From the files of

CHRISTIAN SAUVÉ

Don't say we didn't warn you

• Home
• About
• Writings
• Reviews
• Links
• Search
• Contract
• Français

MOVIE REVIEWS

1997

1997-2002, Christian Sauvé

The Internet Movie Database says: (As of January 2004)

And I say (In alphabetical order):

ABSOLUTE POWER (1997, Thriller): Good actors, suspicious plotting, bad ending and way too long. Difficult to be excited over the tale of a recluse thief who witness a scuffle ending in death involving the President, his mistress and two Secret Service agents. One or two good scenes, the remainder is an exercise in doing-something-else-while- the-movie-plays-out. (On Video, August 1997)

AFFLICTION (1997, Drama) is the story of a man's slow and inevitable descent in insanity and violence. It's not a feel-good movie; there is no redemption. (Though there's a car chase) Call me crazy, but I prefer happy endings. On the other hand, the performances are top-notch and the direction surprisingly interesting at a few moments. I also, for some reason, really liked Willem Dafoe's narration and character. If you're able to distinguish between enjoyment and appreciation, you'll find that this is a very good movie, but that you probably won't watch it again for fun. Not exactly a good date movie. (Oh, and it's perfectly clear that no one in the production of the movie knows anything about sub-zero winter and snow; just watch Nolte and Defoe try to shovel the garage driveway. Hilarious!) (In theaters, May 1999)

AIR FORCE ONE (1997, Action): Harrison Ford is perfect as a butt-kicking president in this good -but not great- thriller. When terrorists take over Air Force One, it's to the president himself to kill the bad guys and free his family. Will he survive automatic weapons, the White House switchboard, shoddy dialogue and three climaxes? (Cinematic climaxes, not the other kind.) Average performances from the rest of the actors, the directing is fine, the special effects are okay but the editing could have been better, and the film shorter. The script, however, needs an overhaul: One villain's motivation (or absence thereof) is especially irritating and the president overtly betrays his own ideals in a scene quickly glossed over. Jingoistic flag-waving makes parts of this movie ridiculous to non-US audiences. A worthy video rental, but you might want to rent EXECUTIVE DECISION again for a (slightly) better big-plane thriller. (In theaters, July 1997)

ALIEN: RESURRECTION (ALIEN 4, 1997, SF/ Action): Given the near-classical status of the two first movies of the ALIEN series and the widespread loathing of the third segment, it won't be a surprise if chapter 4 fits somewhere between those opposites. More of a film version of the Dark Horse comics than a satisfying extension of the series, ALIEN 4 manages to be relatively entertaining, but not enough to be fully liked. The biggest flaw of the movie is that it introduces a few new concepts to the saga, but does so in typical stupid Hollywood action movie fashion (where a character can use two right-angle ricochets to hit a villain through a helmet, and other assorted physically impossible antics). Oh, and the ending sucks... even though "sucks" here is as much a statement of fact than opinion. (In Theaters, November 1997)

ALIEN: RESURRECTION (1997, Science-Fiction): When discussing the flaws of the ALIEN series, most will spend their time rehabilitating ALIEN 3. I'd rather champion this film, an uneven and disappointing entry that nevertheless contains ten time the action, interest and humour of the third entry. Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet would go on to write and direct AMELIE, but his quirky sense of humour and his impeccable eye for style is already on full display here, as he plays around with the Alien mythology, brings it further in the future and generally has a good time. There are a number of terrific visuals in the film, and a few good dialogue scenes. It's a shame, then, that the third act is so atrocious, that the action scenes are so improbable, that the humour isn't a bit more reigned in or that Sigourney Weaver was allowed to have such an influence on the production. I was never able to shake the odd feeling that this was a live-action adaptation of a Dark Horse comics, but no matter; I still find something worthwhile in this film, warts and all. The "Alien Quadrilogy" box-set special edition includes a fair number of supplemental material, including a "special edition" with better bookends and a number of added dialogue lines. The documentary featurettes are a bit disappointing, failing to offer a complete overview of the film production. A fair audio commentary completes the material. (Second viewing) (On DVD, May 2005)

AUSTIN POWERS (1997, Comedy): "Groovy, baby!" are the two last words of AUSTIN POWERS's credits, and they describe the film quite well. An outrageous mix of sixties parody and very nineties comedy, the movie gains a lot from the presence of Mike Myers. Sure, it's not exactly well-balanced nor completely successful, but the overall tone is so original (if this can be said of a parody) that it hits more than it misses. The character of Austin Powers himself will probably remain a part of my imagination forever. Yeah, baby, yeah! (On video, June 1998)

BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997, Fantasy): If someone with only a superficial knowledge of -and no particular affection for- comics books set out to do a big-big-big budget blockbuster, s/he probably wouldn't do worse than Joel Shumaker's BATMAN AND ROBIN. Let's get all the positive out of the way first: The set design is fabulous, and none of the actors really embarrass themselves with the material they're given. The rest of the film is pure trash. The scenario makes no attempt to be smarter than the average adult's worst prejudices about comic books they never read. The dialogue is almost uniquely composed of one-liners, and they're so lame that the audience laughs at them, not with them. The direction shows occasional blips of interest, but usually seems unaccountably off by some ill-defined degree. The film is shot in one of the most garish, less visually attractive neon-on-black colour scheme you'll ever see. Subplots abound, and strangle each other in an effort to get some recognition. But in all its awfulness, BATMAN AND ROBIN attains some kind of bad-movie nirvana of compulsive watchability. How worse can it become, after its first moronic fifteen minutes? Not much, but you can't stop watching. A surefire candidate for a home-grown group MST3K session. (On TV, March 2000)

Note to Paul T. Anderson, director of BOOGIE NIGHTS (1997, Drama): You frickin' show-off. Okay, so you can write and direct a pretty good film about the porn industry in the late seventies/early eighties. Sure, you can coax exceptional performances from your actors. Great, so you can move the camera like a god and make us say "Damn, we've found a new auteur!" But next time you do a film, why don't you remember that brevity is... wit? Why don't you take another pass at that script, and remove those little scenes that leads nowhere and do nothing? Why don't you tell your actors to stop playing to the camera? Why don't you hire a good editor, one who could tighten your self-indulgences to something approaching narrative unity? Do that, and we'll love you. Otherwise, you'll get worse and worse, and MAGNOLIA isn't a step in the right direction. Even geniuses directors need some good direction. (On Video, June 2000)

BREAKDOWN (1997, Thriller): In an industry often incompetent enough to be unable to turn out decent product, it's a refreshing change to see a perfectly good thriller so well-done. No earth-shattering villains, no save-the-world histrionics; just an ordinary guy looking for his wife, and battling plain blue-collar baddies. The pacing is superb, the direction is surprisingly competent and Kurt Russell turns in a fine performance. Though not without significant plot flaws (relying too much on coincidences in the first half-hour), BREAKDOWN remains a superior, unassuming little thriller done strictly according to the rules of the genre. And that's more than good enough. (On TV, September 1999)

