Hey folks, Harry here with Copernicus in a very bad mood after seeing one complete waste of time and one that he just didn't get involved with. Poor guy. Hope today was a better day for him!

UNDERWORLD is terrible. I walked out on it. I even sat through ARMAGEDDON and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE, two of the worst movies ever made, but not this one. Don't get me wrong, it isn't over-the-top bad like ARMAGEDDON, but maybe that is worse! It isn't quite bad enough to watch in a train wreck or hillariously bad kind of sense, and it isn't good enough to hold your attention.

It is a zombie of a movie. Stuff is happening, but the soul is missing. My mind kept drifting off because the "characters" were some of the most uninteresting characters I have ever seen. There is a paragraph of introduction at the beginning of the movie about the war between the Lycans and the Vampires, but then it jumps right into the action. There is no one to root for because there is no decent dialogue, no decent acting, and not only no character development, but no characterization period! I have seen music videos with deeper characters than this -- I swear to god. Underworld is like a bad video game cut scene that you only started seeing halfway through. I think the writer and director missed the first day of film school. And not in a good way.

And don't think I was against this movie going in. I liked the trailer so much I stood in line for two hours to see the movie. Some of the visuals are interesting. It seems like there were several good people working on this project, but in the end they could not overcome the bad writing (Danny McBride), bad direction (Len Wiseman), and nonexistent acting.

I ask you this: How does a turd like this get made and marketed up the wazoo, while so many films at this festival get overlooked? I can't even write another word about this movie because I am so dispirited.

-- A very, very disappointed Copernicus

WONDERLAND

WONDERLAND is the latest in the mini-trend of asshole biopics. Like BLOW and AUTO FOCUS before it, WONDERLAND has plenty to like, though the film as a whole can never quite overcome the viewers indifference to the unsympathetic lead character. The film contributes to another mini-trend (BOOGIE NIGHTS, WADD, and an E! TRUE HOLLYWOOD STORY) -- legend-building explorations of the near-mythological porn king John Holmes, aka Johnny Wad. If you don't know while John Holmes achieved nearly godlike status, let's just say that he never needed to order a foot-long... he's always had one. And then some.

While BOOGIE NIGHTS was loosely based on the life of John Holmes, it was more epic in scope, better directed, and had far more interesting characters. WONDERLAND instead focuses on Holmes' life after his coke habit had ended his porn career and his life had fallen apart. Sorry porn fans, there is none of it to be found here, and the most famous "member" of the cast is always offscreen or in his pants.

The plot revolves around the investigation into the killing four of Holmes' acquaintances. Did he have anything to do with it? The plot structure is very RASHOMAN-esque as several characters tell their version of what happened that night at Wonderland in turn. Each version is presented as if it were the truth, so you are never quite sure who to believe. While I found that this was the most interesting aspect of the movie, one person I talked to after the movie was over found the technique so confusing that she had trouble following what was going on. I agree that the nonlinear structure sometimes makes it difficult to differentiate between "real time" and flashback, but that was an intentional device used by the director. You the viewer have to do a little bit of work to put together the pieces of the puzzle. Sometimes you will watch a scene for five minutes and not know what is going on until an iconic moment happens that you have already seen from another characters' perspective. Suddenly, the scene clicks into place in the context of the big picture, even if you aren't sure what to make of it yet.

WONDERLAND is filled with all manner of visual trickery as well. The director, James Cox seems to love the slightly ridiculous-looking speed-up effect that is so popular these days, but more interestingly he blends some scenes into newspaper headlines, even as they are still playing out. The movie makes some decent use of period music, but again falls short of BOOGIE NIGHTS in this department. Techinically the film is put together marvelously, and it is clear that the director, James Cox, has potential.

The performances mostly didn't move me either way, and here I feel the problem was more one of casting than of acting. The lead role was just screaming out for an unknown to play it -- Val Kilmer looks nothing like John Holmes, and I could never suspend my disbelief enough to believe what I was watching was anything other than Val Kilmer in a funny nose. Lisa Kudrow is fine in a serious role as Sharon Holmes, but my brain kept flashing back to "Wow, Phoebe sure is saying some weird things." Carrie Fisher gets points in my book for her small role as a Jesus freak, but again I was thinking, "What is Princess Leia doing with that Bible!" On the positive side, Kate Bosworth is great as Holmes' girlfriend Dawn Schiller (btw, she is much more attractive in real life than she is in the movie). The rest of the ensemble cast -- Josh Lucas, Tim Blake Nelson, Eric Bogosian, and Dylon McDermott all turn in fine performances, but none get enough screen time to truly stand out.

While the WONDERLAND has an intersting story told in an interesting way, you never really get invested in it because none of the characters are at all sympathetic. You really don't care what happens to any of them. With no one to root for, the disjointed narrative, and the difficulty of suspending disbelief when Val Kilmer is onscreen, you never get sucked into the movie. It is if you are watching an excercise in filmmaking -- an interesting one -- but one that ultimately leaves you feeling alienated.

COPERNICUS