From the files of

CHRISTIAN SAUVÉ

Don't say we didn't warn you

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

MOVIE REVIEWS

2000

2000-2004, Christian Sauvé

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

And I say (In alphabetical order):

28 DAYS (2000, Drama): A writer is sent to a rehab clinic. Now that's a premise that can either be milked for maximum pathos or maximum mirth. 28 DAYS ends up trying both and ending up with neither. Granted, the first tip-off that this is going to be safely middle-of-the-road tripe comes right before the title, when you see that Sandra Bullock is headlining the film. After that, you can expect all the usual clichés: The hunky love interest. The escape attempt. The suicidal roommate. The wacky gay guy. Granted, this is all far more entertaining that I was expecting, but it still doesn't make of this film anything worth remembering. And what's up with the final horse thing? Couldn't that be any more convenient? (In theaters, May 2000)

THE ADVENTURES OF ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE (2000, Comedy): A terribly frustrating movie. Not having any strong identification to the original series, I was left to ponder the film on its own merit, and... egad... It's not that the film itself is bad, it's that parts of it are just atrocious. The humor ranges all the way from witty to childish, with several detours though simply-not-funny. And yet, and yet, the silliness of it all somehow won me over, as it's hard to be angry at a stupid cartoon moose. (On Video, November 2001)

ALMOST FAMOUS (2000, Drama): Cameron Crowe strikes me as a writer/director with interesting things to say, but not always as successful in actually delivering a coherent finished product. JERRY MAGUIRE seemed to invent plot difficulties in thin air and if ALMOST FAMOUS is a more accomplished film, it does seems forced at times. (That it is "based on a true story" is a feeble defense for structural flaws. If you're going to invent Stillwater, it would have been justified to boost the dramatic content of their struggles, who here appear rather underwhelming.) This being said, ALMOST FAMOUS is a tremendously enjoyable film, which will undoubtedly work wonders on members of the generation depicted in the film. Younger viewers won't feel as concerned. Some funny scenes, some poignant moments and some astute lines (destined to be quoted for years to come; "You do not make friends with the rock stars.") all mix up, as with JERRY MAGUIRE, to deliver a film that will please many different audiences at the risk of feeling somewhat unfocused itself. (In theaters, December 2000)

ALMOST FAMOUS: UNTITLED (2000, Drama): I'm not sure if it's because of the 35 minutes of extra footage, my own more reasonable expectations or the great commentary track, but UNTITLED (the "bootleg" director's cut of ALMOST FAMOUS) seems far more compelling than the original film. In many ways, this is a film best seen at home rather than in theaters; not only does in now clock at 160+ minutes, but it is far moodier and closer to its characters, which might play better in a small context. Acting credits are excellent across the board, especially with Kate Hudson, whose performance seems more remarkable here than in the shorter cut. The DVD edition offers several extras, the most unique being the long (ten minutes) "Stairway to Heaven" deleted scene which requires you to play along. Also included is a short "Stillwater" audio CD as well as a wonderful audio commentary with not only director Cameron Crowe (whose loosely adapted teenage years formed the nucleus for the film), but also his mother, who proves to be as formidable a character as Frances McDormand's film depiction. What else can I say, besides strongly recommending it? (Second Viewing, On DVD, August 2002)

AMERICAN PSYCHO (2000, Horror): Both less entertaining and more interesting than expected, AMERICAN PSYCHO ultimately wimps out before saying something interesting. As far as performances go, this is entirely Christian Bale's show as he manages to credibly personify an extreme character. The axe-murder sequence remains the film's high-point mostly because of his manic portrayal. Even though many might mistake the film as belonging to the slasher genre, it's considerably more unnerving than your usual teen horror film, both because it's better-written -with some social commentary- and because it is extremely violent while not seeming too exploitative. The extremely black humor of the film also works to distance it from its more routine brethren. Unfortunately, while the film had some definite potential, it squanders it by an ending that wants to have it both ways without committing. (For instance, it would have been more interesting to make the point that in this environment, even a full-blown confession might not matter.) Alas, threads are left dangling, the film defuses its own bite and the whole point of the film is lost. (On Video, April 2001)

AMORES PERROS ([LIFE'S A BITCH], Mexico, 2000, Drama): One fatal car accident; three stories. The first one is fascinating, a look at life in low-rent Mexico City where crime is an entirely acceptable option to get ahead. It's brutal and compelling and you almost hope the entire film will be like that. Alas, the second story isn't as good, dragging us through the domestic disputes of a high-class couple whose stupid dog won't emerge from under the false floor of their apartment. The third story is good but far too long, a moralistic tale about an assassin on his last mission. Overall, the film is impressively directed and acted, but feels overlong at more than two hours. Your mileage may vary, especially if you can manage to be interested in the last two stories. (In theater, July 2002)

THE ART OF WAR (2000, Action): Well, well, well, isn't that interesting: An American action thriller financed by a Canadian production company, directed by a French-Canadian, in which an African-American agent, along with a Chinese translator, must save the United Nations from the imperialistic plans of two white Caucasian Americans. Imagine that. The only anomaly is Donald Sutherland in a good-guy role --but then again he's also a Canadian actor. Premise apart, the film itself is interesting but routine, a competent thriller with some visual flourishes and a few geopolitical twists. Wesley Snipes is rather good as the protagonist, and so it Marie Matiko as the bespectacled heroine all sinophiles will enjoy. Two particularly interesting sequences include a car chase with a nasty finish and a hallway sequence whose "visible bullets" effects seem directly inspired by THE MATRIX. (It's a good scene, but its visual style isn't found anywhere else in the film.) Moves at a decent pace and seems to think on a more global level than usual for an action thriller. Not a bad choice at all. (On DVD, May 2003)

A WAR NAMED DESIRE (OI YUE SHING, Hong-Kong, 2000, Drama/Action): Bless Hong-Kong cinema. I was initially dismayed to see that our local multicultural station (CFMT) had decided to run this Chinese-language film without any English subtitles. The language of bullets is universal, though, and there isn't much to understand once characters are killed and revenge must be taken. The last fifteen minutes are both touching then brutal to a degree seldom seen in American cinema. It helps that the film's director uses a strong visual style, with evocative shots and some impressive camera moves. Can this be said to be a review when I didn't understand more than the three lines of English dialogue? Probably not, but I might be tempted to see this one again if ever an English-subtitled DVD comes my way. (On TV, July 2001)

BAIT (2000, Comedy/Thriller): I'm typically a fan of those black-crime-comedy film (think BEVERLY HILLS COPS, BLUE STREAK, DOUBLE TAKE, etc.) and BAIT looked like it may be one of these. Alas, there's a touch too much crime and a tad not enough comedy to make this one work at the appropriate level. While Jamie Foxx does his best to act like a moronic protagonist, the film tries to force him in a dramatic "family man" role, with typically scattered results. In the context of the film, the various drama/comedy directions taken by the script are conflicting and eventually harmful to the film. It's a good thing, then, that Antoine Fuqua's direction is rather tight and nervy. Despite the script's occasional lengths, the film manages to maintain our interest through it all. (Well, except for the end where enough is enough.) While the film isn't an overall wreck, it falls short of its potential and tries to have it both funny and thrilling without achieving much of either. (On DVD, October 2002)

LE BATTEMENT D'AILES DU PAPILLON (aka HAPPENSTANCE, France, 2000, Romance/Comedy): I didn't expect much from this film, but it does eventually manage to pull itself together, though right before falling apart again. In a way, that's fitting for a film that's all about randomness, chance and the impact of seemingly small actions. The original title of the film is a wink to Chaos Theory and "The Butterfly Effect", and so the film is a succession of mini vignettes in which characters almost meet up, are separated by chance, see their innocuous actions hurt someone else or find themselves in impossible situations that are completely incomprehensible except for the all-seeing audience. It's very, very scattered by design, but the various interactions between the characters can be fun to watch, with occasional moments of shallow philosophy exposed. (Gilbert Romain is particularly interesting in his brief scenes as "The Destiny Man", practically standing in for the screenwriter.) Available in North American solely due to the presence of Audrey Tautou, this film inevitably evokes memories of AMELIE DE MONTMARTRE. But there's a world of difference between those two films: AMELIE (beyond obviously benefiting from a far more accomplished sense of direction) succeeds where HAPPENSTANCE doesn't in tying all threads together and imposing an overarching sense over a tapestry of details. Here, a few plot threads get tied up while the others are just left to scatter: It simply leaves a feeling of incompleteness, of selective conclusion. While the film as a whole leaves a pleasant and fuzzy feeling, it seems to forget its own objectives right before ending. (On DVD, August 2006)

BATTLEFIELD EARTH (2000, Science-Fiction): Everything you have heard about this film is true. It is one of the worst films ever. It is a massive monument to the bloated self-esteem of John Travolta. It is unimaginably stupid. It is one of the cheapest-looking big-budget film in recent memory. It is not worth your money. It is not bad enough to be good, but it is bad enough to be unpleasant. It is incompetently directed. It deserved to flop even more badly than it actually did. It is also, hopefully, a well-deserved slap in the face to the "memory" of one of the most gifted con artist of the twentieth century, L. Ron Hubbard. Stay away. Stay far, far away. (In theaters, May 2000)

