Retro Review: Mystery Men

How does a dysfunctional group of wanna be superheroes save the world? That’s the question Mystery Men is trying to ask in this superhero satire.

Comedians Ben Stiller, Janeane Garofalo, Paul Reubens and Hank Azaria star along side Academy award nominees William H Macy and Geoffrey Rush in a comedy which almost puts the fun back in superheroes. Stiller, Azaria, and Macy are a trio of heroes trying to make a name for themselves as they try to climb out from beneath the shadows of the City’s real superhero Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear). But when Amazing is kidnapped by his arch-nemesis, the trio must gather up a bunch of misfits to save the day.

Mystery Men is a great looking film as the opening shots and scenic panning grab our eyes and draw us into a world that feels eerily like Batman’s Gotham City and with the ensemble cast, why doesn’t it sore?

Stiller’s “Mr. Furious”, Macy’s “Shoveller” and Garofalo’s “Bowler” are beautiful characters that stand-out as the heart of the film. Furious is perfect for Stiller because of his over-the-top anger schtick he has been passing off for years.

Macy can finally say he has indeed played every kind of character imaginable. I mean when can a character actor like him say he’s been a superhero.

A huge flaw in Mystery Men seems to be that it is caught in the same web that has brought so many other superhero movie disasters. They introduce so many characters that by the last introduction they don’t even make sense anymore.

There have been so many movies about no-name superheroes but there is a fine line between ones that work and others that, well, really don’t. Characters wise Mystery Men works but the storyline and fully realized vision just isn’t there.

(2.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Written: August 7, 1999

Movie Review: When in Rome

Loosely based on the 1954 movie Three Coins in the Fountain, When in Rome finds emerging museum curator, Beth Harper (Kristen Bell), attending her sister’s wedding in Rome, Italy. She is really attracted to the dashing best man (Josh Duhamel) but when she sees him with another woman she grabs a bottle a wine and goes wading in the infamous Trevi Fountain.

There is a legend regarding the fountain where if a woman takes the coins from the fountain that the owners of the coins will fall madly in her. When Beth is drunk, she takes five coins from the fountain and returns to New York.

One by one we are introduced to the coin owners and one is stranger than the next. Will Arnett is a love-struck painter, Jon Heder is a creepy street musician, Danny DeVito is a sausage king (no not that kind), Dax Shepherd is a vain male model and well you have Duhamel not giving up on her. Well it is pretty obvious where this is going!

Kristen Bell seems to be prepped to become the new Sarah Jessica Parker. Her whole character was like it was written especially for SJP. If they ever remade Sex & the City I could totally see Kristen as Carrie Bradshaw.

I honestly never saw what Duhamel’s character saw in her. Their chemistry was forced at best and well her life is just super dull. It never gets any excitement until she has four stalkers claiming they love her.

When in Rome is amateur hour so it doesn’t surprise me that it is directed by Mark Steven Johnson, the brainiac behind such superhero duds as Daredevil and Ghost Rider. If you remember the chemistry between the love interests in those movies they also lacked something to be desired. Eva Mendes and Nicolas Cage? What a joke!

I have to give Josh Duhamel and Will Arnett credit for this movie. They are the best part about it. Duhamel proves he can do pratfalls and be a stable leading man. And Arnett steals scenes as the love struck painter.

I really can’t recommend the movie to anyone though for the most part its a borefest.

1.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Mean Girls

Who were you in high school? Were you the jock, the spaz, the nerd, the rebel or maybe the drama queen? Back in those days we all seemed to be labeled and forced to coexist in a socially acceptable clique.

And it seems for the rest of our lives we are always trying to emerge from that labeled existence. Why is that?

There have been a lot of films in recent years that have taken a look at those cliques and offered social commentary or just plain made fun of them.

In the new comedy “Mean Girls”, we are once more exposed to the lighter side of “teen” world with a revenge subplot thrown in for fun.