BREAKING UP (1997, Romantic "Comedy"): It's hard to see where a romantic comedy could go wrong while featuring Russell Crowe and Salma Hayek on-screen for nearly 95% of its duration. The answer is that romantic comedies are supposed to be funny, and romantic. This one isn't. Like so many independent films, BREAKING UP wants to be different, and its idea of different is to foreshadow a break-up for 90 minutes, and then have it happen. Insert cries of disbelief from the audience. Not only is it unsatisfying in itself (everyone loves a happy ending), but it also pretty much makes the whole film feel useless. Fortunately, two or three things save the film from total collapse: The lead actors are completely adorable as their respective archetypes, the writing is decent and the direction has very good moments. But be prepared for one downer of a conclusion. (On Video, May 2001)

CHASING AMY (1997, Comedy) is an in-your-face comedy about sex, but it's far, far better than the inanities of PORKY, AMERICAN PIE and other raunchy teen-oriented films. A frank look at the problems of sex (as opposed as to its attractiveness), CHASING AMY mines lesbianism, attraction, jealousy, male and female priorities, love, friendship and naturally presents the whole structure as being insanely unstable. It feels real, but it's also hilarious... in a carthatic sense. The real strength of the film is the script and the acting, since writer/director Kevin Smith is almost mortally afraid of moving the camera or trying out any fancy cinematographic technique. A shame, because this flat directing actually distracts from the movie itself. (The strongly-directed scenes, like the rainy reunion and the record-shop discussion, stand out almost because of the better-than-static direction) Still, CHASING AMY is more than worth a look. For mature audiences only! (On TV, December 1999)

CON AIR: (1997, Action) Now that's an action movie. Brought to screens by the same team that produced last year's exceptional THE ROCK, CON AIR uses the same rapid-fire editing/directing, omnipresent explosions and crowd-pleasing techniques that made last year's Connery/Cage vehicle so successful. While less likable than THE ROCK, CON AIR is still two hours of pulse-pounding fun. It's surprisingly satisfying and entertaining from the first to the last minute. Made specifically for the action crowd, CON AIR succeeds admirably well at its self-imposed goals. Other audiences need not apply. (In Theaters, June 1997)

CONSPIRACY THEORY (1997, Thriller): Now what was that? A comedy? It's too dark for that. A thriller? Not a very effective one. A vehicle for Gibson's penchant for weird characters? Not a bad... theory. In any case, this is a seriously misguided film, with mismatching comedic/dramatic tones, a TAXI DRIVER opening and boring-stock-thriller finale. Sure, Gibson is fine and Julia Roberts is cute, but the script oscillate between silly and lame, with shameless pandering to the "National Enquirer" crowd (again; a comedy?) and interesting threads dropped midway through what's already a very very long script. A considerable disappointment, and not really an entertaining one. (On TV, March 2000)

CONTACT (1997, Science-Fiction) A better movie than the book. A smart summer flick. A motion picture where the science at least tries to be exact. A smart, beautiful, atheist heroine. The good news are that CONTACT is the purest, hardest science-fiction movie... ever. The bad news is that it's very good, but not great. As much as I wanted to love the movie, at best I could only really like it. As expected, there was too much of a senseless debate on science versus religion. (With no clear winner according to the movie... but it had to cheat badly to do so: The senate hearing scene at the end is completely boffo. I was busy coming up with hard arguments against the "theory" while Ellie's character simply followed the screenwriter's direction to play dumb as not to ruin the movie's point.) It's no 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but 2001 is the only motion picture it can be compared to. But never mind what the movie does wrong. What's more important is what the movie does right. An exceptional female protagonist. A blind astronomer. Savvy movie-making. Stunning "invisible" digital effects. A solid grasp of science. Effortless scientific vulgarization. In short, smart (if misguided) SF. Zemeckis has managed the proverbial good science-fiction movie. For this only, I am in awe. CONTACT is a solid contender for the Oscars. While I would have rather have had seen THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, it is comforting to think that at least, CONTACT has been made. (In theaters, July 1997)

CUBE (1997, Science-Fiction): The traditional cliché about cheap (or Canadian, which this movie is) Science-Fiction is that due to budget restrictions, you usually end up with a few actors, fewer sets and even fewer special effects. CUBE ends up exemplifying this by having seven actors, less that two sets and a Very Big Light. (It was shot for $300,000 in twenty days in a Toronto warehouse) Even more surprising, it almost works. The script is pretty bad (ordinary dialogue, stock characters do stupid things for unknown reasons, lousy logic, unlikely coincidences, etc...) but the film is well-done, and starts off with an intriguing premise. Unfortunately, it belongs to the dark-and-dreary school of pseudo-artistic SF, so don't expect to be uplifted by this. Not entirely unpleasant, no, but far from being very good. SPOILER - AVOID - SPOILER: I really hate it when the idiot survives and the only sympathetic characters in the cast all die just as the Happy Ending is dangled in front of our nose. "and then they all die" is not artistically superior to a happy ending. Cripes. (In theaters, September 1998)

THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE (1997, Fantasy): Now that's a pretty good film. I was struck, halfway through, by how well all the subplots seemed to come together, like a good novel. (It *is* an adaptation...) There's a lot of symbolism too, both of the smack-on-the-head-obvious to the ooh-subtle variety. But beyond that, you get good direction, great performances by Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino (who tears through his role with relish, especially during the last fifteen minutes), a snappy pacing despite the almost-three-hours runtime and a memorable finale. It's kind of a shame that said finale doesn't make too much sense in retrospect, or that nothing *more* is done with the central premise, but when it's so well-done, who can complain? Plus, it would be unfair not to mention the high babe-factor of the film, which shows nearly all the female stars in more-or-less complete nudity at one point or another. (Most of them are worth it.) Not a great film by any means, but quite an enjoyable video treat. (On video, February 2000)

DONNIE BRASCO (1997, Crime Drama), as the story of an undercover cop seduced by lure of gangster life, struggles in the shadow of Scorsese's GOODFELLAS and CASINO, but manages to hold its own. No, it's not near as good as these films are, but then again few films are. What you get, instead, is a moderately entertaining mob story with occasional moments. The ending is relatively abrupt, though. (On TV, March 2000)

DOUBLE TEAM (1997, Action): The unlikely pairing of Dennis Rodman and Jean-Claude van Damme would at first appear to be an exercise in cinematic awfulness critical mass. But DOUBLE TEAM ends up, strangely, as a curiously enjoyable piece of "guilty pleasure" B-cinema. Helping out is the effective direction of HK-expatriate Tsui Hark, who knows how to film an action scene. Otherwise, the script offers enough logical howlers and missing scenes to elicit gales of hilarity. Watch out for the deux-ex-Coke-machina ending! Not enough is done with Rodman's character, but hey—at least he doesn't embarrass himself. (On video, September 1999)