BEDAZZLED (2000, Comedy): Some type of movies are virtually critic proof as long as they're made competently. BEDAZZLED is the type of high-concept film that never attains even a fraction of its impressive potential, but won't disappoint most viewers anyway. The reasons are numerous: Good likable performances from leads Brendan Fraser and Elizabeth (wowsa) Hurley, simplistic but not entirely stupid script, numerous set-pieces and a feel-good finale that redeems almost everything. Granted, there are only a few chuckles and not that many laughs, but it doesn't matter as long as it's wrapped in an entertaining package. Add a star if you're a Hurley fan, because she shows up in almost every possible outfit. Average, but fun. (In Theaters, October 2000)

BEST IN SHOW (2000, Comedy): Mock documentary about dog, shows and owners. It takes time to heat up, as the characters and their dogs are all introduced one after another and we warm up to their various eccentricities. The film finally reaches his peak with the arrival of Fred Willard as a loud-mouthed sports commentator hilariously stuck describing the workings of a dog show to an unfamiliar audience. The overall plot is easy to guess, what with arrogance being punished and the little guys overcoming all tribulations, but in no way does this take away from the overall fun of BEST IN SHOW, one of the overlooked gems of the year. (In theaters, December 2000)

THE BIG KAHUNA (2000, Drama): Obviously adapted from a theatrical play (as given away by the one-room setting), this film is more of actor's showcase than a satisfying movie experience. Kevin Spacey, Danny DeVito and Peter Facinelli all provide great performances, and the dialogue is good enough to tear into. The first act is the best, with the Spacey's unrepentantly cynical character dominating the film and the mordant dialogue. After that, the film gets preachy and self-important and loses a lot of its appeal. The conclusion is unsatisfying in that "and they he learned an important life lesson despite it being unpleasant" type of fashion. (In theaters, July 2000)

BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE (2000, Comedy): I have seldom liked Martin Lawrence's brand of "comedy" and he miserably fails once again in BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE, a totally middle-of-the-road film that seems to exist simply because a vast industry has to turn out films, no matter what. The script is on autopilot, summoning a romance out of no further common affinities but "she's hot" and "he's nice", comedy sequences made "funnier" by the sight of a fat protagonist and saccharine moments so blatantly manipulative that they end up alienating intelligent viewers rather than bringing them closer to the film. Nothing special here, folks. I didn't pay for my ticket, and I really hope you won't either. (In theaters, May 2000)

BLAIR WITCH 2: BOOK OF SHADOWS (2000, Horror) surprised me, and it should surprise you as well. It is obviously much, much slicker (and formulaic) than the controversial original film. It also can't escape the obvious giggle-factor reflex of thinking about the sheerly lucrative intent of a sequel to a film that already stands as being one of the most profitable in history. The surprising thing is how well it stands up to the original's originality. BLAIR WITCH 2 assumes the the first one did exist as a film, and features "fans" of the first film, further blurring the reality/fiction line that the first one muddied so well. But this is only a pretext to an exploration of reality, denial and objective truth that works quite well if you're paying attention. BOOK OF SHADOWS (okay, where's the book?) doesn't emerges without serious flaws (the caricatural sheriff is a terrible character, and there are several moments where you'll laugh at the film, not because of it) but it does earn a certain hard-won respect. It's not a classic, and even calling it good would be dicey, but it's much better than what you might expect. Many, many people will prefer it to the gimmicky (shakycam) original. It's fascinating because and despite its relation to the first film, by the sheer distance between the two and by the common bonds that unite them: Sequel, satire, apology, rip-off, homage; it's all of that. Viewers with an encyclopedic knowledge of horror film and a love for the genre will have a lot of fun dissecting this one. If nothing else, the audaciousness of BOOK OF SHADOWS's writer/director Joe Berlinger is enough to make it interesting. Oh, and the Wiccan redhead gets naked too. (In Theaters, October 2000)

BLESS THE CHILD (2000, Horror) starts out badly, as a teen addict dumps her newborn baby on the doorstep of her older sister (Kim Basinger, who plays, predictably enough, a child psychologist who can't have children) and depart for parts unknown. Flash forward six years as the little girl is hunted down by a cult for some nefarious purpose. This unpromising start helps a lot to appreciate the rest of the film, which steadily gets better, and even -gasp!- tugs a few strings its its depiction of the relationship between Basinger's character and her adopted child. Jimmy Smits had a good turn as a good cop, the Catholic church isn't depicted as corrupt (though the convent may bring back memories of a Simpsons episode featuring a similar school run by French-Canadian nuns), police procedures are nicely handled, there are a few cool miracles here and there and the film moves with a certain energy that, frankly, simply works better than expected. It's a B-movie, yes, but a rather entertaining one. (In Theaters, October 2000)

THE BOGUS WITCH PROJECT (2000, Comedy): Imagine a flyer inviting amateur LA-area filmmakers to send in their short BLAIR WITCH PROJECT parodies. Imagine screening all of these g'damn shorts. Scary? Repulsive? Dreadful? Well, you can get a taste for it, because they've selected the "best" five of them for your viewing pleasure. I normally have a very high tolerance for silly parodies, but that threshold's was reached early on with THE BOGUS WITCH PROJECT. There are a few clever jokes here and there, but if there was a case for plagiarism, it would have been to steal all the best ideas and do one single parody. After all, there's a limit to the number of times a lens-cap joke can be effective. Heck; the Pauly Shore segment is the best thing about the film. What else can I say? (On video, May 2002)

BOILER ROOM (2000, Thriller): It's not every day that you can be engrossed by a financial thriller mixed with a family drama, but that's what you get here. Of course, the plot is enough to be interesting: A young ex-illegal-casino-owner gets hired in a stock trading firm where he's guaranteed to become a millionaire in three years. Of course, it's a scam, and as far as scams goes, this one is pretty clever yet explained in an understandable fashion. The acting is decent, with standouts being Ben Affleck in a scene-stealing quasi-cameo and Vin Diesel as a near-decent trader. Protagonist Giovanni Ribisi is less impressive, however; this reviewer couldn't help but imagine Edward Norton in the role and bemoan Ribisi's casting. The script is sharp, with funny interludes and not-so-funny insightful vignettes. The family drama drags a bit, and the protagonist's "redemption" isn't effective, but that shouldn't keep you from BOILER ROOM, a darn good film. (In theaters, February 2000)

BRING IT ON (2000, Comedy): You can evaluate films on artistic merit, or you can just measure how much fun you had while watching it. Well, BRING IT ON is unquestionably one of 2000's most enjoyable films, an irresistibly bubbly teen comedy executed with skill and above-average intelligence. A rather complete surprise, considering that you wouldn't except a teen sport comedy about cheerleading to be anything but fluff. But while BRING IT ON doesn't break out of the teen genre as, say, ELECTION did, it remains as one of the best recent entries in the genre. The script very good, filled with good one-liners, properly acknowledging clichés and managing non-boring relationship scenes. The actors all look like they're having fun, with Kirsten Dunst continuing her good career choices. (In fifty years, I suspect she'll pop up that film once in a while just to bask in the glory of how good she looked and how well she performed.) Technically, the choreography of the cheerleading scenes is really impressive and the soundtrack is very good (Even somewhat clever, linking 2 Unlimited's "Are you ready for this" to a trite, unoriginal routine. Ho-ho!) From its incredible first scene (a masterwork of structure, introducing the main characters in a wild-out dream sequence) to its bouncy sing-along credits, BRING IT ON is one of the year's surprise delights, a teen film that's enjoyable well beyond its simple voyeuristic appeal. Though that's not to be neglected either. (In Theaters, November 2000)

BRING IT ON (2000, Teen Comedy): Among the dreck that passes off as teen films, you occasionally get a smart film that either goes beyond the teen genre (ELECTION) or simply works so well that everyone can get into it (FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF). BRING IT ON is another example in that last category, a fun film without any pretensions, but made with considerable cleverness by people with perspective and respect for the audience. The film is a blast even on a second viewing, and the director's audio commentary is worth another viewing by itself. (Choice quote, which probably explains the appeal of BRING IT ON to me: "I tried making a cheerleader film with a punk sensibility".) You might even pick up a few of the subtle messages (No!) vehicled by the film. Impossible not to smile and cheer for a film when everyone involved looks like they're having that much fun! Be sure to check out the "deleted scenes" section of the DVD, which features great scenes you'll wish had remained in the finished product. I love the film more than ever, and easily confirm its standing on my 2000 Top-10 list. (Second Viewing, On DVD, July 2001)

BUZZ LIGHTYEAR: THE ADVENTURE BEGINS (2000, Animated/Comedy): Perfunctory pilot episode to a kid's series starring TOY STORY's Buzz Lightyear character. (Be warned, though, that this feature is hand-animated, and doesn't feature computer animation except for a very brief introduction.) The film itself is fine; a nice way to keep the kids entertained, if not much else. There are a few clever lines, but you've heard them all elsewhere. All in all, this is a strictly average production. Acceptable, not great but good. (On video, July 2002)

