed it, proves that it's more than possible to use thrill-ride techniques in a supple, nonbombastic way. His interweaving of digital effects, rapid-fire downshifts to slow motion and back, and whooshing, crashing, in-your-ears sound creates a foam peak momentum of exhilaration laced with anxiety."

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

ANNOUNCING THE CINEMASCOPED CRITICS & READERS POLL - With summer almost over and the "serious" movie season approaching, I think now is the perfect time to take a look back at the year in movies, and look ahead to what the rest of the year has to offer. To this end, CS has e-mailed more than 40 newspaper, magazine, and online film critics requesting their votes for: 1) Best Movie of the Year (So Far) and 2) Movie You Are Most Looking Forward To Seeing.

But this poll isn't just for the critics...CS wants your votes as well. What movie had you gushing to all of your friends -- Signs? Road to Perdition? Scooby Doo, perhaps? (Check out Greg's Previews if you need to refresh your memory.) What upcoming movie are you most excited to see -- The Two Towers; P.T. Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love, with Adam Sandler? Red Dragon? 8 Mile with Eminem? Scorsese's long-awaited Gangs of New York; maybe Steven Soderbergh's Solaris remake? (Click here for Jeffrey Wells' Fall Preview.)

E-mail your votes now to: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com. I'll post the results of both the Critics' and Readers' Polls in the next few weeks.

In other news, I finally saw Goldmember -- I know, it's been out for three weeks, I'm lame. I'll have a few comments posted later today. Also, CNN.com today has this story about My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which I wrote about here last Thursday (scroll down), and shamefully still have yet to see. The sleeper hit added 66 theaters last weekend and saw its box office take increase 4.4% ($3.1 million, good enough for 8th place).

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

ONLY A MATTER OF TIME - Kevin Smith recently launched a new movie site called -- you guessed it! -- Movie Poop Shoot. (Incidentally, Smith is looking for extras for his next film, Jersey Girl, starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. Click here to become a movie star, or to stand next to movie stars anyway.) Those familiar with Smith's hilarious Hollywood send-up, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, will recognize Movie Poop Shoot as the site Holden (Affleck, reprising his Chasing Amy role) clicks on to show Jay and Silent Bob that Miramax is planning to make a movie about them. The two become enraged when they read message board comments dissing them mercilessly, including one from "Magnolia Fan." (Click here to get the joke.) As far as I can tell, the site officially began flushing in June.

Even if the Smith "brand" doesn't mean anything to you, Movie Poop Shoot will be a must-read for movie fans since Jeffrey Wells announced today he will move his "Hollywood Confidential" column from Reel.com to MPS beginning September 3. "I'll be joining a team of feisty, tip-top malcontents over there and the whole endeavor is going to whup ass, I swear … in fact, it already does," Wells says in today's column, which provides a tidy look at the most promising movies slated for the rest of the year.

As regular CS readers know, I refer to Wells quite often in my posts because he has consistently been one of the shrewdest, most perceptive film columnists (part reporter, part critic) around for many years now -- with Reel since August '99; Mr. Showbiz and various others before that). In fact, if I was restricted to one movie article per day, "Hollywood Confidential" would easily be my choice. Full disclosure: I became an even bigger fan of Wells when I was working on an article for The Daily Iowan about a year-and-a-half ago. I e-mailed him to see if he had any comment on the news that Loews had raised its prices for a movie ticket to $10 in New York City. Of course, I didn't expect a response. I not only got an e-mail back -- the same day, no less -- but Wells gave me what we journalists like to refer to as a "killer" quote.

"New York City movie theaters have always been slightly higher, so it's no surprise they're the first to hit the $10 mark. [Loews is] basically charging moviegoers to help pay its bank loans that it took out to pay for its huge expansions. It used to be $9.50 in certain NYC theaters; now it's $10. Big deal."

"Instead of an average evening at the movies with a date costing $33 -- two tickets for $19 plus $15 on popcorn and drinks for two, not counting parking -- it'll now cost $34. Compare that with renting a DVD and watching it at home with your girlfriend and microwave popcorn, which maybe costs $8 or $9 altogether. Why do people continue to pay $33 and $34? Because it's more fun to see a movie in a theater, and guys have a better shot at getting laid if they take their girlfriends out (to dinner, before or after the movie) than if they just invite them over to their place.