The film finds new-girl Cady Heron (Lindsay Lohan) arriving at North Shore High. Cady has been home-schooled, lived in Africa most of her life and knows very little about the teen hierarchy.

Upon her arrival, Cady quickly becomes friends with social rejects Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese) until one fateful day where Cady is asked to join the elitist group called “The Plastics” for lunch. The Plastics are three of the most popular girls in school, Regina (Rachel McAdams), Gretchen (Lacey Chabert) and Karen (Amanda Seyfried), and evil to the core.

After her luncheon with high-school infamy, Cady teams up with her socially rejected friends and devises a plan to bring down the “mean” Plastics. For their plan to work Cady must go undercover within the elite clique. Can Cady bring victory for the socially repressed? Or will the allure of high-school stardom tempt her more? And how does her feelings for Aaron Samuels (Jonathan Bennett) play into the master plan?

“Mean Girls” probably falls closer to the just-for-laughs style of “Clueless” than the social commentary of say the darker teen-angst films of this genre like the classic “Heathers” or the crass “Jawbreakers”.

“Freaky Friday” director Mark S. Waters and brilliant SNL writer Tina Fey do craft an interesting story and do deliver a lot of laughs but the film doesn’t seem to know what direction to pursue as it enters its third act.

As heroine Cady seems to be pulled to the dark-side the film’s core mission seems to be left high and dry. The laughs become fewer and a rather painful “gym” scene ensues. After that I was lost.

I wanted a really fun, zany and “mean” revenge comedy from the oodles of talent that are housed within this film. I would have loved to have seen McAdams play Regina even meaner so that we could hate her more. I also wanted to know more about the social rejects and if Cady could actually be comfortable there. In some ways I wanted the film to play more with Cady and her struggle to find a clique for her.

I really did enjoy a lot of screenwriter Tina Fey’s dialogue and how she dealt with the internal rumblings within the social elite. Fey is so talented and one of the few hi-lites of the fading late-night juggernaut, “Saturday Night Live”.

She is so crassy, point-blank and hilarious on the show that I hope she will continue to do more movie scripts. I know there are a lot of comedy genres out there that could use a little Fey.

I was also surprised by how hooked I got on some of the lesser performances in the film like Tim Meadows as the principal or Lacey Chabert as the “blabber-mouth” plastic, Gretchen. These performances weren’t a leading one but still should be recognized.

I liked them because they were the flipside to a “Regina” or “Cady” and gave us a new perspective on the film. Chabert was brilliant in a lot of her supporting scenes to both McAdams and Lohan.

Aside with a couple story direction problems and a flat finale, “Mean Girls” is a fun and hilarious teen comedy. Just wanted more sass.

(3.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: American Outlaws

“American Outlaws is filled with action, love, and humor. It is just the Jesse James version of “Young Guns”.

“American Outlaws” chronicles the legend of Jesse James (Colin Farrell). Jesse comes home from the Civil War with his brother Frank (Gabriel Macht) and their cousins Cole Younger (Scott Caan) and Bob Younger (Will McCormack).

The James and Youngers soon realize Liberty, Missouri isn’t the little innocent town it was when they all went off to fight the war.

The railroad, lead by fierce businessman Thaddeus Rains (Harris Yulin), has moved in and has tried to buy up all the farms in county. To assist Rains on his quest is the infamous Allan Pinkerton (Timothy Dalton) and the ruthless Rollin Parker (Terry O’Quinn).

When Jesse and Frank gather all the towns people together Cole looses his temper and puts them all in danger. This leads to a daring rescue of Cole and the eventual torching of farmer’s homes by Rollin Parker.

Eventually Jesse and Frank have to team up with their cousins and declare war on the railroad in hopes of stopping the railroad from destroying more innocent farmers. Does he succeed in stopping the railroad?

It has been a long time since I have seen a western film this enjoyable. It didn’t need to sink into the dark, bloody western-styles of the 1980’s and 90’s to tell this story. It is delivered with panache and quick-witted humor. You really connect with these characters and their struggle. The humor also plays a huge role in the relationship between the audience and the characters.