The middle section of CASTAWAY (2000, Drama) is nearly an actor's dream: to be featured alone, without co-stars, for nearly an hour. It's a testament to the talents of Tom Hanks that CASTAWAY is able to do so without boring the audience. It is the film's biggest asset, but unfortunately almost its only one. The beginning of the film is snappy enough (pausing only to establish the required scenes of romantic interest), followed by a pretty good airplane crash: as always, Robert Zemeckis is a competent technician and knows how to film complex setups like these. The island sequence is far more interesting than expected, even though it's regrettable that the evolution of the character is simply glossed over by a title card. The third act of the film is by far the most unsatisfying, with a rushed conclusion that can't avoid its built-in limitations and doesn't go much further than the obvious. Audiences with room-temperature IQ will have recognized the film's final shot from the tell-all trailer anyway. CASTAWAY remains a good enough film and a splendid actor showcase, but it never really exploits its theme to the fullest. (In theaters, December 2000)

CECIL B. DEMENTED (2000, Comedy): Very uneven satire of the Hollywood movie industry. Though John Waters is revered for his irreverence, CECIL B. DEMENTED seems more like a half-hearted routine satire than a definitive statement on the industry. The best part of the film, aside from some great lines ("PATCH ADAMS doesn't deserve a director's cut! It's long enough as it is!") is the endearingly kooky troupe of guerrilla filmmakers characters. They promise a much stronger film than what is ultimately presented here, as their innate interest is trampled by a script that simply goes through the motions. The low production values often show and hamper some scenes. The conclusion feels forced and somewhat immature. Film buffs, needless to say, will get much more out of the film than the "average moviegoers" that CECIL B. DEMENTED is lambasting. Worth a rental whenever you're at the video store and can't stomach yet another syrupy Hollywood product. (In theaters, December 2000)

THE CELL (2000, Science-Fiction): I can usually forgive a lot of silly stuff if the offending film is willing to push the envelope of cinematic audacity. Certainly, the trailers to THE CELL will try to tell you that you're about to see An Event, a film which will show you things you've never seen before. While it is not deceptive advertising, it is at least far too enthusiastic; one of the mixed reactions I had at the end of the film has that despite the pretty pictures, THE CELL wasn't nearly as innovative, nor as strange as it wanted to become. But that's not the most offensive thing about the film: That would be the simplistic script used to string along these pictures. Consider: Serial killer is apprehended but fails to reveal location of latest victim, police investigator interrogates killer and gets crucial clue, policeman frees victim before she dies, the end. Nowhere in this plot summary is any mention of the character played by the nominal "star" of the film, Jennifer Lopez. That's because she may be incredibly hot, but her character does absolutely nothing to solve the case, save get captured and require rescue by the policeman. Ouch! Fortunately, there are still a few pretty pictures to look at. But they're not enough. (In theaters, August 2000)

CHARLIE'S ANGELS (2000, Comedy/Action): Halfway through the film, I leaned over to a friend and whispered "I can't decide whether this is getting better or worse" and that will stand as a nutshell review. On one level, it's one of the worst blockbusters of 2000: Hyperactive editing, sexist imagery, thin characters and one of the most incoherent script seen so far. On the other hand, it's directed with such reckless audaciousness and played with such bouncy abandon that it's hard not to be swept along with the fun. The film starts in high gear and never lets up. Film students will go bonkers trying to decode the cinematic techniques used by director "McG", as he throws everything at the screen, often at the same time. Surprisingly or not, CHARLIE'S ANGELS pushes back the cinematic techniques at a pace comparable to the more "serious" filmmakers. What helps to swallow the disjointed script (obviously written on-the-fly, as demonstrated by out-of-nowhere sequences like the car chase) is an intermittent self-awareness that winks at the audience. Also notable is the great soundtrack, which often doubles as ironic commentary (the use of The Prodigy's "Smack my bitch up" during a fight scene between the thin man and the three angels is either a product of complete cluelessness or subversive brilliance) Despite a reportedly difficult shooting, all of the four main players look like they're having as much fun as we do: Lucy Liu and Cameron Diaz are adorable as always, Bill Murray is his usual dependable self and Drew Barrymore is surprisingly good. (A mention goes to Crispin Glover in a silent, but effective, role) CHARLIE'S ANGELS will probably remain as a film that gets no respect, but tons of fans. (In Theaters, November 2000)

CHARLIE'S ANGELS (2000, Action/Comedy): I'll admit that this isn't a movie for everyone. Animated with a hyperkinetic energy that tramples down any attempt at conventional criticism, CHARLIE'S ANGELS nevertheless features a basic self-awareness that helps a lot in respecting the film for what it is, and the DVD version of the movie confirms many suspicions in this regard. Surprisingly, the film is almost as much fun on a second viewing, mostly because there's never a dull moment. The editing is rapid but not chaotic, the directing is much better than initially apparent (watch for those lengthy single shots, a clear indicator that director "McG" is more than your usual music-video director) and the overall sense of fun simply doesn't let go. Great action sequences, a fabulous soundtrack and oodles of sex-appeal are the icing on the cake. Dig down through the plentiful extra features on the DVD, and you'll understand why the film works so well: The lively audio commentary makes it clear that everyone involved in the film knew they were doing a comic-book film, and they're justifiably proud of what they achieved. No social relevance; just fun. Worth not only a look, but a second look. (Second Viewing, On DVD, July 2001)

CHICKEN RUN (2000, Comedy): Every self-respecting WALLACE AND GROMIT fan only needed to know that Nick Park was doing CHICKEN RUN in order to rush out and see the film. Great news: CHICKEN RUN more than meet the expectations set by Park's three most famous shorts films. CHICKEN RUN is a constant delight, a comedy with considerable amounts of wit and intelligence, with the added attraction of some fun action sequences. Keep your eyes open for tons of delightful film references. One could easily dwell on the technical prowesses of the film, but the storytelling is so good that it preempts any attempt at a technical analysis. Run, chicken, run! (In theaters, June 2000)

CHICKEN RUN (2000, Comedy) survives a second viewing admirably well, which is always an achievement for a comedy. The novelty of claymation fades somewhat, and the various character quirks emerge more strongly. I was annoyed at the gratuitous romantic angle, but the script shows how well written it otherwise is. The DVD is a lot of fun, with two making-of features, commentary tracks, various extra as well as three trailers (including the hilarious GLADIATOR and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE parodies.) Unquestionably one of the best films of 2000. (Second viewing, On DVD, December 2000)

CHOCOLAT (2000, Comedy): It's a shame that films are limited to sight and sound (with the occasional bass-driven tactile vibration) when seeing food, but hey—hearing my dieting female companion coo in envy at every single chocolate shot of the film almost made up for it. The initial structure of the film will be instantly familiar; an uptight community gradually liberated by an outsider. (In this case, a chocolatière -the wonderful Juliette Binoche- deftly stuffing our prudish cast with sinful chocolate). Strong symbolism, and it's hard to see where you could go wrong with it. But it does, as soon as a second outsider comes in (Johnny Depp, with a good performance in a useless role) and mucks up what had been up to then a relatively clear narration. Blame it on the original novel if you must, but a large part of the film's appeal simply runs on empty whenever Depp's character is around. The other big flaw of the film is its very deliberate nature, where even the tragedies are carefully metered out in portions designed to thrill without offending anyone. You could say that the film feels designed for Oscar, and you wouldn't be totally wrong. Still, once you get past that, the film still feels delicious in a completely non-challenging way. It reinforces liberal thinking, makes you hungry and won't offend anyone: Follow it up by a trip to the ice cream parlor and you have an instant great date. (In theaters, July 2001)

CHOPPER (2000, Australia, Crime/Biography): Coming straight from Australia, this docu-fictive account of the life of criminal Mark Brandon "Chopper" Read is stuffed with interesting moments, but you'll have to work hard at understanding anything. Hey, I think Australia's a great nation filled with cool people, but when I can't understand anything at all in a movie that doesn't even feature subtitles (those insensitive DVD-making clods!), I'm not particularly interested in following the film. Fortunately, the French-language audio track was more intelligible. While the film lost something in translation, it was still better than to try to decipher the thick Australian street-talk. Yes, CHOPPER is obviously a low-budget film: the lengthy shots, grainy film stock, oversaturated colours, static camera and sparse sets aren't just a stylistic choice. I suppose that the target audience of the film already knows "Chopper", because the film presents important clues about his achievements in what is almost a casual fashion; pieces are missing here and there, and there's no making-of on the disc to help us figure it out. It is, indeed, a fictional representation of a real person. In any case, the real winner of the film is Eric Bana, whose representation of "Chopper" runs a fine line between jovial innocence and hard-edged brutality. Frightening and charismatic at once, it's easy to see why he was hired for THE HULK after this film. (The irony, though, is that he deliver a better performance as a "Hulk" here than in the latter film.) The film does features quite a few clever moments, but not quite nearly enough to compensate for its uneven quality. As mentioned, the Canadian Alliance-Atlantis DVD contains no special features worth mentioning and no subtitles, but it does sport a more intelligible French-language track. (On DVD, July 2003)

