Cruise, Crowe, and Hackman headline strong film crop

In the last of a two-part series, the Daily examines best and worst of the winter movie season. Encompassing an unusual scope of diverse thematic material, these last films range from the traditional love story to the more abstract art films.

<I>Vanilla Sky

It's one thing if someone tells me a movie isn't worth my money or my time. It's another matter when someone tells me it's not worth the time it takes to buy the ticket to a movie. They're not exactly fighting words, but they're enough to make me anxious. Either this movie must be really awful, or brilliant... or, better yet, neither.

What we have here is a mis-advertised, misunderstood movie. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a publishing playboy who can have pretty much whatever he wants. He has a fabulous girlfriend (Cameron Diaz), a best friend that caves in to his every whim (Jason Lee), the company his dad left him, and any toy he wants. His world also has hidden dangers, as an early dream sequence shows a completely empty Times Square with David lost and helpless. Or is it a dream? Soon, there is reason to doubt everything David says or does, as the film crosscuts between a conversation with a therapist (Kurt Russell), life before and after a major accident, and David fighting for control of his company. All of this has something to do with a woman named Sofia (Penelope Cruz), whom Cruise spent the night with before the accident. Does she love him? Is she teasing him? Does she even exist?

You have to ask yourself what you would rather see: a studio film that tries to be a little smart and risks failing, or one that sticks to being dumb and slick? It's all what you bring to the movie, what you know about it and expect from it. The person who told me it wasn't worth their ticket-buying time summed it up like this: "It's a murder mystery where the murder never happened." Or, you can see it as something more than a thriller, as a film that actually takes a stab at larger questions of life. Though slightly arrogant and without the payoff you'd hope for, it's a genuine attempt nonetheless. Or you could interpret it any number of other ways. So, what is it? American Psycho or Eyes Wide Shut?

Both, I suppose. I walked in hearing from many that they hated it, and one person who had seen it twice and loved it. I didn't know what to expect. What I got was something a bit above the bar, and some very interesting performances combined with amazing shots. There are locations here that have been filmed many times in many ways, but never like this. The Times Square sequence deserves some kind of award, and I've never seen a dance club portrayed more vividly or filled with dread. Cruise does very good work and takes big risks here -if you're known for your pretty face, it takes serious guts to scar it up and still carry a movie. Kurt Russell and Cameron Diaz turn in amazing supporting performances, and Cruz goes the extra mile by not screwing it up (she almost single-handedly ruined Johnny Depp's Blow)

Once you see the solution to the movie's puzzle, you will either feel elated or ripped-off. I thought it was clever. The clues play fair, and while it's no Fight Club or The Usual Suspects, it's smarter than the average thriller. (Did you see Travolta's Domestic Disturbance? Neither has anyone else, because the trailers told you everything that happened.) Unless someone gives it away, Vanilla Sky is packed with surprises. You may not like the way the movie twists and turns but at least you probably didn't see it coming. For a Tom Cruise movie, that may be enough.

<I>Mullholland Drive

stars not applicable

Mullholland Drive is not a film, it's a piece of art. I'm not trying to be arrogant or artsy, and I don't mean "art" to imply that it's head and shoulders above all mainstream films. It is "art" in that it is not a plot- or character-driven story but a moving canvas - an artifact, meant to be studied but not understood. An object.

That's not exactly fair to the actors, who were originally working on something that was going somewhere. Robert Forester, Dan Hedaya, country music singer Billy Ray Cyrus, Ann Miller (an old musical star)... all show up and then fade away into the fog of mystery that surrounds everything in this movie.

There's room for mobsters, detectives, pool men, mysterious cowboys, film directors, a bum that looks like a monkey, and two girls who are trying to figure out who they are. Literally. One of them (Laura Harring) can't remember who she is, and stumbles into the life of plucky Betty (Naomi Watts) who just moved to Los Angeles and wants to be an actress. Maybe. Halfway through the movie, a small blue box is opened and suddenly everything is different -identities shift, fates reverse and nobody, no audience member or actor knows what the hell is going on.