My favorite character in the film was Frank James (Gabriel Macht). Macht is a relative newcomer to films and really does a great job supporting Colin Farrell during his first lead-role in a major motion picture release. Sure Farrell was in “Tigerland” but it wasn’t very well received and that was a real shame. Macht is very laid back and very comfortable as the poetic and intelligent older brother. He is a great find.

I also really enjoyed the beautiful Ali Larter. She made her film debut dressed in nothing but a whipped cream bikini. In this film she’s the zesty daughter of Ronny Cox’s doctor. She also has dynamite chemistry with Colin Farrell.

The only flaw I could see was with some of the timing in the film. For one, the film is quite short at a running time of between 96 and 105 minutes. I wanted more and the film doesn’t end with summary paragraphs on what happened to the gang later on. I love that aspect of true stories. If this film is successful maybe we will see what really did happen to Jesse in a sequel.

It is unavoidable that this film will be compared to the 1988 smash “Young Guns”. In my honest opinion, I think it’s better.

(4 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Weird Review: Lost Skeleton of Cadavra

I am not to sure how many of you out there have ever seen or heard of the 1987 comedy-sketch gem known as “Amazon Women on the Moon”. Imbedded within the sketches is the recurring 50s sci-fi spoof film. That little film starred Steve Forrest as a Captain of a mission to the moon where he finds, surprise, Amazon Women headed by “B” actress Sybil Danning.

The film had so many hilarious bits that the central story is almost forgotten. But if you can imagine taking the Amazon Women thread and watching just it. Then you may be able to grasp what “Lost Skeleton” is.

Cheesy, radioactive, mutant-ridden, rubber-suited 1950s sci-fi movies weren’t really a movement or really a commentary on anything. They were just shock-schlock that was filmed to give us a glimpse of a new weird world away from the paranoid grip of the Cold War.

Before Kubrick’s landmark sci-fi event “2001: A Space Odyssey” this is the innocent goofy science fiction we wanted on screen. Sure there were some boundaries achieved and pushed with Universal’s classic and amazing monsters series but that was more a landmark for horror not sci-fi where pulp heroes like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers reigned.

“The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra” finds a stiff scientist (writer-director Larry Blamire) and his clueless wife (Fay Masterson) journeying to a rustic cabin where they hope to make a scientific discovery of “atmospheriam”. Meanwhile a devilish scientist (Brian Howe) hatches a plan of his own to resurrect a sinister skeleton in the Cadavra Cave. If that wasn’t enough an alien spacecraft crashes and its occupants unleash a deadly radioactive monster.

“The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra” relives and accents a lot of the logic and language of the infamous Flash Gordon serials and the paranoid radioactive matinee sci-fi films of the 1950s like 1956’s “It Conquered the World” and 1957’s “Not of this Earth” which are both from “schlock-tycoon” Roger Corman. There are also a homage to Buster Crabbe’s infamous portrayal of Flash Gordon from the classic serials.

The film is photographed in black and white which give it even more of a campy feel. There is a lot of B-budget allure and 1950s styled science yammering. The typical retro-raygun is used by the visiting aliens to hilarious results. The whole plot surrounding the skeleton is a little tiresome when it’s the interactions between the humans and aliens that gets the most laughs.

The film spends a lot of time on repetitive dialogue, goofy antics and displaced actors. The actors do anything very straight and stiff but we don’t for a minute take it serious. The laughs and antics run out of steam about an hour in and you think maybe the filmmakers should have also mimicked the 70 minute running time of the old 1950s flicks.

Blamire and Masterson were my favorites and I found them the most enjoyable of the goofiness. Blamire seems so much like a beginning Corman but you really wonder if that is who he is trying to spoof. I also enjoyed the portrayal of the male alien by Andrew Parks who reminded me some of the Crabbe serials and of course Steve Forrest in “Amazon Women”.