COYOTE UGLY (2000, Drama): Ay-yay-yay, how ordinary can you be? I imagine the pitch for this film being roughly "Hey, I've got twenty minutes of wild COCKTAIL-for-chicks bar stuff! Any one of you can dust off one of your rejected romance plot to fluff it up?" Sure, Piper Perabo look cute and the rest of the waitresses at the "Coyote Ugly" (that wiiild bar) are pretty hot even when fully clothed, but the rest of the film is a complete bore, showing us a trite romance that we must have seen countless times already. Shamelessly manipulative, often ridiculously implausible, laughably "edgy" (being a struggling songwriter is never so glamorous as in a Jerry Bruckheimer-produced film) and all-and-all rather forgettable, COYOTE UGLY delivers what no one expected from it; utter averageness. (In Theaters, November 2000)

CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON (WO HU ZANG LONG, China, 2000, Drama/Action): It was about time that someone married good drama with cool action scenes, and it took a director clearly more renowned for drama (Ang Lee: SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, THE ICE STORM) than action to do it. The result is an impressive blend of classical tragedy and modern imagery, where the plot is almost as interesting as the fights and the actors seem to switch effortlessly from one mode to the other. Michelle Yeoh and Chow Yun Fat turn in some of the best performances of their career, with impressive screen presences and convincing physical ability. The action scenes are impressive to behold and will warrant another viewing. Only the script isn't as good as it might have been, with serious structural problems (there's a twenty-minute flashback in the middle of the film that just kills all pacing) and a disappointing ending. But even with these flaws, CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON stands on its own as one of 2000's best films, a deliciously impressive experience that will manage to delights such diverse crowds as action junkies, feminists, art-house audiences and popcorn crowds. (In theaters, December 2000)

CROUPIER (United Kingdom, 2000, Thriller): Few people can resist films about gambling, and so CROUPIER has a built-in fascination enhanced by its insider's view of casinos and the thrill of playing with high stakes. The story of a ex-gambling writer who finds himself drawn back in the world of casinos as a dealer, CROUPIER isn't showy, explosive or particularly funny, but I guarantee that it'll hold your attention, and not only because you'll be trying to figure out the English accent. Pay attention to lead actor Clive Owen; he'll be back. It's a story filled with betrayals, small and big, a twist ending that doesn't entirely make sense and characters stuck in the choices they've made. But it's the little details that count, such as the casino lore and the strangely compelling half-world the characters inhabit. Not bad. (In Theaters, October 2000)

THE DISH (2000, Comedy): Little-seen Australian comedy well worth tracking down for a pleasant diversion. Taking place in 1969, during the first mission to the Moon, it concerns the efforts of a few technicians to keep the Moon-Earth relay open despite difficulties. Given that said link (the title "Dish") is in a little Australian community, you can expect a quasi-nostalgic portrait of a small town. It may not sound like much fun, but it's actually quite charming. There's even some material for deeper reflection about the importance of creating cultural mementoes for later generations, but only if you like to overanalyze your films. The biggest flaw of THE DISH is that it's based on a true story, and as such has to contend with structural difficulties. (For instance, that the film's most dramatic moment comes maybe halfway through, after which we're almost left wondering "what else?"). The conclusion is weaker than it should; there was ample room for a what-happened-next epilogue, but unfortunately we're left wondering. Still, a good film for everyone, and a unexpected treat for space-nuts in particular. (In theaters, July 2001)

DOUBLE TAP (xx, Hong-Kong, 2000, Action): Weak action film that doesn't spark any interest despite a solid helping of gun fetishism. It doesn't help that protagonist and antagonist pretty much look the same. The shootouts have moments or interest, but the rest simply lies inert. Many blood squibs. At least the film proves that not all Hong-Kong bullet ballets are spectacular. (On TV, April 2001)

DR T. AND THE WOMEN (2000, Comedy) might be a rather impressive misfire, but at least it can boast one of the most descriptive title of the year. There's the plot in a nutshell, how a gynaecologist (Richard Gere, in a fairly good role) deals with the woman in both his professional and personal lives. I'm not sure if the screenwriter actually lives on this planet (Woman looking forward to their visit to the gynaecologist? I'm no expert on the subject, but that's news to me.) but it's clear that s/he's got no skill writing comedy: Despite the potential of the film's elements, it falls singularly short of exploiting its own quirkiness. (At one point, I kept hoping for Dr. T. to say "My wife's a nut, my sister-in-law's an alcoholic, my lesbian daughter is getting married to a guy, my secretary's hitting on me and the most normal member of my family is a CONSPIRACY THEORIST!") lot of missed opportunities, slow pacing, implausible situations (even for a Robert Altman film) and a truly awful ending which doesn't resolve anything. But don't think that I didn't enjoy the film, flaws and all. The star-studded cast is impressive in itself, there's some welcome female nudity and if you don't know the ending you can kid yourself in being interested in how worse the plot threads can get for the intrepid Dr. T. Kudos to my sister for uncovering a subtle interpretation of the film, as she maintains that it's Dr. T. himself who's responsible for the nuttiness of the women around him. All in all, a film that's worthwhile almost despite itself. (In theaters, December 2000)

DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR? (2000, Comedy): Once in a while, there comes a film so mind-boggingly odd that it's a wonder it got made. That's exactly DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR?, a delightful absurdist science-fiction comedy that's so good that it might be hard to acknowledge the fact that it eventually has to end. You wouldn't expect a film about two slackers trying to find their car to be so inventive, but it just keeps building to better jokes. It's goofy, good-natured, hilarious, without an ounce of pretension and with a surprising lack of gross-out gags so prevalent in current comedies. I laughed like an idiot and predict a wide cult following. Sweet! (In theaters, March 2001)

DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR? (2000, Comedy): It's remarkably easy to dismiss this film as being nothing more than a stupid stoner teen comedy, but look closer and you'll change your mind. Oh, I'm not saying it's smart-disguised-as-silly, but there is a considerable amount of clever go-for-broke gleefulness in the way the film just marches on and boldly goes places you just don't expect. It's not only a blast on a second viewing, but on the third too. The DVD includes some pointless "extended scenes" you might be hard-pressed to distinguish from the originals. I also features an audio commentary track that's a trip of its own: It starts off in mid-laugh, continues incoherently for a few minutes, breaks off as one of them goes get beers (or goes to the bathroom) and generally presents a picture of the film being a perfect accident where serendipity had at least as big a role to play as the screenwriter. Still, it doesn't change my mind; the film is a great little comedy with many delightful moments. See it! It's underrated! (Second Viewing, On DVD, August 2001)

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (2000, Fantasy): A fantasy game movie adaptation filmed in Eastern Europe on a low-low-low budget. If at this point you're not expecting total trash, you haven't been paying attention. And, for the first ten minute, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS seems to deliver exactly what we're expecting: Pretentious and confusing voiceover, choppy editing, uneven directing, embarrassing overacting, awful dialogues... it's all there. But, at the ten-minute mark (as the young female mage lassoes the two thieves), something quite remarkable happens, and the film suddenly becomes entertaining in a good way, almost shamelessly daring us to have fun with it. The quality of the writing improves dramatically, the jokes fly and the direction is handled with the appropriate amount of fun. For slightly more than half an hour, we're plunged in the heart of "Dungeons & Dragons": Saving the world while having good fun with friends. (Around the kitchen table, with an unhealthy supply of chips and soft drinks) Alas, that fun is dashed at mid-film as soon as a main character is killed. Then the film turns somber, dour, boring and, yes, pretentious. The political scenes are naive, the overacting gets worse, Thora Birch looks like a china doll tarted up to look like a cheap Amidala ripoff and not even a liberal injection of special effects can save the film from the disappointing finale. Not a good film by any means, but at least there's a decent stretch somewhere. (In theaters, December 2000)

ERIN BROKOVICH (2000, Bio-Drama): Sit in your overpriced seats, my gullible friends! Watch in amazement as a plucky single mom takes on an evil money-grubbing corporate giant! Cheer as our spunky heroine sticks it to The Man! Laugh as she gets a two-million-dollar check for her efforts! Be entertained by this well-made, completely straightforward film by director Stephen Soderberg! Vote for Julia Roberts at next year's Oscars ceremony! Do not ponder the repulsive subtext of the film! Do not question the film's adherence to the "true story" of the events! Don't be angered at the film's gleeful representation of 40% lawyer fees! Don't be annoyed at the glib glorification of the private arbitrage process! Above all, never pause to consider that this film shamelessly presents social justice as a form of lottery, where everyone who's sick can be all right after winning a few million dollars! No, simply enjoy the film as it is, and conform to popular entertainment! (In theaters, April 2000)

FINAL DESTINATION (2000, Horror) is a cut above the usual teen-horror films, mostly because of some effective directing, interesting set-pieces and a refusal to explain away the horror by some boring random knife-wielding psycho. This time, the enemy is Death itself, and FINAL DESTINATION does a better job than most horror films at instilling a faint -but genuine- sense of dread, and a lingering feeling of uneasiness after the film is over; I defy you to drive your car back home after the film and not think about stupid random accidents. The airplane's crash scene is an anthology piece, brutally effective in its realism. Sure, the film is limited in ambition and not entirely successful: Two scenes seem notably out of place (the weirdish morgue segment and the quasi EVIL-DEAD cabin scene) and the death scenes are a bit too cartoonish -not to mention fairly predictable- to be really creepy. (They're so over-the-top that they can be disposed of by a giggle and a shrug, whereas a more restrained approach would have been far more effective.) Still, it's not that bad, and any film that ends with that final shot (think about it again...) isn't entirely bad. (In theaters, March 2000)