EVENT HORIZON (1997, SF/Horror): The first 10-20 minutes of this scary, stylish thriller include some of the best visuals ever seen in the SF genre. After oscillating between ALIEN, SOLARIS, THE SHINING and HELLRAISER, the movie then goes firmly into the last's territory, with all the nonsensical bloodbaths (literally) that presupposes. Definitely scary and unsettling, yes, but also very unsatisfying in it uneasy mix of Hard SF and shlocko horror: Who's the bad guy? Satan himself! Effective direction by MORTAL KOMBAT alumni Paul Anderson and superb techno-medieval set design make this a much more watchable movie than otherwise deserved. Good acting and impressive SFX are also notable. Writer Phil Eisner should take a crash course in Hard-SF, among other things. I predict a certain cult following. (In theaters, August 1997)

EVENT HORIZON (1997, Horror/SF): Curiously enough, I hadn't revisited this film since its original theatre release: EVENT HORIZON remains one of the few horror film to make me lose some sleep in contemplation. Fortunately, time caught up with me by offering a much-enhanced "Special Edition" version of the film, complete with almost a decade's worth of hindsight. As DVD aficionados will tell you, the real story about a film takes a few years to emerge, and the "second generation" DVDs can usually afford to annoy people who have since moved on. And so director Paul Anderson takes some pleasure in talking about EVENT HORIZON's rushed production, insane post-production deadlines and difficult testing process. He's the first to acknowledge that the finished film isn't as good as it could have been. Certainly, a second look at it can't match the experience of seeing it on a really really big screen: at home, it simply comes across as a serviceable horror/SF hybrid, more thrilling than horrific and yet less flawed than I perceived it at the time. Blame it on more realistic impressions, maybe: these days, I'm more likely to be thankful for what does work than indignant at what doesn't. While EVENT HORIZON remains an imperfect film, it's still a good treat for SF/horror fans, and it still plays well despite the pre-digital effects. Interestingly enough, I re-discovered that much of the soundtrack came from artists (Orbital and the Prodigy) that I would later embrace with enthusiasm. (Second viewing, On DVD, July 2006)

FACE/OFF: (1997, Drama/Action) The best action movies always have an extra layer of... depth to them. DIE HARD, ALIENS, TERMINATOR I & II, even THE ROCK all had a strong cast of character to give meaning to the action so the bullets weren't flying around for nothing. FACE/OFF succeeds so well in this regard that it would have been interesting even without the superior actions sequences that pepper the script. The story begins where most other action movies end: Bad psycho terrorist (Nicholas Cage) is arrested by Good straight policeman (John Travolta) But soon, cop has terrorist's face and vice-versa and we're set for a fascinating exploration of the mind/body duality (and a few explosions on the side.) Both leads are just great, as is director Woo. Despite many impossibilities, the script works very well and even offers a few moments of genuine emotion. Even better, the female characters are strong, and not limited to the helpless hostage role. FACE/OFF holds together better than most of the recent action movies in memory: satisfying, solid entertainment. (In Theaters, June 1997)

FACE/OFF (1997, Action) holds up well three years later, mostly because director John Woo knew where to build on a better-than-average action script to produce a film closer to his own themes. Nicholas Cage and John Travolta bring considerable credence to a tale that might otherwise have seemed utterly preposterous. The directing is clean, stylish and exciting and the action set-pieces don't disappoint. Definitely worth a second viewing. (On video, May 2000, 2^nd viewing)

THE FIFTH ELEMENT (LE CINQUIEME ELEMENT, France, 1997, Science-Fiction) is a big, colourful, loud European science-fantasy comic book brought to live-action. It's probably the best movie ever in its particular sub-genre. Whether you'll like it or not is an entirely different matter. It's not good, it's only occasionally smart, it's even insulting given the amount of highly-talented artists assembled by this movie. But it's a blast. A wacky sense of humour helps, as well as a fondness for unsubtle not-quite-mature shtick. Tremendous debate has occurred on the newsgroups and elsewhere concerning T5E, but this reviewer had more fun there than at his last previous movies. The polarization of opinion over the DJ Ruby Rhod character is especially intriguing. There are a lot of things going on screen, so don't doze. (As if you could!) Great music, good performances by Willis and Jovonovitch (the last being too thin to be "perfect", though), some stupendous editing and a definitely French attitude. Just don't gag over the plot, costumes and finale. It's worth seeing on the big screen. (In Theatres, May 1997)

While watching LE CINQUIÈME ÉLÉMENT (THE FIFTH ELEMENT, 1997, Science-Fiction) again doesn't pack the same wild rush of first approach, it still highlights the good editing, nice direction and wacky humor that are the strengths of this French SF comic book made live-action. Sure, the humor is a bit juvenile, and the imagined future too weird to fully believe. But who cares? Fast pacing, unique gadgets and an overall sense of fun missing from most current SF films make this one a treat. (On TV, January 2000, second viewing)

FLUBBER (1997, Comedy): I was prepared for the worst -what with Robin Williams in a remake of a Disney kid's movie with cute special effects- but was finally entertained decently by this film. As long as you focus on the sight gags, the good special effects and never worry too much about the dumb plotting, saccharine moments and out-of-place adult elements in a kid's film. (On TV, June 2000)

FOR RICHER OR POORER (1997, Comedy): New York City folks (suitably haughty Tim Allen and Kirstie Alley) get stuck in Amish backwoods, laugh at the country folks but ultimately learn better. Some of the humor at the expense of the Amish verges on unpleasantness, but as expected, everything gets set straight before the end credits roll. If this didn't come from Disney, it should have. An unmemorable, predictable film, good to pass time, but with a high enough budget that it can't pass as "a little-known gem". (On video, July 2000)

THE FULL MONTY (1997, Musical Comedy): Why did I miss this in theatres? A charming little movie faithfully echoing the FLASHDANCE paradigm (cleverly cited) of ordinary people being transformed by... er... art and personal self-fulfillment. No, but really: A quirky, comic British film that's just too sympathetic to miss. Some obvious jokes, but also some delightful moments. Perhaps a bit lower on the laugh-o-meter than its reputation has made it to be, but still worthwhile. Never mean-spirited, and always in good taste despite the raunchy potential of the material. Could have used an epilogue, maybe over the end credits. Great soundtrack, of course. (On video, July 1999)

THE GAME (1997, Drama): Anyone who's wondering who's the next Hitchcock might want to check the work of David Fincher and this film in particular, one of the purest thrillers in recent memory. A simple but effective hook; what if there was a game with the explicit aim to take over your life? Where's the difference between reality, fiction and outright paranoia? Michael Douglas turns in a great performance as the persecuted hero. The look of the film is typically polished-Fincher. Unfortunately, the script that makes things so good in the first four-fifth of the film veers off toward a conclusion that is both disappointing and inevitable. Unfortunately, the heavy hand of movie magic ("That can only happen in a movie!") is a bit too overbearing in these final moments. (And I still can't figure out when the photos were taken) Hey, don't take this as an excuse not to see the film; I still think it's one of the most enjoyable thrillers of the nineties, a solid film and a great rental... but keep in mind that it's ultimately a bit of a letdown. (On video, July 2001)

