"A charming drifter and sometime-thief named Jack Ryan (Wilson) takes a job that involves caring for an ailing Hawaiian judge, Walter Crewes (Freeman), which leads him to getting involved with a beautiful woman (Sara Foster) with a criminal agenda. She's the lover of a real estate tycoon, Ray Ritchie (Gary Sinise), who has plans to corrupt Hawaiian traditions with the construction of a new North Shore hotel, and who's also a long-time business rival of Crewes.

"As Jack finds the multiple layers of intrigue unfolding, he finds himself having to choose between a woman who has seduced him [and] wants his help in stealing a fortune from Ritchie, and his loyalty to the judge."

This doesn't sound up to the calibre of "A Tale of Two Cities," but it does sound like an amiable, intriguing Elmore Leonard-type vehicle...no? It could, if transferred to the screen with any kind of craft and proletariat panache, serve as the basis for a laid-back caper flick that grooves along and is good for some laughs and maybe some loosey-goosey acting.

Except the movie, ostensibly directed by the well-respected George Armitage (helmer of a pair of first-rate, character-driven crime films, MIAMI BLUES and GROSSE POINTE BLANK), follows the Leonard (or Schmitz) synopsis only sporadically -- lackadaisically is the word -- and is pretty much a total shambles.

Okay, it's got some likable material here and there. It feels like a real "island movie" -- everyone is playing it real slow and easy and just taking in the vibe. I don't know where Sara Foster came from, but she looks nice in a bikini, and Freeman is always a welcome presence, no matter how shitty the film. And it's got a scene with Harry Dean Stanton and Willie Nelson sitting around playing poker with Wilson and Freeman. (And the studio paid them to do this...to sit around and goof off.)

And it's got Wilson doing his usual shtick, which is why he's a kind of movie star because he does the same thing every time. In every damn movie Wilson shows up in ("acts in" or even "appears in" sounds a little too purposeful), he seems to be saying to himself, "Okay...I'm here...very cool...and there are some lights on and cameras running and all these actors standing around saying lines. Yeah, okay....hey, what if I say some lines back at them? I'm in a movie, right? "

But BOUNCE doesn't even cut together at times. Situations aren't even set up properly (i.e., so you can understand who's doing what to whom, and why). There's a Lubitsch-like farcical scene with Foster running back and forth between two guys she's supposed to be "taking care of" that completely falls apart. And it's all...aww, forget it.

It was clear to me that the version I saw last Tuesday evening had obviously been edited under the gun in a state of desperation by someone other than Armitage. It's too messy and spazzy. A proven director couldn't have intended this.

My guess is that Armitage went for the Leonard personality stuff and maybe overdid it a bit and it tested poorly, and so Warner Bros. took it away from him in post and brought in some stooge to come in and cut it together in a more studio-conventional, whammy-beat fashion.

Elmore Leonard was asked a week or so ago by the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER's David Hiltbrand what he thought of the Armitage film. At first he said, "I can't comment," but then he said, "I can't figure out what it's about...they keep cutting away to surfers, which has nothing to do with the story."

I called everyone I know on the food chain (friends and colleagues of Armitage, mostly) to see if this film was in fact re-cut by the studio. Two well-positioned sources told me they'd heard that "something happened" either during the shoot or in post-production (apart from Armitage having suffered some kind of medical problem during the shoot, which apparently caused a two-week shutdown) that may have usurped or in some way compromised his authority. But no one in a position to know would admit to anything. Circle the wagons!

In any case, THE BIG BOUNCE is a rank embarrassment for all concerned, which is why I completely understand why the Warner Bros. tip sheet that was sent out for last night's (Thursday's) Westwood premiere didn't make the claim that Wilson or Armitage would attend. It did say, however, that Luke Wilson, Owen's brother, would show.

60 Films That Count

'04 is four weeks gone and I've only just taken a hard look at what's to come. It's all in the all-new '04 Oscar Balloon, but I'm guesstimating that at least 60 films will be worth at least half a tumble this year. A certain portion (around 8, give or take) might turn out to be studio-CGI crap, another chunk will disappoint for this or that reason, and a third group might be postponed into '05.