The movie originated as a television pilot for ABC, and I can imagine what happened shortly after it screened for the executives.

Executives: What the hell?! We can't air this! No television audience will understand it! We've wasted untold piles of money!

Director David Lynch: (evil cackle) Excellent. Perhaps you'd like to talk about selling the footage...

And so Lynch bought the footage of the pilot, filmed about 20 minutes more, re-edited it and issued it out for the film-going public's confusion. This film has been placed on top of many lists, receiving many awards. While it is worthy of praise, I don't think it deserves best movie of the year. Most movies try to tell a story: how characters get from point A to point B. In this film, not only is the journey in question, but there may not even be any points A or B. I'm not saying all films have to follow all the rules, but that it's unfair to draw comparisons with such dissimilar work. I'm sure Peter Jackson could have cranked out a completely upside down version of Fellowship of the Ring, if he'd really wanted to.

Lynch has always been one to experiment with film. He single-handedly deconstructed the classic Dune in such a way that even hardcore fans were bewildered (the Sci-Fi Channel's version may make a lot more sense, but did not linger in the mind nearly as much). He explored the depths in suburbia in Blue Velvet, which paved the way for the more straightforward American Beauty years later. He changed TV with Twin Peaks, and made me throw the remote at my television with Lost Highway. Of all of these, there was at least a story to tell (well, maybe not in Lost Highway). But this time, he has done something truly bold. He has taken a television idea, destined to be shelved forever, and turned it into an expressionist film.

The mystery is not the point. The point is the reactions he draws from you. Setting up expectations, poking at possible plot directions... messing with you. Perhaps the greatest tease of the movie is the establishment of a very true, very real romance between the lead girls (both of whom turn in amazing performances) and then completely mixing everything up. You want the characters to get back together, but they are now different people. Literally. Or maybe not. Who knows? I give up. Call me when you figure it out.

Would I recommend it? How do I recommend a painting? It is as fascinating as a bizarre dream that you remember in vivid detail, and I'd say it's definitely worth a long, hard look. But if you want an escape, a nice story, a good mystery or a chilling thriller, stay away. Lynch is driving, which means there may be no destination at all.

<I>A Beautiful Mind

A Beautiful Mind may not be the best film of the year, but if it wins for best picture, I'll have no complaints. It has a wonderful story, is masterfully directed and written, and has amazing performances. A Hollywood wet dream - a movie with something for everyone that still remains a very specific, original story. Romance! Intrigue! Action! Mystery! Debilitating Disease! And best of all, based on a true story!

It is all these things and more. Based on the life of Nobel Prize winner John Nash, it follows the mathematician from graduate school to his award ceremony. Nash is played by Russell Crowe, who ages convincingly some forty-seven years in what may be the performance of his career. Ironically, he may not win this year because he won last year for Gladiator, which still has people grumbling that Tom Hanks was robbed for Cast Away. Of course, the only reason that Hanks didn't win was because he had done so twice before and so... anyway. Politics are politics. He'll be nominated and deserves to win.

Nash wins the prize for his economic theories, which he develops while at graduate school. He is a recluse, with no close friends except for his roommate Charles (Paul Bettany), who takes pity on him and tries to coax him out of his shell. His other classmates are not so kind. They snigger and make jokes about him until one of their snide comments inspires his theory. The scene in which he explains it is priceless, and may feed the suspicions that even brilliant men have but one thing on their minds at all times (even Nash needed to get laid).

Two important people enter his life simultaneously: one is Alice, a bright student who seems impossibly attracted to him and actually listens to his prattling about numbers. The other is a man named Parcher (Ed Harris), who works for the defense department and wants to hire Nash to find coded Russian messages in publications. Nash gets married, and the couple are happy for a time. But soon his professional and private lives collide, as he tries to help raise his child while evading Russian car chases at night. Those paying close attention might notice that certain characters seem omnipresent, or never really change their clothes. There is a reason for this.