“Lost Skeleton” is a spoofy goofy homage romp with delicate longevity. What would be great would be a real huge direct spoof of those old 50s films in the spirit of a “Scary Movie” or “Spaceballs”. There were enough of them.

(2 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Constantine

So you feel like hell.

You look like hell.

You’re coughing up a lung from your six-pack a day smoking addiction.

So have you ever thought about saving the world?

Well these are some to the things plaguing Keanu Reeves, who plays would be occultist John Constantine in the new supernatural thriller “Constantine”.

The central focus of “Constantine” is a tormented policewoman named Angela Dodson (Rachel Weisz) who recently lost her twin sister in a rather mysterious and freakish accident. Dodson finds herself turning to Constantine, a withdrawn and emotionally guarded man who seems to have an inside track on her sister’s apparent suicide. What Dodson doesn’t know is that their journey together will take them to hell itself to uncover what actually happened. No matter what the cost or the physical pain Dodson and Constantine will not rest until they can find each other’s internal peace.

Constantine happens to be based on the DC Comics series Hellblazer, which is a rather dark and twisted series that has captivated readers with its interesting and intelligent writing. The film capitalizes a lot on the rich tapestry laid out in the comic book series.

The comic book only seems to be the layout for the film though as it also borrows a lot from previous horror films like “End of Days” and “The Exorcist” series. Basically the premise of the film is kind of a cross between Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer and “The Exorcist”. The reason I mention Mike Hammer because it does have a lot of “noir” undertones which give the film more depth than it probably deserves.

I actually found myself liking Keanu Reeves a lot in this film as the tortured anti-hero. There is something to like about the guy who can’t even love himself but has to save the world. I also really enjoyed the supernatural underworld element in the film its sort of “Collateral” with a demonic twist or maybe a spookier, deadlier version of television series, “Angel”. There is a lot to like in this film and surprisingly it’s quite effective.

I also really enjoyed the performances of the film’s leading ladies Rachel Weisz and Tilda Swinton, who plays the angel Gabriel. These performances were quite effective and a surprise for a film of this caliber. I also was thoroughly impressed with the demonic portrayal but Peter Stormare whose portrayal of the “prince of darkness” is a sight to see.

I had a couple small problems with some of the plot elements and the film’s eventual resolution but for the most part I would have to say it is a pleasant surprise.

(4 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Man on Fire

After last week’s debut of “The Punisher” and the smash of the “Kill Bill” series, it sure seems like the anti-hero is back. Vengeance seems to be the new fuel of the box office. Is it possible that Hollywood saved the best for last?

By 1987, anti-heroes and vengeance action flicks were beginning to fade and the first incarnation of the A.J.Quinnell novel, “Man on Fire” was brought to the silver screen. Scott Glenn was the central character of the washed up body guard Creasy and his young charge was played by newcomer Jade Malle. It was a forgettable film in the long and profound career of Scott Glenn.

In the latest incarnation of the novel, screenwriter phenom Brian Helgeland (Mystic River, LA Confidential) adapts the screenplay.

And the film is helmed by action veteran Tony Scott. In this outing Denzel Washington plays the tormented and alcoholic John Creasy who winds up in Mexico City by request from his friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken) to become the bodyguard to Pita Ramos (Dakota Fanning), the daughter of a rich Mexican industrialist Samuel Ramos (Marc Anthony) and his wife Lisa (Radha Mitchell).

Creasy is fed up with his life and has found a permanent hole in the bottom of a Jack Daniels bottle. His ex-military prestige is all but a hazy blur in his head but both Lisa and Pita see something in Creasy that no one else does, trust.

As Pita begins to get inside Creasy’s head and try to understand this “sad man”, as she calls him, their friendship and bond strengthens. Eventually Creasy’s hardened emotions breakaway to a parental fondness and Creasy begins to live again.