GATTACA (1997, Science-Fiction): Very cold, but at the same time very interesting SF movie for the high-IQ segment of the movie-going audience. No aliens, no laser pistols, no gee-whiz machinery, no impressive special effects. In other words, the words are important. That's why it failed at the box-office and that's why it's the best SF movie of 1997 along with CONTACT. Like the latter, it's an ultimately uplifting tale of human determination and of unusual style. Never mind that the setup is ridiculous, that the story is of early-sixties written-SF vintage and that the instant-blood-test is already obsolete: "There is no gene for the human spirit" says the tagline, and that's exactly the gist of the movie. This being said, I can understand why less sophisticated viewers would consider this dreadfully boring. That's good news: for once, a movie doesn't have to pamper to the illiterate, MTV-afflicted hordes in order to fashion a satisfying movie. I hope director Nichols makes more movies like this. (In Theaters, October 1997)

GEORGE OF THE JUNGLE (1997, Comedy): I don't usually watch children movies, and that's probably why I expected more from this Tarzan knock-off that I got. Granted, some of the comedy is clever (everything absurd and/or involving either the narrator or the native carriers was hilarious, for instance) but the remainder is just unbearably tedious. GEORGE OF THE JUNGLE seems like the aftermath of a demented screenwriter's half-hour of rewrite fun with a below-grade children film script. Too bad they didn't let him play around with it longer. (On TV, September 1998)

GOOD WILL HUNTING (1997, Drama): I was initially cautious about this film, and all the Academy Awards it received, which seems to relate a lot to external factors: Robin Williams was overdue for something (so he got the Supporting Actor nod) and Hollywood has the curious tendency to reward actors who write scripts (which would explain the Ben Affleck/Matt Damon win for Best Original Screenplay, though the script doctoring by William Golding is almost never mentioned) But that would be belittling the all-around pretty good film that is GOOD WILL HUNTING. It has a lot of heart, interesting characters and simply a good grasp of what is a satisfying story. The acting is uniformly good and the conclusion is suitably bittersweet. (On video, September 1999)

GROSSE POINTE BLANK (1997, Romantic Comedy): A professional hit-man dealing with his ten-year high-school reunion? Funny premise, and even if GROSSE POINT BLANK never quite delivers everything we could expect from this concept, it remains a great little comedy. Of course, most of this success depends on the leads, John Cusack as a tone-perfect assassin with faint neurotic tendencies and Minnie Driver as an adorable, but dangerously bitter radio DJ. Both are sympathetic, cool, competent and enormously likable. The film itself lacks the spark required to propel it from good to great (many missed opportunities and not enough laughs from a fertile premise, mostly) but that shouldn't be a reason not to check it out, especially if you're a fan of either leads. (On Video, September 2000)

HARD RAIN (1997, Action): Natural disaster plus bags of money and big guns should equal pretty good action film, but while the production qualities of HARD RAIN might be impressive, they're the only thing that really stand out from this relatively average action film. There are few memorable moments beyond the sights of a town being submerged and the associated mayhem when criminals want to rob a money truck. Christian Slater makes a good -but not spectacular- action protagonist (though he was better in 1996's BROKEN ARROW) and Morgan Freeman carries an inimitable presence as the bad guy, but the rest of the script is ho-hum. On the other hand... the quality of the script may not be overly impressive, but let's face it; a soggy Minnie Driver is worth about thirty bad pages of dialogue. Worth a Saturday-evening cheap rental for action junkies. (On TV, February 2001)

HEAVEN'S BURNING (Australia, 1997, Drama): Avoid! Though it stars the ever-dependable Russell Crowe in a suitable tough-guy role, the rest of this low-budget effort hovers between ludicrousness and boredom. Ludicrousness, demonstrated by scenes after scenes of implausible plot mechanics and suspect character choices. For instance, the conservative -and myopic- Japanese husband suddenly buys a gun, kills his best friend without remorse, shaves his head, chucks his glasses and goes across the country on a motorcycle to kill his runaway wife. Boredom, as interminable stretches of nothingness (I'm not talking about the Australian desert) pepper the narrative. Rent NATURAL BORN KILLER if you want a similar story, but only die-hard Crowe afficionadoes will enjoy this one. And even then... (On Video, September 2000)

I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER (1997, Teen Horror) does nothing to enhance my low opinion of scriptwriter Kevin Williamson. If he's supposed to be so clever, then why is the movie so ordinary? A particularly bland entry in the "psycho killer" genre, I spent hours trying to find something distinctive to say about it, but in vain... At least, the (mostly-teenaged) audience I was with regularly snickered and laughed out loud at moments that were supposed to be scary or tender. Whether this reflects the unredeemable cynicism of our generation or good movie-watching sense remains an exercise to the reader.  (In theaters, January 1999)

IN & OUT (1997, Comedy): Audience reaction to this movie will probably hinge on their level of tolerance for... um... gay issues. A very smart, very funny script is backed-up by fantastic acting and unobtrusive direction. Loses steam and gains "meaningful intent" in the second half, but a good time is had by mostly everyone except the most closed-minded. (Be forewarned, however, that the writer Has An Agenda) Not really a good date movie! Random thought: It's probably a good sign of our evolving society that this movie is rated PG only a few years after the separate matrimonial beds of the puritan TV shows of the fifties... (In Theaters, September 1997)

THE JACKAL (1997, Thriller) has a few clever moments (most of them related to Bruce Willis' character) but had me groaning and swearing each five-ten minutes. Unfortunate, since the acting is pretty good (Richard Gere sleepwalks as usual, but he looks so darn unflappable that nobody minds. Bruce Willis, on the other hand, does a satisfying job at half-a-dozen different disguises) and the production values are reasonably high. The fault all goes back to the script, which is almost uniformly bad. Most movie clichés find their way in this film. The result is something as vapid and unmemorable as 1997's THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY. (Remember that one? Me neither.) Not even the numerous Canada/Québec references can save this movie from rapid memory oblivion. (On video, November 1998)

JACKIE BROWN (1997, Crime Drama): Considered without preconceptions, this is a standard crime film with some interesting moments. Disappointment set in as soon as we're reminded that it's "Directed by Quentin Tarantino" during the end credits. This isn't the fantastic piece of cinema that could be expected from the wunderkind auteur of PULP FICTION and RESERVOIR DOG. At best, it let itself be watched with interest despite its lengthy duration. At worst, it's a regrettably boring adaptation of a lousy book. Few cinematic pyrotechnics, and the main event (a caper told from three perspectives) seems more gratuitous than organically useful. Robert de Niro's character is nearly superfluous. Samuel L. Jackson is good, but routine, a description that might be applied to the film as a whole; unspectacular, but competent. Rather long, though. (On Video, September 2000)

KULL THE CONQUEROR (1997, Fantasy): Worst movie of the summer, but it's so much fun (in a sick kind of way) that you're unlikely to notice, or to be angry at the picture. Slightly different narrative scheme (Kull becomes king in the first few minutes) is unlikely to mask the awful dialogue straight out of comic books. Acting is uniformly bad; Tia Carrere should do much better. (But she's redheaded here, so all things balance out!) An enjoyable Friday-night TV movie for a crowd of rowdy MST3Kers ("Brings new sense to the term frigid!", etc...) but scarcely anything else. (In theaters, August 1997)