But even if you lop off 15 or so that still leaves 40 to 45 good 'uns, or somewhere between three and four grabbers per month. And that means a better-than-pretty-good year.

I'm counting 9 films that seem to have the chops coming out in the first quarter (Jan. to March), 20 in the second quarter (April to June), 7 in the third quarter (July through September) and 24 in the fourth quarter (October to December). Here's three-quarters of the rundown, with the final quarter to be summarized next Wednesday.

January, February and March -- 9

TOUCHING THE VOID (IFC Films -- January 23rd), but what is it...a documentary, a docu-drama or what? Whatever it is, it's a f***ing great film; THE DREAMERS (Fox Searchlight - 2.6.04), which I've seen twice and been taken with both times; THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (Newmarket - 2.25.04), with a promise of lotsa blood and savage beatings, and a healthy dose of good ole religious porn; ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (Focus Features -- 3.19.04), which I've read and is clearly imaginative and about an emotional current we're all familiar with; INTERMISSION (IFC Films -- 3.19.04), a gritty little Irish multi-character thing; Kevin Smith's JERSEY GIRL (Miramax - 3.19.04), which I've been saying all along is based on a solid script (which I read eons ago), despite the Bennifer crap, which thank goodness is now null and void; DOGVILLE (Lions Gate -- 3.26.04), starkly original, blistering, unmissable; THE LADYKILLERS (Disney/Touchstone -- 3.26.04), a remake of the Ealing Studios classic by the Coen Brothers, with Tom Hanks in the Alec Guiness role; and MONSIEUR IBRAMIM (Sony Pictures Classics), the first allegedly good film starring Omar Sharif since I can't remember when, coming out...I don't know, sometime soon.

April, May, June -- 20

HELLBOY (Revolution/Sony -- 4.2.04), which has to be at least semi-formidable since the great Guillermo del Toro is directing; THE ALAMO (Disney/Touchstone -- 4.9.04), which was deemed not strong enough to compete against the year-end heavies, but with John Lee Hancock at the helm and an above-average script it can't be a wash; BIRTH (New Line - April or thereabouts), which has a novel premise and a proven above-average director -- SEXY BEAST's Jonathan Glazer -- at the reins; I'M NOT SCARED (Miramax -- 4.9.04), a worthy Italian film from Gabriele Salvatores, and a Golden Bear nominee; KILL BILL, VOL. 2 (Miramax - 4.16.04), which everyone will probably make a point of seeing (...right?); VAN HELSING (Universal, 5.7.04), a.k.a. THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY MONSTERS, and carrying a huge negative in the form of director Stephen Sommers, whose MUMMY movies have left a gravy stain that can't be removed or forgotten.

TROY (Warner Bros. -- 5.14.03), ancient-era aggression from Wolfgang Petersen, with Brad Pitt as a Greek warrior with a certain anatomical vulnerability; THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (20th Century Fox, 5.28.04), which gives every indication of being a total CG ride, which is to say "be careful"; THE STEPFORD WIVES (Paramount -- 6.1.04), which I was down on until I heard it was a comedy - now I'm stoked; HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (Warner Bros., 6.4.04 ), the first post-pubescent chapter may be a tiny bit better than the previous ones due to director Alfonso Cuaron's influence; OPEN WATER (Lions Gate - early summer '04), which could use some newly-shot footage to punch up the suspense in the third act, but is still fairly creepy and scary.

THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK (Universal, 6.11.04), the long-awaited return of Vin Diesel and David Twohy...garlands for the conquerors; SPY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW (Paramount, 6.11.04), which a friend has seen a taste of, and is said to have kick-ass CG content...great; AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS (Paramount, 6.16.04), with Jackie Chan and all kinds of travelogue action shit; THE TERMINAL (DreamWorks -- 6.18.04), the script of which I can't seem to finish ; BEFORE SUNSET (Warner Independent Pictures -- 6.25.04), Richard Linklater's sequel to BEFORE SUNRISE, with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy; SPIDER- MAN 2 (Columbia, 7.2.04); KING ARTHUR (Touchstone/ Disney, 7.7.04) - sure thing.....zzzzz...; I, ROBOT (20th Century Fox, 7.16.04) -- Will Smith, big-studio, pandering; CATWOMAN (Warner Bros., 7.30.04) -- zero interest...blaah.