Amen. Wells' last column for Reel will run this Friday. If you're completely bored, below is a re-print of my original review of Jay & Silent Bob (published 8/27/01).

* I like Kevin Smith's films, but even I'll admit to some skepticism when I first heard he was making a movie centered on the vulgar antics of Jay and Silent Bob.

The dimwitted duo, played by Smith and Jason Mewes, has appeared in all four of Smith's previous films, usually with hilarious results. Arguably the funniest scenes in Clerks, Smith's low-budget debut, were those featuring Jay and Silent Bob assaulting customers outside the Quick Stop with their politically incorrect spewings. Nevertheless, as good as they were as supporting characters in Smith's View Askew universe, one had to wonder how their act would play out over 90 minutes. Let's face it, giving Jay and Silent Bob their own movie is akin to "Norm" and "Cliff" getting their own sitcoms after "Cheers" was canceled, and we all know how that turned out.

Fortunately for us -- and Smith -- Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back might just be his funniest film yet, even if it does at times feel like one big in-joke.

After taking heat from the Catholic Church for Dogma, Smith sets his satirical sights here on a less-esteemed, but perhaps equally powerful, institution -- Hollywood. The story follows Jay and Silent Bob as they trek from Jersey to L.A. to stop Miramax from making a movie based on the Bluntman & Chronic comic book for which they were the inspiration. If you're already a little confused, go rent Chasing Amy, and it'll start to make some sense.

Admittedly, it helps to be a fan of -- or at least to have seen -- the bulk of Smith's past work to truly appreciate this movie. And even when he isn't referencing his own movies, he is usually catering his humor to movie geeks much like himself.

Perhaps the funniest example is when Jay and Silent Bob finally make it to Hollywood, only to stumble onto the set of Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season. While Miramax golden boys Matt Damon and Ben Affleck -- a Smith regular who appears here as himself and his Chasing Amy character -- rip each other for some of their less-inspired movie choices, director Gus Van Sant sits quietly in a corner counting a huge pile of cash. Van Sant was known for edgy, indie pics such as My Own Private Idaho and Drugstore Cowboy before going mainstream with Hunting, which was followed by his disastrous remake of Psycho and the saccharine Finding Forrester.

Like Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob does lose some momentum because of its convoluted plot. There's a mostly boring, unnecessary sequence in the middle in which our heroes are persuaded by a gorgeous gang of international jewel thieves, featuring Bring It On's Eliza Dushku and American Pie's Shannon Elizabeth, to steal a monkey from a pharmaceutical lab (don't ask). Smith spends way too much time showing the Charlie's Angels wannabes doing Matrix-like backflips as they steal a loot of diamonds from a nearby bank (again, don't ask). Fortunately, this plot distraction is salvaged when "Saturday Night Live's" Will Ferrell shows up as a bumbling federal wildlife marshal trying to reclaim the stolen monkey.

I read one critic who blasted Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, remarking that it will be "mostly incomprehensible in 50 years." I'm not sure he's right, but even if he is, maybe that isn't such a bad thing. You've got to give credit to Smith for producing a film that so perfectly captures the time in which it was made. You might miss some of the movie references, but unless you've been sleeping through the past 20 years of pop culture, Smith's irreverent brand of humor should ring true. *

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

GLENGARRY CLARIFICATION - In my last post I referred to Glengarry Glen Ross, David Mamet's acerbic indictment of the Reagan era, as "darkly comic." Let me be clear: Glengarry cannot, by any reasonable criteria, be called a comedy. But if hearing Kevin Spacey implore Alan Arkin,"Will you get out of here. Will you get out of here. Will you? I’m trying to run an office here. Now will you go to lunch. Go to lunch. Will you go to lunch," or Alec Baldwin deliver his How To Win Friends and Motivate Salesmen Speech: "A, I, D, A. Attention, interest, decision, action. Attention: do I have your attention? Interest: are you interested? I know you are 'cause it's fuck or walk. You close or you hit the bricks. Decision: have you made your decision for Christ? And action. A, I, D, A," isn't comic gold, I don't know what is.