L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (1997, Crime Thriller): I can't wait I waited this long to see this movie. To L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, I offer my ultimate movie-criticism compliment: It was as enjoyable as a good book. A triumph of storytelling, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL packs a staggering amount of material in less than three hours, which fly so fast that you'll never realize it is almost a three-hour movie. Every minute is worthwhile, and few moments are boring. A masterful script is backed-up by excellent performances by all six lead actors (Kim Basinger, yeah!), surprisingly great direction and equally excellent editing/scoring. L.A. CONFIDENTIAL gives me back my faith in cinema. Or rather; I go see movies for things like L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. I'm not sure if TITANIC or L.A. CONFIDENTIAL is my favorite film of 1997, but I'm sure that L.A. CONFIDENTIAL is the better movie of the two. (In theaters, February 1998)

LIAR, LIAR: (1997, Comedy): Jim Carrey is great as a lawyer unable to lie during a full day. Never mind the ambiguous script, the disappointing finale and the sugar-coated messages, this is one of the best comedies of the year. I don't think that Carrey is the ultimate comedian, but he has charm, and the movie would be much poorer without him. There are more than a few good jokes other than Carrey's antics, which probably accounts for the movie's long-running success. (In Theatres, April 1997)

LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL (LA VITA È BELLA, Italy, 1997, Comedy/Drama) has a brilliant premise, but unfortunately couldn't do it justice without bringing along a series of significant flaws. The first of these is the division of the movie in two very different halves. The first is a romantic comedy that sets up the protagonist as a clever innocent that has no other defense against the world than humour; the second is a dark comedy that shows him, eight years later, as trying to protect his son from the horrors of a Nazi concentration camp by masquerading the camp as a game. Despite the jokes and the funny faces, the overall structure is nevertheless definitely tragic and that's why the effect is split. Also grating is the movie's reliance on shameless coincidences and often sophomoric humour. Still, don't get the impression that this movie isn't worth it; some sequences approach perfection -like the translation scene- and something must be said about Roberto Benigni's unflappable charm. Making this movie took courage, and the result is impressive despite its flaws. (In theaters, February 1999)

THE LOST WORLD (JURASSIC PARK II, 1997, Action-Adventure): The good news are; it's only vaguely based on the book, it's somewhat better than the written work and it's got some terrific sequences in it. The bad news was expected by every single moviegoer in North America: It's not nearly as good as the original. Some stupendous special effects (notice the "shaking camera" shots: Flawless composting!), a few exceptional action/suspense sequences (the cracking glass sequence will remain in most viewers' memory for a long time) and a likable hero are highlights. In Spielberg's capable hands, everyone can expect to be entertained. Unfortunately, THE LOST WORLD suffers from the same disease that will (should) make the "thrill ride"-type of movie extinct: The story thread binding the great sequences is frayed, sometimes hastily knotted together. Characters act like (literally!) idiot savant; making the same stupid mistakes, going against ten+ years of their own experience, not reacting like normal human beings would, etc... The mind wobbles at the number of incredibly easily-fixed errors in the script. (and in the direction too: Don't gag at the brain-damaged gymnastic sequence and don't yawn at the fifth consecutive "Dah, amazing!" close-up.) Don't count the incoherencies; they come with such a boring regularity that you'll soon fall asleep. Still, it's moderately fun. The story is (in broad strokes, if not in the details) better than the original. The last act is a blast, and the preachy anti-science tone of the original is mostly gone. Not a great movie by any means, but a moderately satisfying matinee. (In Theatres, May 1997)

MEAN GUNS (1997, Action): Nifty premise, meandering execution. A hundred various criminals are locked inside a high-tech prison. The prize? The three survivors get ten million dollars. Buckets of guns and bullets rain down on the initial hundred, and the fun begins. What follows is, roughly, a non-stop firefight barely interrupted by some half-hearted character development. Think of THE KILLER, though without emotional content and without John Woo's superb eye for pulse-pounding action sequences. A cheerfully subversive mambo soundtrack is bound to bring a grin to your lips. Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only cool or funny thing in the film, despite the darkly comic potential of the story. This film would have been a first-class classic in the hands of Woo or Robert Rodriguez. Christopher Lambert and Ice-T both shine in roles we completely expect them to play as they do. A pure B-movie worth a look on late-night TV. (On video, September 1999)

MEN IN BLACK (1997, Science-Fiction/Comedy): In retrospect, disappointment was almost inevitable. MEN IN BLACK (the movie) is 1997's ID4: Massively promoted escapist flick, with big special effects, creepy aliens, one-liners and Will Smith. Anticipation for it ranked somewhere between another Beatles concert and the Second Coming. The problem was that the premise was almost too good: Assume an organization checking up on all the (assumed) aliens on Earth. Then treat the subject with a hip, sarcastic attitude and dry cool wit. Then cast Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith in the title roles. And bring in ILM for the SFX. As I said, expectations can be too high. So, it's somewhat of a surprise if MEN IN BLACK manages to be the movie that INDEPENDENCE DAY and MARS ATTACKS! combined couldn't be. Part of its success lies in the deadpan satiric take-off of America's current psychosis (that's one up on ID4) and another part of it lies in a more balanced script (take that MARS ATTACKS!). Of course, one can't deny the incredible charm and charisma of the Jones/Smith duo and the top-notch effects by Rick Baker and ILM. It's a solid hour and a half of summer entertainment, without the plot holes and stupid character mistakes that have been the latest norm in Hollywood. In short, it'll make millions. [January 1998: It did.] Peering closer, though, (or seeing it a second time) flaws appear: The script loses energy toward the end. Miss Fiorentino is grossly under-used. The basic story is a clear case of déjà-vu. Whatever has been done in MIB, more could have been done: Like fast food, MIB fills but never nourishes. Men in Black remains the essence of coolness, summer'97-style. While unsatisfying, and far from completely exploiting all the facets of the exceptional premise, the story at least offers competence, something that has been missing from recent summer offerings. Go see it. Read it if you like. (In theaters, July 1997)

MEN IN BLACK (1997, Science-fiction/Comedy): Even as Barry Sonnenfeld's more recent efforts have faltered in lazy, laugh-free big-budget embarrassments, the original MEN IN BLACK remains almost as fresh today than when it first came out. A savvy blend of comedy and conspiracy, this original installment zips along quickly, uses the charm of its two lead actors to their fullest potential and is rather nicely shot too. The DVD is a joy to explore as it covers most facets of the production. Alas, the director's commentary quickly reveals that Sonnenfeld is a moron, which explains his later duds such as WILD WILD WEST. But if you tune him out and concentrate on the other participants, it's not as bad. MEN IN BLACK is worth another look on DVD, especially if you haven't seen the film in a while. (Second Viewing, On DVD, August 2002)