July, August, September -- 7

A HOME AT THE END OF THE WORLD (Warner Independent Pictures -- 7.23.04), a decade-spanning saga of "trials, triumphs, loves and losses" among friends, with Colin Farrell, Robin Wright-Penn, Sissy Spacek and Dallas Roberts (who?); THE VILLAGE (Disney/Touchstone -- 7.30.04), story about scary creatures lurking in the woods, from M. Night Shyamalan; COLLATERAL (DreamWorks -- 8.6.04), a high-voltage Michael Mann urban thriller about an assassin (Tom Cruise) going from job to job in a cab; perhaps lacking the gravitas of HEAT; FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (Miramax -- August '04), Michael Moore's anti-Bush doc, timed to (hopefully) influence the election; BAD EDUCATION (Sony Classics - late summer or fall '04), from Pedro Almodovar,starring Gael Garcia Bernal; SEPTEMBER TAPES (First Look Media -- late summer or fall 04), which I saw and liked at Sundance ; and ALIEN VS. PREDATOR (20th Century Fox, 8.6.04), which ought to at least be a hoot.

(Part 2 -- the final quarter - runs on Wednesday, 2.4 )

Two Messages

"What is the message beautiful actresses send when they take a part where they are asked to 'get ugly,' but when they appear in public they play to the libido and tantalize to the nines?

"We've seen Hillary Swank do it with BOYS DON'T CRY. Now here's Charlize Theron, who decided to go 'ugly, 'use her acting chops, and look like a car wreck for a star-making turn in MONSTER. At the same time, she's been saying to the press over and over again that all she gets are these scripts for the 'babe' role. OK, that's a tough road and one hopes she'll take a higher road now that she's got this MONSTER recognition.

"But then she's showing up everywhere looking like, well, a super-babe. She is totally naked in this week's NEW YORKER photo and looks amazingly gorgeous.

"What's the message she is sending? 'I'm an incredible looking woman, and I've been playing babes for years, so I did one movie where I look like the cat dragged me in but I got to show off my real acting chops. But don't you forget, I am STILL a babe and I'm going to wear expensive, revealing clothing and pose nude.'

"Should an actress who wants to be known for the acting abilities that MONSTER gave her the opportunity to show off still be off flaunting her unsubtle babeness, even though she ostensibly doesn't want those roles anymore? -- Drew Kerr

Wells to Kerr: Theron is saying to those who've seen MONSTER, don't get the idea that I look like Aileen Wournos in any way, shape or form in real life, or that I have weight or bad-skin issues or anything like that.

She knows that films like MONSTER and Wournos-type roles only come along once in a blue moon, and that her bread-and-butter income depends on her being attractive and babelicious. She may not "say" that in so many words to the press, but she's obviously conveying this awareness in the NEW YORKER photo.

You could also say she's conveying in that photo that she's deeply naked and exposed, so to speak, in the company of MONSTER director Patty Jenkins, which is to say her portrayal of Ms. Wournos exposes a great deal of the real Charlize, or at least that Charlize put a great deal of effort and heart into emotional exposure into becoming Aileen.

Gwen Stefani vs. Third Reich

"If you go to the Holocaust Museum, there are Third Reich pamphlets that show how you can separate pure Aryans from the mongrel races just by comparing their facial features. Your comparison of the physical characteristics separating Gwen Stefani and Jean Harlow reminded me of those. Have a nice day." -- Nancy Numberface

Wells to Numberface: So I'm a Hollywood Nazi, huh?

Trust me -- astute casting directors do consider the inadvisability of casting someone from a certain ethnic gene pool to play someone from another ethnic gene pool. Specific types exist....I know that's an upsetting notion in and of itself, and we should all just fuck each other until we're all the same shape and color (a line from BULWORTH), but people do come from different tribes, and their appearances do indicate this....sorry.

Let's say Oliver Stone wants to cast, say, P. Diddy (Puff Daddy, Sean Puffy, Papa-diddy-pop) as one of Alexander's Macedonian generals, or perhaps as his Persian opponent Darius, and his casting director says, "Uhm, hold on, Oliver. Darius was a tall, striking, olive-skinned Persian... and he wasn't even a tiny bit African American, so that's not a very good idea." That casting director should...what?....go out and buy a swatztika arm band?