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

RANDOM MUSINGS - During my trip to Pennsylvania last weekend I had the pleasure of eating breakfast with a man named Sheldon Levine. And here's the best part -- he's a salesman. Shelley Levene, of course, is Jack Lemmon's desperate real estate salesman in Glengarry Glen Ross, the David Mamet-penned film based on his Pulitzer Prize winning play. When our waitress handed him a cup of coffee I wanted so badly to shout, "Put that coffee down! Coffee's for closers only!" a la Alec Baldwin in the movie. Fortunately, I was able to restrain myself. If you haven't seen it, Glengarry is one of the saddest, most frustrating, darkly comic -- not to mention most quotable -- films of the 90s. The cast -- Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, pre-movie star Kevin Spacey, and Baldwin (in a small but memorable role) -- is phenomenal, and handles Mamet's idiosyncratic dialogue better than any other cast before or since. Visit The Unofficial Glengarry Glen Ross Site, which provides the complete dialogue from Baldwin's hilariously abusive "Sales Conference." First prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired.

Reel's Jeffrey Wells reports today on the script of an upcoming film called 21 Grams. Wells describes it as a "dark, intensely emotional piece about guilt, betrayal, death and random fate." It marks the first English language film for Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu, whose similarly-themed Amores Perros was one of the best films of last year. It begins shooting in December. I'd be excited about this movie just based on my affection for Amores Perros...but it gets even better when I read that 21 Grams will feature Sean Penn, Benicio Del Toro, and Naomi Watts. So you're saying it stars two of the most provocative actors working today and the actress who gave hands-down the best performance of last year -- male or female -- in David Lynch's Mulholland Drive? Yeah, I think I'll pay to see it. About Guillermo Arriago's screenplay, Wells writes: "I was blown away by the script. As soon as I finished reading it I said out loud to no one in particular (even though there were people in the room), "Whoa!"

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

WHERE'S TOMMY BOY ON THAT LIST? - For those of you looking for something to do this weekend, write down all the films you've never seen from these lists -- or maybe never even heard of -- then get down to your best local video store or library and prepare to join the cultural elite. (No, I'm not including myself in this group since I, too, have my own list to compile.)

The British film magazine Sight & Sound just announced the results of its Critics' and Directors' Top Ten Polls for 2002. As their Web site explains:

"In 1952 Sight & Sound polled the world’s leading film critics to compile a list of the best films of all time. The magazine has repeated this poll every ten years, to show which films stand the test of time in the face of shifting critical opinion. In 1992 we added a poll of directors asking them for their personal choices."

For the 2002 edition, 108 filmmakers and 145 critics from around the world participated in the voting.

Critics Top Ten Poll 2002
1. Citizen Kane (Welles)
Kane has been #1 on every Critics' poll except the first -- Bicycle Thieves was #1 in '52 -- and has topped both Directors' polls.
2. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
3. La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game) (Renoir)
4. The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola)
5. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
7. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein)
7. Sunrise (Murnau)
9. 8 1/2 (Fellini)
10. Singin' In the Rain (Kelly, Donen)

Films that dropped off the list from 1992:
The Searchers (Ford)
L'Atalante (Vigo)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
Pather Panchali (S. Ray)

The Directors' Poll, which actually lists 11 movies, shares 5 with the Critics'...
1. Citizen Kane (Welles)
2. The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola)
3. 8 1/2 (Fellini)
6. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
9. La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game) (Renoir)

...but adds...
4. Lawrence of Arabia (Lean)
5. Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick)
6. Bicycle Thieves (De Sica)
6. Raging Bull (Scorsese)

...and two Kurosawa films, Rashomon and Seven Samurai, which both tied for 9th with Rules of the Game.