FINAL DESTINATION (2000, Teen/Horror): I remember being slightly unnerved by this teen horror film when it first came out, and indeed this impression is sustained a second time around. This isn't some stupid slasher film in which everyone acts like brain-damaged morons; this film stars Death itself, and the convoluted ways in which even the silliest things can become fatal. Just try to drive home afterward without thinking about bad-luck accidents! Suffice to say that this film will creep on you while you won't expect it, and that it itself is an admirable accomplishment in a subgenre that hasn't produced any marvels lately. A second look doesn't do much to assuage my misgivings about the shifting tone of the film and the needlessly gruesome death scenes, but the rest of my initial impression equally holds up. It's an efficient, clever little supernatural thriller that will keep you on edge better than its counterparts. Dim the lights and see it with someone you trust. The DVD contains a lot of extra, whether it's two commentary tracks or related featurettes (the best being one about test screenings, and how FINAL DESTINATION went from having a wussy soft ending to the hard-edged one it currently enjoys.) (Second Viewing, On DVD, July 2002)

THE FLINTSTONES 2: VIVA ROCK VEGAS (2000, Comedy): As a childhood fan of THE FLINTSTONES (practically a French-Canadian institution), I was prepared to be very indulgent toward this rather unexpected sequel. And, really, the best I can say about the film is that it's not bad. No one will ever mistake it for a good film, but it's rather enjoyable if you don't come in with high expectations. The set design really fits in the overall Flintstones atmosphere, and the actors mostly adapt to the characters (only Kristen Johnson's Wilma doesn't quite match, but that doesn't really matter seeing how Mark Addy's Fred and Jeanne Krakowski's Betty really act like their cartoon counterparts.) The pacing of the film flags down noticeably in the second half and the film can never make up its own mind as to whether it's supposed to be for adults or for kids, but it can be watched with some pleasure. Sometime, that's all you want. (In theaters, April 2000)

FREQUENCY (2000, Science-Fiction): It so happens that Science-fiction cinema is often best represented by modest low-key efforts rather than by big flashy blockbusters. TWELVE MONKEYS, 12:01 and GATTACA are three examples of SF films with minimal effects that nevertheless ranked as their respective year's best SF films. Now FREQUENCY joins their rank with distinction, popping up on SF fans's radar screens with minimal fanfare but maximal effect. Time-travel tales are common, but they're rarely as heartfelt as FREQUENCY, which is -really- an ode to fatherhood disguised in SF trappings. A rather good script (despite more than a few causality problems) directed with tight efficiency supported by good acting; you can't really go wrong with this film. FREQUENCY works remarkably well and seems poised for a good enduring reputation. (In theaters, April 2000)

GET CARTER (2000, Drama): Acceptable "revenge" B-movie; not too ambitious, but rather entertaining. Sylvester Stallone turns in a good performance (one of his best) in a role that seems custom-tailored for him. Rachel Leigh Cook continues a string of good roles in otherwise average films. The direction is showy, at times needlessly so. (The grainy film grain is intended to bring back memories of the seventies, but it's more annoying than anything else.) The script is by the numbers. Strong similarities with the 1999 film THE LIMEY (as with other "revenge" films), though GET CARTER is more tightly plotted once you're unkinked THE LIMEY's nonlinear narrative. Not bad, not good: to be seen on TV. (In Theaters, October 2000)

THE GIFT (2000, Horror): Low-key, but effective supernatural thriller with a bunch of big stars (Cate Blanchett, good as ever, but also a surprising Keanu Reeves, Katie Holmes, Greg Kinnear and Giovanni Ribisi) used to good effect. Sam Raimi's direction is also understated, yet effective. Interestingly enough, the "gift" isn't nearly as important as how the characters react to it. I didn't think a hillbilly drama about a clairvoyant would grab me as much as this one did. The resolution is predictable, but the technique is sufficiently well-handled that it doesn't matter much. At a time where supernatural thrillers are dumb and plentiful, it's somewhat of a relief to find one that actually looks as if it cares about the story it's telling. A small film, but a pleasant surprise. (On DVD, December 2002)

GINGER SNAPS (Canada, 2000, Horror): It's hard enough to find "serious" teen horror films nowadays that it's almost a shame to give a bad report about GINGER SNAPS, a Canadian effort that at least tries to do something interesting with the genre. Like most classical horror stories of the past, GINGER SNAPS weaves in social issues with the gore, in this case a statement about female teen alienation mixed with werewolf lore. It holds up decently through most of the film, in large part due to the performance of the two lead actresses. It begins falling apart near the end, where characters are quickly forgotten (mom last seen at a rave) or dispatched for no good reason. You may thing that a gratuitously happy ending is frustrating, but it's not nearly as annoying as a gratuitously tragic ending, again proving that killing off the whole cast does not necessarily lead to artistic merit. Worth a look if only for the good old-fashioned social commentary, but not a fun ride. At least it's better than most movies of its genre. (In theatres, May 2001)

GIRLFIGHT (2000, Drama) A "tale from the 'hood" crossed with a sports drama with a dollop of romance. (Plus a coming-of-age story. In some ways, it's kind of a FIGHT CLUB for girls.) Though the plot is conventional, it's hard not to be impressed by newcomer Michelle Rodriguez, who shines brightly as the aggressive protagonist. ("I love you!" THWAP!) The direction is surprisingly assured, with a neat white-flash trick during the fight scenes. Maybe a bit too contrived to be entirely believable. The kind of film that cheats no one and delivers what's promised. (In Theaters, October 2000)

GLADIATOR (2000, Historical Epic) is a nice surprise with a few problems. While the title, packaging and previews would seem to sell a straight historical action film with plenty of fancy fighting set-pieces, GLADIATOR is really more of an old-fashioned historical epic, with political machinations, romantic interludes and tragic sacrifices. Moreover, the action scenes fail to attain true greatness by an annoying over-reliance on gimmicky special effects. (CGI extensions, sure, but most egregiously the step-printing and the exasperating quick cuts) Director Ridley Scott never provides a shot-to-shot continuity of action, and the film suffers from, basically, a cruel lack of long-shot look at the action. (The opening Roma-versus-Germania battle, fortunately, does so and is much more impressive because of it. But look at the gladiator-versus-chariot fight to see how much more impressive it would have been with a few continuous long shots.) Still, the film thrives on Russell Crowe's impressive charisma and on a strong heroic arc. A good movie, just short of being great. (In theaters, May 2000)

GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS (2000, Action) isn't as bad as some critics may have thought initially; it's first of all a car-lover's film, and should prove to be a lot of fun for those people. Granted, the lack of car chases is puzzling in a film that's designed around the concept of stealing cars, but the remainder of the film is interesting enough in a beercan-entertainment type of fashion. Nicholas Cage is believable in a role closer to his early comedic characters. Unfortunately, Giovanni Ribisi continues (after BOILER ROOM) to suck charisma out of all scenes in which he's present. The soundtrack has its moment. There aren't enough stunts. A typical Jerry Bruckheimer film, with all the good and bad that this entails. (In theaters, August 2000)

GREENFINGERS (United Kingdom, 2000, Comedy): Innocuous, rather inoffensive gardening comedy starring convicts. Clive Owen is good as the lead protagonist (he'll be James Bond one day, I swear!) and the rest of the actors hold their own. It's a low-budget film, but an enjoyable one in THE FULL MONTY tradition of British underdog comedies. There isn't much here that is memorable or profound, but it's a good time at the movies. The DVD is a bare-bones edition. (On DVD, August 2002)

THE GRINCH WHO STOLE CHRISTMAS (2000, Comedy): It's interesting how expectations can make or break a film. A film on the borderline can be either rather good or rather bad depending on how much you were expecting from it. In this case, I was expecting the worst from Ron Howard's THE GRINCH, especially with Jim Carrey as the title character. To my surprise, I found myself giggling alarmingly often, and was pleasantly entertained by the result. I had no particular knowledge or attachment to the Seuss book or the original cartoon version, so any liberties taken with the source material don't particularly concern me. Granted, the film is a mixed bag. Among the bad: The musical interludes, the set design, the "explanation" of the Grinch's grouchiness and the Who nose makeup design. Among the good, obviously, is Jim Carrey himself: the film reaches its best moments whenever he's acting his sarcastic, anarchistic, grouchy characters. But, alas, as this is essentially the tale of the imposition of social conformity on the only independent-thinking character of a small group, the ending of the film is predictably awful, as the Grinch is coerced in becoming another one of the boring morons of Whoville. I'd continue with some further social commentary, but you surely get my point. Still, the getting there is often far more fun than expected, with some subversive adult in-jokes thrown in the mix. (Watch for a visual ICE STORM reference that completely destroys Whoville's wholesome image) And, hey, Christine Baranski gets both some screen-time and tight outfits. If that's not enough to convince you, well... (In theaters, December 2000)