METRO (1997, Action/Police): A bland title for an even more unmemorable movie. The plot has been seen a thousand times (Hero cop. Dead partner. Smart bad guy. Car chase. Girlfriend in peril. Explosion. The End. Oh, there's a New Partner in there somewhere) and METRO confuses smart touches with incoherence (or maybe the other way around). The Girlfriend is cute and there's one rousing good sequence in the movie (the car chase, surprise!) but the remainder will flee out of your memory as the credits scroll. At least, I didn't pay to see it. (On Video, August 1997)

MIMIC (1997, SF/Suspense): Dark, creepy but also surprisingly forgettable suspense movie about giant insects taking over the lower levels of the New York subway. (And, presumably, the world afterward since those pesky insects are pretty much unstoppable, y'know?) Mira Sorvino is quite pleasing to look at as a top-notch entomologist, and director Del Torro sure knows how to effectively create a suspenseful atmosphere. Low points include a letdown finale (earlier scripts reportedly had a more appropriate, if darker, conclusion) and a really annoying subplot about an autistic child. (High points, however, include the killing of sympathetic children and a dead dog in the same scene, so there's still hope for Hollywood scriptwriters...) A decent video rental for those in the mood for a "bug" movie. (In theaters, August 1997)

MONEY TALKS (1997, Comedy): Not everyone likes Chris Tucker and his groovy-young-black routine, but it would take a real curmudgeon not to like MONEY TALKS, as director Brett Ratner so easily capitalizes on the natural loopiness of Tucker for added comic effect beyond the limits of the script. Among the pluses: A pretty good car chase, evil Frenchmen, "That's Beautiful" "That's Barry Manilow!", good chemistry between Tucker and Charlie Sheen, a fun finale and a marriage at the end. It's a comedy; not a great one, but a good one. (On video, May 2000)

MORTAL KOMBAT: ANNIHILATION (1997) (Videogame Fantasy/Action): Calling this a bad movie would be too generous, even though it's not that bad. One of the few things MK:A manages to make look good is the original, which was at least a decent example of tremendously entertaining mind-candy (Paul Anderson's exciting direction, missing here, might be a factor.) If you can make it through the horrible fifteen first minutes, the remainder isn't so horrendous. But unless you're really in the mood for this kind of stuff, avoid. (In Theaters, November 1997)

MR. NICE GUY (YATGO HO YAN, Hong-Kong, 1997, Action/Comedy): What can you say about a Jackie Chan movie? You either like the goofy humor, the incredible real-life stunts, the lousy stories, the insulting sexism and the hammy acting or you don't. As a confirmed Jackie Chan fan, I can say that it's one of the most enjoyable movie he's done, mainly due to a certain lack of repetitiveness that had plagued some of his earlier films. The action is also nicely distributed, with at least four memorable sequences in the movie, including a horse-carriage chase and a construction site fight. The Pepsi-fight is also fun to watch. The ending might be disappointing for martial-arts aficionados, but is a blast if you like monster-truck shows. Better than OPERATION CONDOR, if less hilarious. Unpretentious fun, MR. NICE GUY is exactly what you need to take a 90-minutes brain break. (In theaters, March 1998)

MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING (1997, Romantic Comedy) is not as good as expected. Sure, Julia Roberts is at her best. Sure, it's a more balanced romantic comedy than most. Sure, the script has its moment. But the movie cannot escape its own intentions and contradictions. If the result is more mature than the typical Hollywood love story, it's also much less satisfying. On the other hand, the movie takes life every time Rupert Everett is on screen; he turns a potentially dreary role in a scene-stealing performance. That's probably why I loved the last scene as much as I did. (On Video, December 1998)

OFFICE KILLER (1997, Thriller): This thriller shows some promise at first, with its visually interesting credits sequence and a growing sense of impending doom. Unfortunately, the murders stop making sense by the third one (the first two are respectively accidental and self-preservation, but the girl scouts were no threat. It gets sillier after that. There's even one "surprise" victim whose body just turns up at the end without even a mention of the murder.) and the concept of the mousy copygirl being a serial killer doesn't have much charm after a few minutes. With no sense of enjoyment, the low-budget production values and the claustrophobic directing (far too many character shots are framed "inside" other objects) really start to grate. After that, things degenerate quickly (it is a fairly short film) in this type of "evil goes unpunished" film that really gets tiresome once you've celebrated your fifteenth birthday and seen dozens of these films. There's usually an excellent reason why these films go straight to video; they're just not very good! (On video, August 2000)

OPEN YOUR EYES (ABRE LOS OJOS, Spain, 1997, Science-Fiction): Where did this movie come from? How is it we didn't hear more of it? A quasi-hallucinatory mixture of genres finally ending in pure science-fiction, OPEN YOUR EYES is the kind of reality-bending film that Hollywood often aims for but never quite achieves. While longish in the beginning, and not always consistent, this is a film to hunt for at you local video store. To say more would be to spoil the film. (In theaters, November 1999)

THE PEACEMAKER (1997, Action/Thriller): Average techno-thriller, but any average techno-thriller is better than no techno-thriller at all. Clooney and Kidman are delightful in their respective roles, and a few scenes are just too good to be missed: This is the first movie I've seen that more or less has a good grasp of what it takes to correctly disarm a nuclear bomb. Greatly benefits from being one of the most "realistic" (read: mean-spirited) movie in recent memory. Good direction by Mimi Leder, nice "invisible" special effects. Worth a matinee, and certainly the video rental. (In Theaters, October 1997)

THE PEACEMAKER (1997, Techno-Thriller): While this film received mixed critical attention upon release, a second look reveals an efficient action film backed up with a solid post-cold-war plot that's nothing to be ashamed of. George Clooney's first film breakthrough (well before OUT OF SIGHT) shows him in full command of his trademark mix of easy cockiness and hard confidence. Nicole Kidman is irreproachable as the analyst suddenly plunged out of her depths, without the usual clichés associated with these characters. It's a shame that director Mimi Leder hasn't followed up on the dynamic direction exhibited here; the action scenes are models of clarity and sustained tension. The Vienna car chase/demolition derby alone is worth a rental by its nastiness alone. A few budget-induced problems (the unseen opening explosion, mostly) still annoy me, but while THE PEACEMAKER doesn't really aspire to be more than a good technothriller, it does so exceedingly well. (Second Viewing) (On TV, March 2001)

PERFECT BLUE (1997, Thriller): Japanese animated film about an actress whose entourage gradually gets killed by some mysterious entity. Putrid rotoscoped animation is compensated, somewhat, by a down-to-earth adult subject matter (so much that it's unclear why this was done as animation) and gripping plot. The film occasionally gets too twisty for its own good and probably doesn't make sense even after the last revelations, but it's worth watching. Needless to say, this is not for kids. (In theaters, July 2000)