Films that dropped off the list from 1992:
La strada (Fellini)
L'Atalante (Vigo)
Modern Times (Chaplin)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)

In evaluating the two lists, I have to side with the directors. I refuse to hail Vertigo as the 2nd greatest film of all-time, especially when the two Godfather movies are 4th. I also love the inclusion of the two Kurosawa films; De Sica's heartbreaking neorealist masterpiece Bicycle Thieves (aka The Bicycle Thief); and Kubrick's nuclear war farce Dr. Strangelove over his groundbreaking but cumbersome 2001: A Space Odyssey. Most importantly, the directors rightfully include Scorsese's Raging Bull (1980), the youngest film on either list.

For the complete results of both polls with comments, click here. You can also check past poll results, see which critics and directors participated and how they voted, and compare their lists of the best directors of all-time.

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

MORE X-RATED THOUGHTS - I wasn't able to check out what other critics were saying about XXX before posting my review Friday morning. A look at the Tomatometer shows that it's almost an even split - 49% positive reviews, or 52 out of 107. Of course, that leaves 55 negative, including my own unfavorable reaction to the Vin Diesel-powered spy vehicle, which easily topped the box office over the weekend with $46 million. Signs dropped to second but faired well with $30 million.

L.A. Times critic Kenneth Turan correctly diagnoses the movie as, "More busy than exciting, more frantic than involving, more chaotic than entertaining." Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum writes, "Even in the summertime, the most restless young audience deserves the dignity of an action hero motivated by something more than franchise possibilities."

Most critics who recommend XXX praise its muscular star: "The racially ambiguous Diesel cuts a fine action figure. He has the glacial swagger left over from his bouncer days and looks as if he's been bench-pressing Sylvester Stallone since he was 12," writes Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe. And Salon's Stephanie Zacharek calls Diesel "that rare creature -- an action hero with table manners, and one who proves that elegance is more than tattoo deep."

Easily the most surprising response has to be Roger Ebert's gushing 3 1/2 star review in the Chicago Sun-Times -- not just because he liked it that much, but because he liked it for the exact same reasons I started thinking about balancing my checkbook roughly 30 minutes in. He writes: "Director Rob Cohen and producer Neal H. Mortiz, who also made "The Fast and the Furious," follow the Bond formula so carefully this would be a satire if it weren't intended as a homage."

Ebert then proceeds to approvingly tick off the various ways XXX steals from Bond: (1) Villain in lair hidden within mountain, with faceless minions busily going about tasks; (2) a beautiful girl, former KGB, named Yelena (Asia Argento), who seems to be Yorgi's girlfriend but falls for Xander; (3) a techno-geek who supplies Xander with a trick gun and a customized GTO that has an arsenal on board; (4) stunts involving parachuting, mountains, avalanches and explosions; (5) a chase at the end to save the world, and (6), my favorite, the obligatory final scene where the hero basks in Bora Bora with the beautiful girl in a bikini, while his boss tries to persuade him to take another job.

I think calling XXX an homage to Bond gives Cohen and screenwriter Rich Wilkes too much credit. Isn't it more likely that they were simply too lazy/uninspired/unoriginal to give their "new kind of action hero," as Cohen described him in last month's Premiere, an action movie that was befitting such a new character? I'm guessing it was a lot easier to just crib from old Bond flicks, replace the Monty Norman score with Rammstein, then claim to have invented something radically different.

The fact is, save for a few poorly choreographed action sequences involving various extreme sports, XXX doesn't give us anything we haven't seen before. Perhaps if Cohen and company had been clever enough to go the satirical route and flat-out rebuke the Bond franchise -- the opening scene, where Diesel's tuxedo-clad predecessor is easily picked off by a sniper when he tries to blend in with the crowd at a hardcore industrial concert, effectively teases us with this possibility -- XXX would have been more entertaining.

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

HORROR WEEKEND FOLLOW-UP/BUBBA HO-TEP REVIEW - Ain't It Cool News grandmaster Harry Knowles had this to say recently in an introduction to a series of reviews from his Chicago correspondent Capone: "And don't hate Capone too much when you read what all he did last weekend...tell me, which body part would you give to see the original EVIL DEAD cast reenact live on stage the original EVIL DEAD from the original script? Tell me you wouldn't need rubber pants and a spray hose for clean up."