If someone said let's hire Drew Carey (funny guy) to play Jack Benny (another funny guy), and someone else said, uhhm, he's not really the right type...not Benny-ish as much as Fatty Arbuckle-ish, and too Irish...that person would be considered an oppressor of the calorically-challenged?" -- Regards, Major Heinrich Strasser, Commandant, Afrika Corps.

Sharks!

"In your piece about DreamWorks' SHARK TALE, you wrote, 'I think the idea in sending the toy shark around to journalists is to prompt someone like me to raise this issue, and for everyone to subsequently think about it and get used to the idea of cute wise-guy sharks, so by the time the movie comes out nine months from now everyone will have gotten past the flesh-swallowing.'

"Yeah, or maybe they're hoping everybody who sees the movie will realize that THEY'RE ANIMATED SHARKS! I'm sorry to play connect-the-dots, but who the hell cares whether they're sharks or not? It's just a funny way of telling a story and likely using sharks due to the more than obvious parallels between SHARKS and the real MAFIA. If you were being at all sarcastic in your comments, I obviously missed it." -- Rudy Regehr

Wells to Regehr: Real, animated or somewhere-in-between, sharks are not funny or cute or amusing or anything else along those lines. They're SHARKS, and they'll eat or maim the shit out of you as soon as look at you. Tell me -- where is the mirth, snappy attitude or knee-slapping humor in that?"

Regehr back to Wells: "I'm hoping you're joking again...THEY'RE NOT REAL! No one thinks they're real! If they were real sharks, you'd be correct. Real sharks aren't cute, but they don't talk either. This is where you separate animated sharks from real sharks. Jeez, you'd almost think you secretly believe that somewhere in the world there's a sponge wearing pants and living at the bottom of the ocean. How can someone who watches films for a living have no imagination?

Wells back to Regehr: Audiences generally bring associations, not imaginations, when they go to see movies. They go to theatres to receive, not create. If the associations lend themselves to the fantasy being sold, or at least don't strenuously argue with it, fine.

Would you buy into an animated feature about a hapless boa constrictor dealing with love and rejection as he slithers around the jungle squeezing the life out of his victims?

How about one about a super-stinky, jive-talkin', deadly-bacteria-loaded Komodo Dragon with self-esteem problems who falls for the wife of his best friend?

Would you enjoy an animated drama about a gang of teenaged Piranhas who can't accept that life is only about nipping the flesh off animals who wade into the river where they hang out, and who want to break free and see what adventures are in store if they can only make it down the river and into the Shangri-la of Lake Victoria?

Would you buy a Disney or DreamWorks animated feature about the son of powerful, species-ruling Zebra who sounds and acts like George Bush, Jr.? The story would be about how he's initially only into hanging with his rich Zebra homies, but then he finds the courage to follow in his departed father's footsteps and eventually leads Zebra Nation in a holy war against the Wildebeest tribe that his father almost went after during his reign, etc.?

Would you buy an animated flick about Jesus Christ and John the Baptist forming a gay criminal gang in ancient Judea and running around selling weed, buggering young boys and maybe offing the occasional Roman tribune to stay cool with the zealots? No? Why not? It's just a movie and it's all made-up stuff, so what's the problem?

Shut Up!

"Is it just me or is this the 200th column you've wrote telling us you don't like LOST IN TRANSLATION and LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING? We get the fucking picture, Jeff...you hate them. We know this. Reminding us doesn't change a thing. It doesn't rally the anti-RINGS and anti-Sofia campaigns. The Globes and Oscar noms proves your attempt to sabotage these movies has had no affect. Are you ever going to change the subject?

"Anyway, Oscar didn't hate them. The Globes didn't hate them. ROTK was nominated by every single guild. The top two movies on Critics Top Ten are...drumroll, please... LOST IN TRANSLATION and RETURN OF THE KING. It also takes a certain amount of likability and repeat business for three movies in a trilogy to barge past the $850 million mark. Brainwashing only goes so far... just look at the MATRIX REVOLUTIONS gross. Bill Murray and Sofia have been cleaning up critics awards like its none of their business, so perhaps your opinion isn't worth shit, eh?" -- Clavin9

Wells to Clavin9: It was Oscar nomination day, so getting into this stuff again was permissible. My key point about RETURN OF THE KING is that the Movie Gods, who see all and will always know all, will have the final judgement. All I said about LOST IN TRANSLATION was, how much of Murray's material do you think Sofia actually wrote?