As their bond reaches its maturity, Pita is kidnapped and Creasy is brutally wounded. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, Creasy vows to bring down every person connected to the kidnapping even if it reaches into the heart of the Mexican elite. Mexico City will burn as one man will rage a war that Mexican reporter Mariana (Rachel Ticotin) and Federal agent Manzano (Giancarlo Gianni) have never seen before.

“Man on Fire” is a revenge flick that needs to be remembered. It is in so many ways what the best of the genre is and so much more. With a flawless performance from Washington, “Man on Fire” continues to show the actor’s brilliance. In a lot of ways I liked him in this more than “Training Day” because in that film I felt he was over the top in a lot of scenes while in this it is such a subtle performance. You can feel and absorb everything that is going on inside this man’s head with just a look or a slouch. He is amazing.

Praise should also be given to young Dakota Fanning, who once more seems to shine. This little actress can act better than a lot of actors 2 or 3 times her age. She is brilliant and rips our hearts out in every scene.

I also really enjoyed the way director Tony Scott brought his film together. The direction brings so much new life into this stagnant genre.

I also loved the way he uses subtitles in the film. It is just so unique and brings the audience into the picture instead of alienating us like in so many other films.

I also liked the fact that Scott wasn’t afraid to go the extra mile with the heart-wrenching violence and raw emotion. We adore these characters.

In the 1987 version, it felt odd that there was a “Lolita-esque” relationship between Creasy and his 12-year old charge. In the latest version, Creasy’s charge is younger and the film goes more for the parental side of things which makes for a stronger impact. The 1987 film doesn’t allow for the main characters to have a deep bound and we question Creasy’s motives.

The only smallest flaw, if I were to find one, would be the fact that we don’t know more about what happened to Creasy to make him give up. Unveiling the story probably would have taken away from the emotion locked in the core of the film but it still would interesting to find out.

I really was shocked, dismayed and emotionally involved with this film and its roller-coaster of emotion. It is a brilliant and under-rated film. Hands down it is one of the best of the genre.

(5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: The Black Dahlia

It has been nearly twenty years since Brian De Palma directed the landmark film of his career. That film garnered Sean Connery an Oscar, solidified up-incomer Kevin Costner as a leading man and thrilled us with Robert DeNiro’s portrayal of Al Capone.

Who can forget that beautifully executed “baby carriage” scene? The film I am obviously talking about is 1987’s “The Untouchables”. De Palma had also directed landmark films like “Scarface” and “Carrie” before that film but for me it was the pinnacle of his career.

In the years that followed “The Untouchables”, De Palma hit some bumps in his career with the box-office stinker “Casualties of War” and the huge bomb “Bonfire of Vanities”. In 1993, he rebounded with the mobster drama, “Carlito’s Way” where he re-teamed with Al Pacino.

In 1996, De Palma exploded back into the public eye with the box-office juggernaut “Mission: Impossible”. For me, that film has always been a staple in De Palma’s career because it shows two sides of the director.

There are some high-energy and brilliant scenes in that film and then there are some really dull and often draining scenes. The film is the perfect De Palma film because the director goes for broke when he makes films. It is easier brilliant or to put it plainly, crap. He rarely dabbles in grays.

This brings us to his latest film, “The Black Dahlia” which is an out-of-joint mystery thriller based on most notorious unsolved murder in California history. The film stars Josh Hartnett and Aaron Eckhart as two L.A. detectives who basically stumble upon the case after their high-profile escapades on warrants. The duo have prize-fighter backgrounds and are media darlings.

The mystery surrounds the death of a struggling starlet named Elizabeth Short (Mia Kirshner) who was savagely murdered by being slashed from ear to ear and disemboweled. The corpse was hardly a representation of the life that had been inside it.

The more duo became obsessed with the case the more they watched as their friendship disintegrated. The film gives us a conclusion to the case but the actual murder is still left unsolved.