PRINCESS MONONOKE (MONONOKE HIME, Japan, 1997, Fantasy, 1999 US Dub.) is, all things considered, a pretty good fantasy film marred both marred and bolstered with the typical qualities of anime. On one hand the visual inventiveness marks the film with stronger quirky individual scenes than the usual film. On the other, the often-jerky animation and other anime "tics" make it so that the film flows less smoothly than the standard Disney. The universe of PRINCESS MONONOKE is also presented as is, without any attempt at rationalization or structure. Don't expect any kind of predictable logic; wacky solutions and features still pop up late in the film. Still, it's an enjoyable fantasy for more mature viewers, and makes one wish for better material of this type. (In theaters, December 1999)

ROMY AND MICHELLE'S HIGH SCHOOL REUNION (1997, Comedy): Breezy, fun, unpretentious comedy about two adorable bubbleheads (the lovely Mira Sorvino and Lisa Kudrow) blustering through their high-school reunion. Janeanne Garofalo, as usual, steals the show. Many clichés of this type of film are addressed. Great eighties soundtrack. The conclusion is amusing by its adherence to expectations. Maybe not as clever as expected, but still a rather good time. (On TV, August 2000)

THE SAINT (1997, Thriller) is about as unremarkable a piece of "thriller" cinema as it's possible to find. Though I'm not familiar with the original TV series, I sure hope it was better than what was presented on-screen, which reeked of gimmicky (past trauma, character trademarks, fake spy tradetalk, etc...) devices. The techno-babble stinks, the romance isn't special, the action set-pieces are non-existent. Only the interesting musical ambience and the charm of the two lead actors save this one from total memory wipe. (On TV, January 2000)

SCREAM 2 (1997, Horror) is pretty much what you'd expect if you've seen the original SCREAM. Out-of-nowhere plot twists, pop-culture references and wildly implausible action. The Whaaaat?-factor is fairly high. Rather more funny -but not that much- than horrific, though two sequences (the open-air cell-phone scene and the crashed car) stand out as being above-average. Many twists can be foreseen. Not as clever as it thinks it is. Moments of silliness, increasingly so toward the ending. Ends up as being more or less of the same quality than the first one. (On video, December 1999)

SHADOW BUILDER (1997, Horror): Straight-to-video release that once again proves that there are no accidents in the theater/video release rift. Granted, it's not always bad, but then again it's nothing worth writing about. The first few minutes hold considerable promise, as a gun-toting priest (Michael "Grrr!" Rooker) mows down a satanic sect with the help of laser sights. But right after that, we slip in an X-Files episode that flops around without Mulder or Scully and feels much longer than the 90-odd minutes running time. The creature feels less and less impressive as time goes by. It's the kind of movie during which you can fall asleep and miss preciously little. Catherine Bruhier plays a cute female police officer, though. (On video, July 2001)

THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY (1997) (Thriller): Utterly, utterly forgettable movie about yet another cover-up at the highest level of the government... yawn. In fact, only a few days after seeing this movie, I was unsuccessfully trying to remember the ending, at no avail. Suffice to say that this movie reminds one of the term "preposterous", and that the usually dependable Linda Hamilton is unexpectedly weaker here than usual. Try this for a quote: THE SHADOW CONSPIRACY redefines an entirely new level of blandness. (On Video, November 1997)

SLIDING DOORS (1997, Romance): Funny how this film can appear to be many things to many people: Romance, Drama, Philosophical Exploration, Fantasy, Science-Fiction or plain old Experiment. In any case, the film follows the adventures of a young woman (Gwyneth Paltrow, in a good turn) whose life is affected in a tiny way that has dramatic consequences. The narrative alternately follows two different paths from that nexus point. Alternate universes? Plain fantasy concept? Whatever the justification, the script is well-written, and if there aren't as many inter-linking between the two universes as one might have hoped, the dialogue is sharp enough to keep us absorbed in the storylines. The banter between "good-guy" and "bad-hair heroine" is particularly interesting. The conclusion is a downer, though it's hard to say how else the film might have ended in order to wrap everything up. The French video version of the film has English captioning, which allows to see how the translation loses a lot of the subtle humor of the original script. In any case, an interesting film, and one that should please many very different audiences. (On Video, September 2000)

SMILLA'S SENSE OF SNOW (1997, Thriller/Science-fiction): Surprisingly faithful adaptation of Peter Hoeg's best-selling thriller, though not without flaws: Julia Osmond is too cute to play Smilla, but the overall plotting is rather similar. Fortunately, the film improves the often languid pacing of the book, through often highlighting important clues in doing so. (Sometimes even using musical cues!) The film is as cold as the setting, but it usually works well given the context. The story may start as a thriller, but elements eventually amplify to make the film evolve towards a more strictly science-fictional climax. (The nature of the resolution works better in the book, but the film can't take the luxury to smooth the transition. Furthermore, the altered ending of the film is rather more conventionally satisfying than the book's abrupt end.) Fans of the novel will be pleased, and so will everyone exasperated by the extra verbiage of the original. The Greenland scenery is often spectacular and acting credits are high, with many familiar faces rounding the cast. The DVD whets our appetites with an intriguing featurette on the challenges of filming in Greenland, but stops shy of giving us anything more on the making of the film. (On DVD, June 2003)

STARSHIP TROOPERS (1997) (Action/SF): Very loud, very juvenile and very stupid adaptation of Robert A. Heinlein's novel. It's supposed to be loads of fun, but it just didn't work for me. The tone oscillates between inane teenage drama and uber-gory war "comedy": It's either "Look at this guy get ripped in half; ain't it cool?" or "Look at this guy get decapitated; ain't it funny?" Unimaginably idiotic military tactics and physics make this movie really funny for even slightly knowledgeable people. Stupendous SFX can't rescue a bad script, but might just net an Oscar. Only a few weeks after seeing STARSHIP TROOPERS, I find my opinion of the movie sinking lower and lower, much like last year's INDEPENDENCE DAY. And after seeing TITANIC, even the SFX Oscar isn't so sure... (In Theaters, November 1997)

SPAWN (1997, Action): This adaptation of the comic-book series is more or less faithful to the original, and is surprisingly entertaining provided you enter the theatre with the right frame of mind. A dark and stylish (if sucky) story combined with some great (and not-so-great) cartoonish CGI makes this a nice, un-ambitious matinee. Standout performance from John Leguizamo as "The Clown." SPAWN sometimes feels like an expensive pilot for a TV series... hopes are that the presumed sequel will be superior. (In theaters, July 1997)

SPEED II: CRUISE CONTROL: (1997, Action) The original SPEED wasn't expected to be very good but ended up making millions, so it's no surprise that the sequel is so inferior. Bullock is as lovely as ever, and Patric is marginally likable, but even them can't save SPEED II from the mostly unexciting script. A cruise boat is hijacked, but the villain (William Defoe) is more pathetic than menacing. A squad of Islamic terrorists would have worked better. The traditional Stupid Action Movie Mistakes abound, but the greatest flaw of the movie is that it tries to be a tense thriller before switching in action-movie "boom-boom" format. The money shots are saved for the end, but they're unfortunately spoiled by the promos. Still, director De Bont's style is enjoyable (despite more than a few misfires) and the movie will make a splendid video rental. More bland than bad, but still not very good. (In Theaters, June 1997)