Property Values

"I'm a Republican and a LORD OF THE RINGS fan, so needless to say I'm finding myself increasingly disenfranchised by your column. That said, I can deal with the LOTR slings and arrows because I love reading your opinions about movies and the Hollywood scene. But I have plenty of other columns I read when I'm interested in political commentary. So please, less politics and more movies. Thank you." -- T. D., Springfield, VA.

Wells to T.D.: A Republican and a RINGS fan? Does that mean you rooted for the Orcs during the battle scenes? Those ancient castle cities had enormous potential real-estate value, don't you think? If an enterprising property investor could get his or her hands on them they could be sub-divided and developed into separate Viggo Mortensen- and elf-sized condo units, and the investor and his partners could really make a killing, no? I mean, as long as local taxes aren't too high and local politicians are open to being greased.

Primaries

"'I'm a Dean man myself.' Isn't that what you said recently? Now you're a Kerry man. Sounds like you're more of a Beat Bush man. That's exactly why not one of these seven losers have a chance of beating Bush. The whole campaign of the Democratic nominee will be based on hatred of Bush. That plays in Los Angeles and on the East Coast, but that's not going to win 218 electoral votes.

"Name one state that a Massachusetts liberal Senator without any major Congressional accomplishments is going to win that Bush won in 2000, keeping in mind that its very likely Bush will pick up one or two of Gore's states.

"I think we should all just get it out of our heads right now that someone else besides Bush is going to be President for the next 5 years, because it's not going to happen. -- Ryan, Sacramento, CA.

Wells to Ryan: I'm leaning toward Kerry like everyone else because I really don't think Dean, as smart and right-on as he generally is, can sell himself to the red-staters and the people who were freaked by the scream speech. Are you telling me the NEWSWEEK poll that has Kerry beating Bush by 2 points is unreliable? How do you know that? How do you know that's not a credible indicator?

"That NEWSWEEK poll you referred to in today's column that had Kerry beating Bush by three percent is meaningless. They surveyed not 'likely voters,' not 'registered voters,' but 'adults' -- a group that historically skews much, much more Democratic than the actual voters on election day. No one who knows anything about survey research takes that poll seriously as an indicator of anything. Citing it reveals that you're in over your head when you try to play pundit. Next time you really ought to do a little homework.

"Mark my words -- Kerry's a cold fish who'll be lucky to win 10 or 12 states in the fall. It's been 44 years since a senator (not to a mention a liberal from New England) won the White House. John Edwards is the one guy who'd actually give Bush a run for his money; sadly, he's an extreme long shot at this point. With Kerry, this'll be 1996 all over again -- he's Bob Dole without the wit.

"Time to put aside the wishful thinking and face facts, my friend. We're headed for a blowout. Love the column! " -- Bill Danielson

Differences

"Being as how your political opinion is of no interest to me, please remove me from your mailing list." -- Martin Hart, c/o American Widescreen Museum (i.e., the coolest and most knowledgable web site anywhere about the particularities of the widescreen viewing experience, from 1.85 to Vista Vision to CinemaScope, from three-camera Cinerama to Dimension 150 and Super Panavision 70).

Wells to Hart: You're a right-winger, Martin? A Bush supporter? I'm shocked ...hurt, really. And you have all those half-naked girls on your site!

Hart back to Wells: My appreciation of [women] has nothing to do with my political views. And that's what Bill Clinton, the famous liberal, once said.

Lure of the Rings

"I know we've just about beaten this thing to death, and I don't have any wild aspirations of changing your mind on the subject of Peter Jackson's big opus. But your column has made me think a lot about why I like the trilogy so much, especially since, for the most part, I agree with you about the black-and-white depiction of good and evil. I was emotionally floored by the ambiguity of the characters in 21 GRAMS, and ROTK has none of that (with the more simplistic exception of Golum).