As I sat there and watched “The Black Dahlia” all I could think about was Detective Joe Friday on the TV series “Dragnet”. The narration, stuffy characters and constant smoking reminded me of that series. Then there are these scenes, performances and situations where De Palma loses his mind and we get a sort of “Dragnet” on crack cocaine, if you will.

I really loved the performance of Josh Hartnett who seemed to the strongest of all the cast members. Hilary Swank is over-the-top awful. Scarlett Johansson is beautiful, vulnerable but at times hardly believable. And Aaron Eckhart is well just a waste.

There are a lot of really awful moments like the dinner scene with Hilary Swank’s parents and of course the lesbian bar scene with KD Lang.

The sets, costumes and cinematography were all brilliant. The film looked and felt like it should be a classic like “The Untouchables” but looks can be deceiving and I was very deceived.

Critics in Europe talked as if they were disturbed or distracted by a love scene in the film but in the cut I saw there was hardly a love scene to be scene.

People would kiss, fall on the bed and then it would fade to the next morning.

I am still baffled by why this version of the film is rated R since it is relatively tame to some films. I am wondering if this film suffered from an immense amount of cuts by the MPAA.

If you have to see this film, wait for the unrated or director’s cut on DVD. I just hate it when a director’s vision of a film is compromised and destroyed by some studio or MPAA who is afraid of offending some “born again” in Salt Lake City. Wake up, we all aren’t prudes!!

To conclude, “The Black Dahlia” deceived me into thinking this was the return of De Palma to greatness. I was a fool and this film proved me one.

2 out of 5

De Palma’s Filmography (the ones I have seen)

2006 – Black Dahlia – 2 stars
2002 – Femme Fatale – 1 star
2000 – Mission to Mars – 1 star
2000 – Mission: Impossible – 3.5 stars
1998 – Snake Eyes – 2.5 stars
1993 – Carlito’s Way – 4 stars
1992 – Raising Cain – 2.5 stars
1990 – Bonfire of the Vanities – 1.5 stars
1989 – Casualties of War – 2 stars
1987 – The Untouchables – 5 stars
1986 – Wise Guys – 2 stars
1984 – Body Double – 3 stars
1983 – Scarface – 4.5 stars
1981 – Blow Out – 3 stars
1980 – Dressed to Kill – 3.5 stars
1976 – Carrie – 3.5 stars

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Gone in 60 Seconds

Hollywood producing tycoon Jerry Bruckheimer returns to the silver screen with another action film.

Putting aside the Hollywood silver lining, “Gone in 60 Seconds” is a remake of the 1974 cult classic of the same title.

The story focus is Memphis Raines (Nicolas Cage) who has to steal 50 cars in one night or a crimelord is going to kill his brother.

From the opening scene, I had a feeling of déjà vu as I shook my head. The lighting, music, and deafening sound are all staples of a “Bruckheimer” film. Within these three elements is where I found the most of my déjà vu.

Why does every outside shot of a “Bruckheimer” film have to be filmed like the sun is setting. Doesn’t anyone have a conversation outside during the day? Another element of déjà vu is when Memphis visits his old mentor (Robert Duvall). As the music montage climbed in volume and the mood was set, I waited for an original scene between the mentor and protégé.

Instead what we got was a scene taken right out of “Days of Thunder” where Tom Cruise and Robert Duvall have a symbolic talk about the majesty of a perfect racing machine. The speech wasn’t the same but the music, mood, body language and lighting were so uncanny.

Through the majority of the picture I felt sorry for Duvall who was playing the same mentor role as he has in a lot of movies. “60 Seconds” is a huge disappointment.

I don’t blame the director or the stars of this film. What made this film self-destruct was it’s script and the editing of the Bruckheimer production company. I can’t believe nobody saw how bad the dialogue is.

One perfect example of script self-destruction was the scene at the end of the film where Delroy Lindo’s cop tries to relate to Cage’s car thief by delivering this line. “I can relate to your situation and I know why you did it. A brother’s love is a brother’s love.” After he said that I scratched my head and thought, “what?”