SPICE WORLD (1997, Musical/Comedy): When all will have been said and done about the Spice Girls, you'll be able to listen to their best-of compilation and watch this film to get a quick complete representation of who they were. It's important to note from the onset that this is not a good film: The narrative thread is frayed, the acting is often embarrassing, the dialogue has very rough spots and the technical polish of the film is, well, lacking. This being said, SPICE WORLD becomes endearing almost despite itself, managing a few very good jokes ("Not necessarily") and thriving on the charm of the titular music group. While the Girl's fifteen minutes are up, at least the film will remain in libraries for a while. It won't take long for future viewers to wonder what the heck that was all about. Maybe the film has a chance at cult status. (On Video, January 2001)

TITANIC (1997) (Romance/Adventure): 200$M movie worth every penny. Director James Cameron proves once again that he's one of the best film-makers around with this -mostly- seamless hybrid of romance and disaster genre. Despite a disappointing script (still better than most of what we've seen this year), TITANIC is tremendously moving, and never bores despite lasting 3h15. Exceptional special effects and unforgettable shots highlight one of the first movies to use digital effects in a truly mature fashion. This might not be my favourite movie of the year (even though it's close) but it's certainly one of the best. (In Theaters, December 1997)

TOMORROW NEVER DIES (1997) (James Bond #18): So this is what happened to James Bond after THE ROCK: A lot of action, but not much of a solid plot. Still, better than GOLDENEYE. Pierce Brosnan is a great James Bond. As if killer gadgets, a lovely credit sequence and a few great lines weren't enough, we get Michelle Yeoh (pronounced Yeah-ow!) as the very best Bond girl ever. Only the fact that she does become one of "Bond's girls" at the end undermines her role. TOMORROW NEVER DIES is far from being a very good Bond (Bad usage of Teri Hatcher, strange impression of "deja-vu" versus other Bond movies) but it's as entertaining as anything we've come to expect from the franchise. Even spending the entire movie being half-sick standing against the rear wall of the movie theatre didn't torpedo the experience for me. (In Theaters, December 1997)

TOO MANY WAYS TO BE NO.1 (YI GE ZI TOU DE DAN SHENG, 1997, Hong-Kong, Crime/Comedy): Now that's the reason why I watch Hong-Kong films. Released one year before SLIDING DOORS and RUN LOLA RUN, this film presents the story of two alternate universes offered to a young HK mobster. Go to Taiwan or go to the Mainland. First we see one story, then the other. But beyond the cute premise, the true fun of the film is in the sheer inventiveness of the cinematography, from a fight filmed upside-down to another in pitch darkness, only illuminated by gun flashes. The camera becomes almost a character in its own right, with some very unusual movements. The rest of the film is a black crime comedy reminiscent of LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS, though skewed to HK tendencies. Worth a look, if you can find it. (On TV, March 2000)

TREKKIES (1997, Documentary): As a reformed trekkie, it was both sad and embarrassing to watch a full-length documentary (developed and hosted by Trek actress Denise Crosby herself) about the length to which some Trek fans will go in order to express their admiration for everything related to the show. Some of the trekkies featured in the program exhibit real talent (like the teenage computer-graphic whiz, which whom I identified rather strongly) but others... well... need something. Obsessing over Brent Spiner like that can't be good. There is a circus-like atmosphere in TREKKIES that never quite goes away, sort of a freak parade one step short of showing a car accident in progress. What is it about a Star Trek fascination that makes it so compelling for civilians? Five years after the film's initial release, though, the question pops up; where are these people now? Are they still so inspired by a fictional mythology? Would a sequel be ninety, or fifteen minutes long? And how lucky am I not to have been consumed by full-blown Trek fetishism once I got out of my own teenage years? (On TV, June 2002)

THE UNDERTAKER'S WEDDING (1997, Comedy): Charming, little-known comedy about an undertaker being caught in the middle of a mafia family war. Romantic -and possibly fatal- complications ensue. Sympathetic central characters, gorgeous actresses, fun conclusion and a few funny scenes make this an entirely acceptable, if not essential rental. (On video, July 2000)

VOLCANO (1997) Action-Adventure: A volcano pops up in Los Angeles, a disaster movie ensues. Decent entertainment, but a better title for it should have been LAVA, given that the actual volcano is never really "fought". I thought the final "big" sequence seriously lacked any kind of clear suspense, but the remainder of the movie is okay. Points given for a self-aware treatment of the "saved pet animal" problem, points removed for trying to put messages in the script. Tommy Lee Jones is a credible lead, and Anne Heche... sigh... [Insert weak joke here about her relationship to Ellen Degeneres] Notice the structural similarity between VOLCANO and classical hard-SF "problem" stories: A problem, a competent hero (engineer!), high stakes, ingenious solution by hero, etc... As a book, more would have been expected (such a dealing with the other lava flows), but as a movie... I remain pleased. (In Theatres, April 1997)

WAG THE DOG (1997, Satire): Let's face it: January's a rotten month for first-run moviegoing. It's either shlocko-B-Grade-late-night-TV fare dumped by the studios in the middle of the winter because there's got to be something on the screens during the month, or else a few Oscar hopeful released late in December in a few major markets for academy consideration, and who get wider release in January. Among them... WAG THE DOG.  An American president is accused of sexual misconduct with a young female. One crack spin doctor gets on the case and diverts the attention of the public with threats of war. A Hollywood producer is hired. It ain't real-life, although in Mid-January 1998, we could almost feel ourselves being pulled slowly in a Phil K. Dick novel where current events were being uncannily predicted by Hollywood. WAG THE DOG will probably pass into history as being at the right places at exactly the right time, but fortunately the movie remains decent on its own terms. Unfortunately, the script isn't as good as it could have been. The unlikeliness of the described situation -despite the above paragraph, I stand by the word "unlikeliness"- is such that a deliberately over-the-top treatment (à la, heh-heh-heh, THE PRODUCERS) would have been vastly more successful. To put it simply, WAG THE DOG's premise is neat but doesn't have a lot of relevance. So why try? On the other hand, Dustin Hoffman is quite funny after a while, and Anne Heche does a fine bit of window-dressing. If Robert DeNiro is a bit dull (intentionally), Dennis Leary and William H. Macy are great during their short screen time. I liked it, but it's far from being one of my favorite films of 1997. (In theaters, January 1998)

WILD THINGS (1997, Thriller): Let's be upfront about it right away, and admit that this film is pure popcorn: It's built around plot twists, spends a lot of time focusing on curvy female forms and never aims at providing anything more -or less- than two hours of pure entertainment to its viewers. But what it does, it does damn well. Naked people (including Denise Richards), dead bodies, double-crosses, a briefcase filled with money, alligator wrestling and gorgeous south-Floridian cinematography are some of the elements composing this crunchy thriller. A great performance by Bill Murray, classic quotes such as "You skanky bitch!" and "My mother will kill me if she finds out I took the Rover", Neve Campbell as white trash, a score by George S. Clinton and plenty of comic relief are others. Don't expect much, but be prepared to have a lot of fun. (On video, February 2000)