GROOVE (2000, Musical Comedy): Don't bother looking for a plot: This is basically a "let's have a rave" film featuring pretty much what you'd expect as associated events: A romance that takes too much time, a naive guy who takes too much drugs, a police raid, a DJ that gets his groove back, two couples with relationship problems, etc... There's some good music, though not quite enough. At least the main romance features appealing protagonists, and there are some pretty good jokes here and there. It does present a rather good impression of rave culture, though it ends up being a bit too sweet and, yes, conventional. (While GROOVE makes GO's rave scenes look like a preppy party, it's itself seriously outclassed by the contemporary HUMAN TRAFFIC as an exploration of the hows, whys and weirds of the party scene.) The end film looks a lot like a director's first feature (which it is) where an inexperienced crew gets some experience. At least they show some good potential: The credit scene is impressive in how it quickly introduces all the main characters, and the rave scenes do have an inherent energy. (In theaters, December 2000)

HERE'S TO LIFE! (Canada, 2000, Comedy): I know; if you're not yet 65, there are few things less appealing than a comedy starring retirement-age actors on a self-discovery trip. And yet, given the chance, HERE'S TO LIFE! manages to be something worth watching for the entire family. Eric McCormack stars as the young guy kidnapped by an elderly trio intent on one last wild trip while they still can. That they'll discover stuff, pass on some of their wisdom and maybe even expire on the way isn't in doubt, but the film itself has a bunch of good moments and enough material to sustain interest during its entire duration. Fortunately, the film can depend on its veteran actors and lush British Columbia scenery. All told, it's just a very very nice film. And that's all there is to it. (On DVD, January 2005)

HIGH FIDELITY (2000, Comedy): Nominally a romantic comedy about a record-store owner at sentimental crossroads in his life, HIGH FIDELITY is much more than that: It's a thought-piece for everyone -yours included- that would rather criticize than create, imitate than build or analyze rather than take chances and do something new. A light-hearted, nearly pitch-perfect comedy, HIGH FIDELITY blends music with romance and comes up with a winner. John Cusack proves why he's one of the best young actors in the business today (he also produced the film) and Jack Black finally gets a starring credit after stealing scenes in so many films (I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, THE JACKAL, ENEMY OF THE STATE) as a character actor. Often hilarious, often touching, the only quibble I've got about HIGH FIDELITY is that the female love interest seems too average to warrant such interest... but isn't that the lesson of the film? (In theaters, August 2000)

HOCHELAGA (Canada, 2000, Crime): The biker-gang problem has made quite a few headlines in Quebec during the past few years, and so it's not a surprise to see an original home-grown thriller that deals with the issue. Here, a young man is gradually brought in a gang, where he'll eventually discover a deadly secret... It's really a portrait of how someone from a disadvantaged environment can see crime as an alternative option, and as such is far more honest than dozens of similar films. The raw, naturalistic technique of the film thus works to its advantage. It's a bit dull at first, but it sharply improves in the second half. Ironically enough, when I tried to find parallels in foreign cinema with HOCHELAGA, I could only think of Hong-Kong Triad films in which similar protagonists are gradually seduced in the power of criminal gangs. In any case, the result is a powerful film, maybe the best French-Canadian film I can recall recently. Definitely worth a look if you can find it. The DVD contains a few serviceable extras such as interviews and an English-language track. (In French, On DVD, December 2001))

HOLLOW MAN (2000, Science-Fiction): Let's get something out of the way first: The special effects in HOLLOW MAN are some of the best seen so far. A variety of techniques keep the effects from getting stale, some of the shots cannot be improved upon and, yes, we really believe there's an invisible man in the room. This being said, let's put something else out of the way: Paul Verhoeven isn't as smart as he thinks he is. No amount of satire-claiming is going to save the exploitative trash that was STARSHIP TROOPERS, for instance. Similarly, if he here manages about an hour of creepy SF (Verhoeven should stick to straight horror; it's what he does best), HOLLOW MAN becomes increasingly moronic as it transforms itself into full slasher film mode. Probably the most technologically advanced slasher ever, but a slasher nevertheless. You know the drill; monster kills off everyone in a remote area one by one until protagonist and lover triumph over it. No change here, even through the special effects are cool. HOLLOW MAN approaches offensiveness not by its shock killings, but by the contempt it treats its audience, as invisibility is confused with invincibility and stupid plot mechanics take over plausibility. You ask me, and the invisible man should've stuck with peeping on naked models; I would've rather seen that than what may have been the 664^th slasher/monster film of my life. (In theaters, August 2000)

IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE (HUA YANG NIAN HUA, Hong-Kong, 2000, Drama): Would you willingly see a subtitled period Chinese film describing how a man and a woman decide not to have an affair? Seriously; how much money would it take to make you see this? How about I throw in a fifteen-minutes-long epilogue that doesn't lead anywhere? What if you have to see two great actors (Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung) do nothing during all that time? Would you mind a bunch of moody shots without whom this would become a short film? Can you feel my pain, now? Good. (In Theaters, August 2002)

KEEPING THE FAITH (2000, Romance/Comedy): Every single Ed Norton fan in the audience, please wave your fist in the air and cheer for the guy, who not only turns in yet another great performance, but also convincingly directs his first film with KEEPING THE FAITH. The story sounds a lot like a bad joke ("So this priest and this rabbi both fall in love with the same girl..."), but the development of the tale is anything but silly. The three protagonist couldn't be played better than by Norton, Ben Stiller and Jenna Elfman. Fortunately, they can depend on a rather good script, which not only mixes the inevitable romantic entanglement, but also includes a pretty good comparative look at both Catholics and Jews. This chameleon-like film will play well not only with religious audience of both denomination, but also with less-devout audiences. There's something to like for everyone, from a karaoke salesman to great shots of New York. (Plus a wonderfully cool bit with our two men of faith walking in slow-motion to Santana's "Smooth") Funny, smart and even poignant, you'll be hard-pressed not to enjoy KEEPING THE FAITH. (On Video, November 2001)

THE LEGEND OF THE FLYING SWORDSMAN (aka SIU LEE FEI DIY JI FEI DIY NGOI CHUEN, 2000, Drama): With a title like that, you might expect a martial-arts action-fest jam-packed with sword fights and wire-fu. Well, you're in for a major disappointment, and that also stands for the film as a whole. The first forty minutes are concerned with, roughly, a wayward husband's addiction to the fine products of the local bar. Then things get more extreme, with adultery, infanticide, a high body count and more ludicrousness. The is one sword fight, which is actually really good in a cartoonish sort of way, but it quickly passes and the rest of the film is an unabashed loss of time, a clash of genres and a mess of incoherent storytelling. Maybe it can be explained to me through obscure cultural references, but I prefer the simplest explanation; a bad film. (On TV, April 2001)

ME MYSELF AND IRENE (2000, Comedy): After Jim Carrey's newfound acting reputation (after more nuanced turns in THE TRUMAN SHOW and MAN ON THE MOON) and the Farrely Brother's unexpected mega-hit with THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY, there were considerable expectations about their first reunion since DUMB AND DUMBER. Unfortunately, ME MYSELF AND IRENE would have been a failure even if it hadn't been hyped. In their rush to bring to screens a bigger, nastier, grosser comedy, The Farrelys have forgotten that THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY's biggest strength wasn't the gross-out gags, but the solid romantic underpinning and the constant comedy (which was funny throughout, with occasional peaks of good-natured outrageousness). Conversely, ME MYSELF AND IRENE goes for the gross-out without any reason to do so. It mixes kind of a serious plot (what with murders, criminals and amputations) with attempts at being funny and the mixture doesn't hold. Granted, the premise is fantastic (Carrey as fighting against himself? Wasn't that just great in LIAR LIAR?) and the three rude black geniuses simply steal every scene they're in (gotta love that quantum physics discussion!), but overall, ME MYSELF AND IRENE misfires far too often, and the result is simply... not that funny. (As an aside, your reviewer notes that with the accumulation of gross-out humor, he finds myself not repulsed nor amused, but annoyed and left curiously unaffected by the more extreme gags in this vein -see SCARY MOVIE-. Hopefully the pendulum of moviegoer's tastes will soon swing back.) (In theaters, June 2000)

MEET THE PARENTS (2000, Comedy) is another one of those predictable "comedies" that we've come to expect from Hollywood. Predictably enough (and the script is completely predictable), it's built upon a dumb premise and a strategy of protagonist humiliation (Couple meet girl's parents, dad's a bastard and several things left unsaid suddenly pop up... Yes, everything-that-can-go-wrong-will) plus an uplifting finale that solves all problems. No wonder if MEET THE PARENTS raked it in at the box-office, most probably attracting people who see only one or two films a year and whose critical abilities are more adapted to football games than cinematic endeavors. Satisfactorily directed by Jay Roach, sustained by Ben Stiller (not his best performance; no chance to go wild) and Robert De Niro. The film is long, obvious and unpleasant for most of its duration, picking up toward the end when Stiller's character finally reaches his long-awaited boiling point and lashes out a long satisfying rant. That part being quickly over, we move on gratefully to the expected sugar-sweety finale. Word has it that there will be a sequel. Oh my. (In theaters, December 2000)