More I will not reveal, except that Nash suffers from schizophrenia and is subjected to some horrific treatments. They make him better but break his spirit, and soon he is in danger of losing everything. Faced with two choices he cannot make, he creates a third: he will reason his way out of his disease. The moment he makes his breakthrough rivals that of any other movie like it.

Director Ron Howard makes very good choices with his handling of the disease, framing characters and showing how Nash sees the numbers. Special effects are wisely kept to a minimum -the story and acting are strong enough to carry the film. The cinematography is crisp but straightforward.

Perhaps the biggest trick the movie pulls is making a legitimate actor out of Russell Crowe. Though many thought he was simply a piece of meat that got carried in the Gladiator push last year, this film destroys all of that. His accent may be occasionally shaky, but his mannerisms and conception of the character are brilliant. Playing a realistic deranged genius is a fine line, and Crowe treads it well. The film, the director and lead actor all deserve those gold statues that they give out once a year.

<I>The Royal Tenenbaums

Director/Writer Wes Anderson may not always make perfect films, but at least he goes to the trouble of making them interesting. The Royal Tenenbaums is not a great movie. It is uneven, bizarre, occasionally slow and crowded. It is also original, layered and often hilarious. That's more than a lot of the summer movies can say for themselves.

Evolution, for instance, was a fun movie. Watching it was like hanging out with good friends while they goofed around, making it a low-key Ghostbusters III. But while I laughed, it was often not as funny as it could have been. The jokes worked, the characters worked and the story worked... but it did not go beyond that point. The extra effort that would turn it from a B/B+ Road Trip into an A/A+ Animal House was not there. At least it was funny. Scary Movie 2 attempted the same mission, and failed badly.

The Royal Tenenbaums is often belly-achingly, teeth-cringingly funny. Its eccentricities are so weird, bizarre, and not of this earth that you can do nothing but laugh. There are also too many of them. Between estranged father Royal (Gene Hackman), the three siblings, Danny Glover as the white-haired accountant, and two completely pointless characters inhabited by Bill Murray and Owen Wilson (who co-wrote the script), the film has enough material to be a sizeable book. In fact, the film is presented as a book: chapters of a book are shown to mark time in the movie.

Royal has not talked to his family in seven years, until he learns that account Glover has proposed to Royal's wife. Stirred by a long-buried longing for his estranged spouse, he is determined to stop the wedding. His solution: he tells her, "I'm dying. I have six weeks to live." This brings together the three Tenenbaum children: Richie (Luke Wilson), a former tennis pro, Chas (Ben Stiller), a financial whiz and safety nut, and adopted daughter Margot (Gweneth Paltrow), a playwright whose constant state of depression may be directly related to Royal always addressing her as "my adopted daughter."

All of this is guided together into a mishmash of love, hatred, confusion and whimsy that lurches along from scenario to scenario as Royal tries to get to know the family he has ignored for years. The performances are mostly brilliant, with the exception of Bill Murray (a funny actor trapped in a very small role) and Owen Wilson (a funny actor trapped in a poorly-defined role) Their presence feels like an afterthought, though, as if the director said, "Nah, it's not quirky enough. More, MORE!"

Gene Hackman, Luke Wilson, and Gweneth Paltrow deserve the most credit. While not his best performance, Hackman has a lot of fun being a bastard, delivering perfectly the funniest and most blunt lines to be heard this year.

"What'd you think of my play?" asks 9 year old Margot.

"It was crap. There was no characterization, they were animals up there for God's sake," he replies, then adding, "but don't take that so hard, honey."

Paltrow dives into unchartered territory, playing a very morbid and dense character that can cause a laugh by simply standing and smoking. And Luke Wilson's tennis-playing, sister-loving weirdo is probably his best performance to date (not that Blue Streak was a great acting vehicle for anyone).

In the end, the film is too weird and formless to call excellent. Anderson's camera tricks get old after awhile, and the film lacks the depth and sharpness of Rushmore (his previous effort). That doesn't detract from the originality of the script and vision, however. Tenenbaums may not be all it could have been, but it tries harder and reaches farther than any other comedy this year, and that's worth high praise.