Take a moment to expunge that image from your mind. Now, you might recall last Monday's (8/5) post about my friends Scott and Chris who, like Capone, attended the Flashback Horror Weekend and Sci-Fi Convention that was held August 2-4 in Chicago.

Curiously, while Knowles makes it abundantly clear how jealous he is about not being able to see the original cast reenact The Evil Dead live, he doesn't mention how cool it would have been to be the random guy from the audience selected to play the role of "Scotty," played in the movie by Hal Delrich. As devout CS readers know, that random guy was Chris, who provided a detailed account on Monday of how he got to perform with Bruce Campbell and the Ladies of Evil Dead, despite being one of only three in a theater full of 1,200 people who admitted to never actually having seen the movie!

Here's how Capone explains the event: "After that, Bruce returned to the stage with the Ladies of Evil Dead for an almost complete reenactment of EVIL DEAD. With Tom Sullivan doing sound effects and an audience member playing Scottie, this reminded me of some radio plays I’d seen done years ago. Okay, maybe it wasn’t quite that good, but boy was it a scream. I nearly pissed myself when “Ash” and “Linda” are having their big romantic scene together and Bruce whipped out a full-sized magnifying glass on a chain for her to wear. Since they were reading from the original script, they even acted out scenes that weren’t in the final film, which was screened immediately after."

Chris e-mailed Harry after seeing the article and said, "Hey, that was me. I was the audience member!" No response from Harry yet...

Meanwhile, Scott writes in with this review of Bubba Ho-Tep, which had its Midwest premiere earlier that same night with star Bruce Campbell in attendance. This is a little movie only a handful of you will probably ever get the opportunity to see -- or even want to see -- but Campbell has developed enough of a devoted following over the years that surely a few readers must be curious about his current film. Here's what Scott had to say:

As Campbell strode onto the stage to introduce the movie, he claimed that it was the most bizarre film he had ever acted in. Whoa! Now, before I go any further, let me just say that I'm a bizarre film connoisseur and Bruce Campbell has been in some really crazy-ass films.

So anyway, his bold declaration had me giddy as a little schoolgirl for Bubba Ho-Tep to start. My anticipation increased even further when the credits rolled and the words, "Directed By Don Coscarelli" flashed on the screen. This guy has helmed some of the weirdest genre flicks ever made. Coscarelli's imagery has featured giant alien morticians, living dead dwarves, killer flying balls, and the great actor Mark "Beastmaster" Singer running around in a loincloth letting women pet his ferret.

However high my expectations now were, Bubba Ho-Tep exceeded them. This is one of the coolest "what if" movies I have seen in a long time.You know what I mean by "what if"? What if Shakespeare fell in love while writing Romeo and Juliet? What if a mentally challenged man named Forrest unknowingly influenced historical events? What if this loser movie reviewer had some balls and lived out his Evil Dead fantasies on stage with the entire cast of the movie instead of passing the opportunity to his undeserving friend....aaaaaahhhhh damn you o' missed opportunity...

Anyway, what if Elvis Presley decided during the prime of his career to step out of the limelight and switch places with an Elvis impersonator? And what if present day Elvis was in an elderly home wishing he could return to his past glory? This is the premise Bubba Ho-Tep starts out with, and trust me when I say they take this story into places you would never predict. I don't want to ruin any surprises the movie presents so I'll keep plot developments to a minimum. However, to understand just how bizarre this film gets, I will say that Ossie "Da Mayor" Davis portrays President John F. Kennedy. Those of you who know that Davis is black can begin to see why this movie is whacked!

Bubba Ho-Tep contains Campbell's greatest performance to date. You're probably thinking all he ever accomplished up to this point in his career was getting his ass kicked in the three Evil Dead movies. Maybe. But he shows more range and humor as Elvis Presley than any actor that has played the part. Yes, he's even better than Kurt Russell as Elvis. Coscarelli deftly mixes comedy and suspense, never lets the pace drag, and makes the production value seem way higher than the budget probably was. Oh, did I mention that Bubba Ho-Tep is the name of an undead soul stealing mummy? This is a crazy bad-ass movie.

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

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