MEMENTO (2000, Thriller): The epitome of a gimmick film: Not only does the character suffers from short-term amnesia, but the entire film is told in segments that run backward, from chronological end to chronological beginning, interspaced with black-and-white exposition segments that might or might not be true. It doesn't take much more than that to create interest, but fortunately, MEMENTO is able to deliver a solid film wrapped around that gorgeous premise. It's the type of film that keeps on throwing unexpected delights at you, so much that it would be ill-advised to step out for popcorn or bathroom relief lest you miss something important (and you would). Wonderful black humor, snappy screenwriting, provocative conclusion... Chances are that you'll still be talking about the film a good ten, fifteen minutes after it's all over. Films like this remind you, even if only momentarily, that cinema -even accessible genre cinema!- can be something more than just formulaic entertainment. The film features an exceptional performance by Guy Pearce, and good turns by MATRIX alumni Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss. Definitely worth a rental. (In theaters, May 2001)

MISS CONGENIALITY (2000, Comedy): Sandra Bullock has always projected a girl-next-door image, even in her tougher roles, but films that have taken full advantage of that duality have been few and far between. Since SPEED, her career has been filled with wrong vehicles (28 DAYS, FORCES OF NATURE), half-successes (DEMOLITION MAN) or films no one wants to discuss again (SPEED 2). But she really gets to show her stuff with MISS CONGENIALITY, as an "ugly" FBI agent forced to undergo a complete makeup in order to compete in a Beauty Pageant. Girls will love the fantasy; guys will simply drool over seeing her in Lederhosen, bikini and evening gown in a short thirty-minutes stretch. The rest of the film is paint-by-number fish-out-of-water scripting, with few surprises but sustained fun from start to end. Not bad. (In Theaters, March 2001)

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 (2000, Action) is frustrating because it is, at the same time, so bad and so good. The script is one of the sorriest excuse for an "action" film I've seen in a blockbuster for a long, long time. Say what you want about ARMAGEDDON, at least it had pacing on its side. Not so with MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2: If the first fifteen minutes are pretty enjoyable, the following hour drags on like molasses, with a complete lack of any action. That dreadful hour is further drawn-out by nauseatingly trite dialogue, obvious "surprises" and bland scripting. But, forty-five minutes before the end, Ethan Hunt finally gets to act like the James-Bond clone he has so obviously become, and only then does MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 become a thrill ride. That's when characters stop speaking and start shooting, all sumptuously directed by John Woo. Slow-Motion bullet ballet, a wonderful motorcycle chase worth the price of admission in itself and a superb hand-combat sequence complete the film. A shame you have to slog through so much... emptiness in order to get to it. Tom Cruise is irreproachable -as is Anthony Hopkins' cameo- but the rest of the actors get short thrift and Thandie Newton's character is atrociously written. So much good stuff, so much bad stuff... and Hollywood suddenly asks itself why we think its summer blockbusters suck. (In theaters, May 2000)

MISSION TO MARS (2000, Science-Fiction) is a perfect example of what is colloquially known as the "Stupid Hollywood Sci-Fi Blockbuster". It's big, it's loud, it's really extremely accomplished in technical matters. Even the actors do a really good job. But, characteristically, the script is truly awful, filled with obvious lines you can predict, sudden character shift, silly science and one of the most awful saccharine ending in recent memory; how can you top the cheap-CGI weeping alien, or the let's-hold-hands-around-the-planet-and-sing-Kumbaya silliness? As with ARMAGEDDON, one could built an entire presentation around the bad science in this film, but unlike ARMAGEDDON, it's unlikely that one will manage to enjoy MISSION TO MARS on a purely visceral level: Uncharacteristically, Brian de Palma's direction is limp, obvious and mostly without pep. The consistently inappropriate score only highlights the failures of the film at providing excitement. Savvy Viewers ready to give chances to MISSION TO MARS (after all, for each four or six stupid things, it usually gets one crucial detail right, like the zero-gee effects) will probably give up after the laugh-aloud finale, and rightfully rank this as one of the worst big films of 2000. (In theaters, March 2000)

NURSE BETTY (2000, Comedy): There's a standard comedy plot shtick that drives me absolutely crazy: The one where a character is doing something completely stupid while thinking it's perfectly legitimate, and when the deception will inevitably be discovered. The only thing you can do is count down the seconds before the character's humiliation. Now imagine a film that spends more than forty-five minutes on that subject. Looking forward to it? If not, skip NURSE BETTY, a misguided "comedy" in which a pair of hitmen kill in graphic detail and a waitress becomes so unhinged with reality that she chases a favorite soap star. Not many laughs here, nor overly impressive technical credits: The direction is flat and even if Renee Zellweger is as adorable as always, the other characters don't manage to be very sympathetic. (Though the Latino girlfriend is pretty). Script-wise, coincidences abound and Morgan Freeman's characters sounds as if he escaped from an unusually pretentious Tarantino movie without bringing the witty dialogue with him. Humiliation and discomfort seem to be the goal of the film, and if the result seems to confuse some critic in thinking it's rather good, most average moviegoers will reach for the fast-forward (or even the stop/rewind) button. (In Theaters, November 2000)

O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000, Musical Comedy): The problem with pictures made by the Coen Brothers is that you can't comment them fairly after seeing them only once. Their latest, a series of adventures set in depression-era Deep South, is both exceptional and average, interesting and boring, witty and muddled. George Clooney exhibits considerable charm as always, playing a fast-talking shady character sympathetic enough to hold the film together. O BROTHER is a film unlike anything you've seen before, with music you haven't heard before and sight you're unlikely to see again. The mixture of folk music, southern accents and gold-tinted visuals is far, far away from the current Hollywood aesthetics. As far as the story goes, however, some are bound to be disappointed; the film wanders a lot, like the three protagonists, and viewers are likely to remember individual sequences, not a common plot. As a comedy, it's decidedly low-octane; a steady smile, a few giggles but few outright laughs. Parallels with Homer's The Odyssey might be overstated, unless you want to impress your date. (In Theaters, June 2001)

PANIC (2000, Drama): Lukewarm straight-to-video drama about a hit man and his domineering father. What could have been a fun Simpsons episode is transformed in a full-blown bore-fest. Hey, at least it's good to see Neve Campbell get work again, but if she's not going to get naked, well, what's the point? William H. Macy is fine as the tortured protagonist and Donald Sutherland is suitably conniving as the father, but unless you've got a fetish for hit men family dramas, I wouldn't bother. Life's too short. What if a hit man is gunning for you right now? Would you want to waste your last remaining hours watching featureless movies like this one? (On video, May 2002)

THE PATRIOT (2000, Historical Drama): The impossible has happened: Emmerich and Devlin -the team behind such stinkers as STARGATE, INDEPENDENCE DAY and GODZILLA- have finally produced a good film. A really good film. Sure, Mel Gibson's done pretty much all of this before in BRAVEHEART and the film is peppered with occasionally dumb scenes. (Cinepop-quiz: At which point will the little "mute" girl will start to talk? What will she say?) But on the other hand, this is a straightforward war adventure with a decent script, a likeable protagonist, some tension and clear direction. Cultural anthropologists and war buffs will revel in the representation of classical 18^th-century European warfare (lines of soldiers advance, shoot, reload. All very civilized) While some liberties have been taken with historical facts, the film feels very convincing in details and atmosphere. Finally, a summer epic that does not disappoint! (In theaters, July 2000)

THE PATRIOT (2000, Historical/War) definitely appreciates with a second viewing. You come to expect the mawkish emotional scenes ("Daddy! I can talk at dramatic junctures of the plot!") and gloss over them to focus on the wonderful re-creation of the American Revolution. The script, aside from the cheap occasional sentimentalism, isn't half-bad and the directing is quite good. Who would have thought the one who brought us STARGATE, INDEPENDENCE DAY and GODZILLA could pull it off? The DVD contains a few extras that won't work on my cheap player, and a moderately interesting commentary track by the directors. THE PATRIOT finally plays like the grand historical epic it's supposed to be: A good film! (Second viewing, On DVD, September 2001)

THE PERFECT STORM (2000, Drama): Upon reading Sebastian Junger's non-fiction book The Perfect Storm, my first reaction was that it would make a spectacular movie, but probably not a very good one: The historical facts -if played straight- were ill-fitted to a dramatic arc, and carried a definitely anti-happy-ending resonance. Fortunately, director Wolfgang Petersen was able not only to keep the film reasonably faithful to the book, but also to deliver a film that will satisfy most audiences. The first forty minutes of the film, with its land-based action meant to introduce the characters and set up the relevant elements of the plot, are definitely its weakest: The audience is there to see the storm, not some fishermen with clichéd dialogue. But pay attention, as the characters will give meaning to the upcoming mayhem. After the storm starts, you can only sit back and go Wow, because you're going to see some of the most awe-inspiring storm footage ever computer-generated. This is the point where you realize you should see this film on the biggest screen you can. By this time, the lousy dialogue and jerky character development doesn't really matter. We're in ride-movie territory, and as far as those go, THE PERFECT STORM is better than most. Even the ending, which I was apprehending, felt right. Maybe not a perfect film, but a darn good roller-coaster with some depth. (In theaters, July 2000)