Another disappointment was with Angelina Jolie who was only in the film five minutes and had absolutely no chemistry with Cage. This may have been the script’s fault but I at least expected some originality and chemistry during the “What’s better having sex or stealing cars?” scene.

“Gone in 60 Seconds” however does completes the action trilogy of collaborators Nicolas Cage and Jerry Bruckheimer who opened the trilogy with adrenaline packed film, “The Rock”. Will these guys team up again? I hope so. I really would like Cage to do another great action film.

Jerry Bruckheimer seems to have lost his touch as his second action film in a row has been a dud. After the huge box-office of “Armageddon”, Bruckheimer seems to be spreading himself to thin as he opens his first film of the new millenium. With the projected release of 5 more films this year from his production company, I wonder if Bruckheimer maybe has to many projects going at once.

3 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Written: June 12, 2000

Retro Review: National Treasure

Meglo-producer Jerry Bruckheimer has taken us onto a screaming asteroid, broken into Alcatraz and given us adrenaline rush after adrenaline rush.

One of Bruckheimer’s favorite leading men, Nicolas Cage takes another ride on the Bruckheimer popcorn express.

Cage first teamed with Bruckheimer on the action-thriller “The Rock” where Cage got his first taste of being a true action hero. He then returned as a “convict-with-a-heart-of-gold” in “Con-Air” and finally as a dashing car thief in “Gone in 60 Seconds”.

In Cage’s fourth collaboration with Bruckheimer we find him playing Benjamin Franklin Gates, a cursed treasure hunter who has watched generations of his family wither away as they seek out the ultimate prize. Through clues left by America’s founding fathers, the Gates legacy believed that some of America’s most prized artifacts would lead the legendary “Knight Templar’s Treasure”.

Teamed up with comic relief and techie Riley (Justin Bartha of “Gigli”) and National Archives conservator Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger of “Troy”), Gates must battle Ian Howe, a ruthless adversary (Sean Bean) and secure the key to the treasure, the American Declaration of Independence.

We all have yearned to be Indiana Jones and embark on one of his amazing adventures. With “National Treasure”, Bruckheimer and Cage try to embrace the thrills and treasure-seeking desires in their new hero, Ben Gates. The duo also connects their hero to symbols of American history as he embarks on his quest.

That was all fine until the quest becomes one that has drifted down through the ages and is now connected to the likes of the Egyptians and the Knight’s Templar. This leap is one I wasn’t about to take.

The underlying message presented in the film about American patriotism and that the world’s most capitalist state would be connected to the world’s largest treasure seems entirely goofy and almost egotistical.

Given the state of the American union currently and the re-election of George W Bush, I am not sure this film’s message is appropriate. Maybe if it was released in the mid-1980s it would have rang more true. The film itself is littered with oodles and oodles of clichés, bad dialogue and two-dimensional characters.

One perfect scene to help clarify this factor is the scene where Gates leads his crack team into the bowels of a frozen ship known as the Charlotte. Gates tips over barrels scattered about uncovering black powder. Then you have one guy say, “Gun powder”. Okay, first off we have a ship, there are cannons and the powder is black. What else could it be, coffee?

To top this all off, Gates finds the frozen dead captain of the ship holding a barrel to his chest. And Gates goes, “I wonder why the captain is holding this barrel so closely?” My quote isn’t perfect but it is just pure stupidity and blatantly obvious useless dialogue.

The film continues like this with Gates having these obvious and goofy revelations. Cage is good as Gates but his dialogue really distracted me from his performance. Kruger is once again another woman whose character loses her intelligence as soon as she is on the hunt. Why couldn’t she have been more like Rachel Weisz in the “Mummy” films?

There are some slight humorous moments and some of the heist sequences were entertaining but definitely not nail-biting. If in some magical way this film gets kids to study history great because maybe then they will look back and see just how corny this film actually is.

2 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.