"And yet, watching the final installment, there was a moment when I choked up. Not at the end, or during the second ending, or the third. It was during the battle, one of those big aerial shots of the thousands of marching Orcs and the dragons dive-bombing this fortress carved out of the side of a mountain. I felt that sense of wonder and amazement that I haven't felt since I was a kid, and it was stronger than I remembered. I never thought that I would see such an image, so carefully rendered, so real. It captured all my childhood fantasies of dragons, magic, kings, and monsters.

"The closest any other movie has come to achieving that same feeling is the first full shot of the dinosaurs in JURASSIC PARK. However I felt about the rest of the film, I'll always remember the way my jaw dropped when I saw that brontosaurus rear back on its legs and take a bite out of a tree. Maybe that's just spectacle, and not the stuff Oscars are made of. But GODZILLA didn't have the same effect on me, and that was just spectacle too.

"Anyway, I just feel like nine hours of film is worth it even for just one moment that reminds me of a time when I wasn't struggling with the moral ambiguities of adult life, when I knew there were good guys and bad guys, and, in my imaginings, at least, I was one of the good guys. That's my two cents, anyway. " -- Vik Weet, Los Angeles.

Wells to Weet: Nicely put.

"At one point you at least had a grudging respect for the care and effort that went into LOTR. Have you abandoned this as well? Surely a few plum Oscar awards wouldn't be inappropriate for one of the biggest and most successful gambles in Hollywood history?" -- Todd Dupler

Wells to Dupler: The monetary success of the RINGS franchise deserves a smart salute. I've acknowledged this two or three times. The care and effort that went into these films is obviously considerable. Jackson, as I wrote a while back, "kicks the shit out of those battle scenes."

Perplexed

"Everyone I know who has seen LOST IN TRANSLATION, myself included, cannot understand the hoopla around it. Yes, it has some nice, quiet moments, but it's way too long (please cut out the Japanese travelogue) and simply not very interesting-- except for the Bill Murray moments. He does do a terrific job -- and most of his dialogue was obviously his. But it's frustrating to hear the drums being beaten about how wonderful it is. It ain't!

"I think people are giving so much support to it because it is different, it's a Coppola, and it's a statement that small films are to be supported rather than just the loud teenage blockbuster types. I agree with that perspective because I too want small films to succeed. However, there were much better (in my opinion) small films, like AMERICAN SPLENDOR, which I expected to be okay and found to be terrific. " -- Ariana Sarris

"I also agree that the LOST IN TRANSLATION screenplay Golden Globe award and Oscar nomination are uppercuts to all hardworking screenwriters everywhere. There really wasn't a script there. What was good about it was its un-scriptness, its visual poetry thing, its vibe. What a joke! Personally, I think that DIRTY PRETTY THINGS should win. " -- Fran Davis, Principal Partner/Director of Interactive Design, Mica Media.

Dean and Orwell Effect

"In your 1.23.04 column you wrote about "the increasing uniformity and lack of diversity that's resulted in their coverage of major stories and issues" that is the subject of Robert Kane Pappas' ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE.

"I completely agree with this. Every morning all the news shows show the same stories, and I mean exactly the same stories at the same time, and they repeat the same thing over and over again. I have stopped watching all news shows because this has become such an annoyance. Plus it's not just the news networks -- the same syndrome is in the newspapers as well.

"The only place where you can find important news (I consider most things reported by the mainstream media to be unimportant) is on the internet. However, with the mergers going on in that world, that will probably end pretty soon as well. I am the last person who thinks that everything in Europe is better than in the U.S. but even I have to admit that their coverage of news events is more global than what one finds in the U.S. Of course, this only happens in the outlets not owned by the Murdoch family.

"What made me write this mail, and bring up this subject, is the Dean Scream. It has been covered repeatedly and still shows no sign of dying. I mean when does it stop being news?

"The problem I believe is exactly what ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE seems to be saying. All news outlets are owned by a limited number of corporations and are profit centers. News cannot afford to be incisive anymore and that was its main purpose to begin with. Sad, very sad." -- Hanif Aamir. "P.S. - That Charlize Theron picture from the NEW YORKER is super cool."