PITCH BLACK (2000, Science-Fiction) must be considered as an SF B-movie in order to be properly assessed. It doesn't set out to re-invent the alien-creatures-eat-humans type of story, but is plays effectively within the limits of the sub-genre. No one in the audience can be blamed for wanting to leave after the first five minutes (the direction of the opening crash is a blur of flashes, jerky camera work and incoherent editing), but the movie settles down after that for a rather good second act, with plenty of chills, thrills and fun visuals. Vin Diesel makes a strong impression as bad-boy Riddick. The script falters by the time the last act come through, with no clear big finale, and a muddled last five minutes. The intentionally grainy cinematography might not be to everyone's liking, but fits perfectly with the idea of a B-movie. One thing to like is the film's reliance on purely visual cues in order to provide a sense of strangeness. (Even though the film severely fumbles with its "darkness" motif, as most of the latter half takes place in a full-moonlit environment.) Not great SF -the ecosystem is patently impossible- but great fun, and sometimes that's all you need. (In theaters, February 2000)

PROOF OF LIFE (2000, Thriller): The true test of a movie star is to watch said performer struggle in an average film. Here, Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan have to contend with an efficient, but hardly exceptional script, and only one of them rises above the material. It's not Ryan, who seems miscast and ill-defined as "the wife" character. Crowe fares much better as a top-notch ransom negotiator, clearly showing why more and more people are calling him a genuine leading man. The rest of film is hit and miss: The cinematography gets a lot of mileage out of its lush South-American locale. The script contains both good moments (good opening, good conclusion and good technical details about the ransom business) and not-so-good moments. (The extraordinary coincidence that precipitates the film's third act is almost unforgivable) It should be noted, however, that the film clearly shows excessive cutting room rethinking: While it's refreshing to see that the romantic angle is barely mentioned, its half-hearted inclusion creates a few puzzling moments if not outright howlers, such as "Do you love this woman?" suddenly coming out of nowhere. The DVD version should be interesting to examine. Otherwise, David Caruso is sympathetic in a supporting role, the film plays better than expected, and Russell Crowe's performance, again, is worth watching. (In theaters, December 2000)

RED PLANET (2000, Science-Fiction): Mixed impressions about the second Mars-themed film of 2000: It's certainly better than MISSION TO MARS, but even then it's no great film. Acting-wise, most of the cast is wasted, at the possible exception of Carrie-Anne Moss, who solidifies her action heroine status after THE MATRIX. The special effects are rather nice. The problems pop up whenever the script is involved: Gigantic plot holes, incompetent plotting, boring subplots, unsatisfying characters and atrocious scientific errors all join forces to sap all energy that could have been produced by the intriguing premise. It's not a complete failure, mostly because it tries so hard, but no one shouldn't feel guilty of passing this one up in video stores. (In Theaters, November 2000)

REINDEER GAMES (2000, Action/Drama): Ben Affleck doesn't work as an action hero. Nope. Not a bit. Alas, he doesn't even come close to being REINDEER GAMES's weakest link. Oh, the film starts well enough, with ominous shots of dead Santas strewn around a casino. But then we're in full "three days earlier" mode, bidding our time to see how we'll end up with a truckful of said dead Santas. That's when we meet our oh-so-bland Ben, trying to act his best in the requisite not-too-bad criminal role. (He's just a car thief, not a murderer. Just wait, though.) In a few minutes, his partner is killed, he's doing the nasty with Charlize Theron and a bearded Gary Sinise appears, putting a shotgun to his neck. Or is everything as it seems? Yes, REINDEER GAMES is another one of those preposterous thrillers whose twists and turns are thrown at the viewers just for the sake of keeping them awake, not out of any great story consistency. Watch the film again and you won't find any foreshadowing whatsoever. (Unlike "good" twists films, like THE SIXTH SENSE and FIGHT CLUB, when the clues are obvious once placed in context.) John Frankenheimer, who's wasting his time with ordinary straight-to-video stories such as this one, directs all of it featurelessly. Charlize Theron is cute, but her nude scenes will quickly remind you that her best asset is her face. (On video, July 2001)

THE REPLACEMENTS (2000, Comedy) is a surprise: As an underdog sports comedy, it offers nearly nothing we haven't seen before, from the oh-so-wacky characters to the last-game photofinish ending. The film grinds to a halt as soon as it tries to build some romance between (cliché alert!) the quarterback and the head cheerleader, but fortunately, the rest is so enjoyable that it doesn't really matter. The heart of the film is in the gonzo football stunts, which are very enjoyable even to a neophyte of the sport. All is wrapped in a competently-edited (take note, Hollywood sports directors!) package, and if it's not as good a film as its contemporary ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, it's certainly far more accessible. Despite everything, it works, and the result is pretty good. (In theaters, August 2000)

REQUIEM FOR A DREAM (2000, Drama): In a nutshell, the message of this film is that drugs are bad for you. Simplistic? Well, yes, but you've never seen it expressed in such a visceral fashion: Director Darren Aronofsky packs tremendous audiovisual impact in his narrative, and the result is a memorable film that will stay with you a long time. The four protagonists' progressive descent into hell is implacable and merciless. Watching REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is a lot like being repeatedly struck by two-by-fours. You'll enjoy it and ask for more, because this is cutting-edge cinema. It's not safe, it's not boring and it's certainly not average. You might not want to see it twice, but you have to see it at least once. (On VCD/DivX, February 2002)

LES RIVIÈRES POURPRES (aka THE CRIMSON RIVERS, France, 2000, Thriller): The first few moments of the film give the tone to this dark, stylish thriller, as we're shown long close-ups of a putrefying human corpse. It eases up after that, but it's a fairly good start to a rather interesting film, an investigation of a murder that eventually comes to uncover something else entirely. That "something else" isn't really all that impressive (I, for one, could have enjoyed a secret cloning conspiracy by extraterrestrials, but alas, no such thing here) but don't worry; aside from the gratuitously surprising finale, the film will hold up your interest for its full duration. Jean Reno is still as cool as ever, though here he looks particularly hideous. Young Vincent Cassel is almost as good as a hot-headed policeman with a talent for kung-fu. (Leading up to a jarringly atonal fight scene that is quite good in itself, but doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the film) The ending is highly problematic, with a big surprise that really isn't necessary, and does little to actually explain the events of the film. (Re-run the story in your head after seeing it, and you'll understand your lack of understanding. Begin with the mother's speech and motivations.) In any case, the visual style, the varied action sequences and the overall tone of the film should be enough to recommend. Just don't expect a tightly-plotted film. (In theaters, July 2001)

ROAD TRIP (2000, Comedy): One wouldn't expect a teen sex comedy to stimulate much intellectual discourse, but it's hard to go through ROAD TRIP without noticing that if it is emblematic of today's culture, then there has been some progress. Notice how many plot mechanics are driven by confident females. See the -unsubtle, but hey- black fraternity sequence as a message of racial harmony. Ignore the oft-gross humor -seems to be the current rage after all- and see how it's, at the core, a relatively decent comedy with a few good laughs. At least Tom Green isn't as annoying as predicted. And that'll be ROAD TRIP's epitaph; better than expected. Just don't overanalyse it. (In theaters, August 2000)

ROMEO MUST DIE (2000, Action): American filmmakers won't manage to produce good martial arts film unless they understand that the attractiveness of these films' fight sequences lies in the fight choreography. It is far more impressive to see thirty uninterrupted, uncut seconds of hand-to-hand fighting than to see thirty second's worth of one-seconds cuts. One is easy and falsely exciting; the other is damnably hard to do, but awe-inspiring. That, in a nutshell is one of this action aficionado's main problem with ROMEO MUST DIE; it's not up to Jet Li's talent. The other problem lies in the mortally slow pacing, which sucks the energy out of the film. Fortunately, Jet Li rocks when he's allowed to, and Aaliyah is a true-and-true dreamgirl. (Plus, Françoise Yip has a good cameo) At least the film is wonderfully pleasant in its matter-of-fact multicultural attitude. Worth your time if you're an HK action fan, but otherwise... this ain't ROMEO AND JULIET. (In theaters, March 2000)

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (2000, Drama): Egawd. If you're going to make a thriller, at least make sure that there are a few thrills in it. If you're going to make a drama, make sure there's drama in it. Heck, if you're going to make a movie, make sure there's something in it that might interest me. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT throws a little bit of this (a Vietnam prologue that might seem incredibly important, but really isn't and might have been taken care of with one of two extra lines of dialogue), a little bit of that (like a big action scene that is not interesting. At all.), some more of this (ooh! Government conspiracy!) and some more of that (Rrrr... Courtorrom drama). That the film withholds crucial information isn't even a cheat; it becomes only a pale irritant when you don't care at all about what's happening. Oh, and the cathartic shot of the little girl holding a gun... got a huge laugh from the three Sauvé siblings, assorted with cries of disbelief at the blatant manipulation. Even if Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson and Guy Pearce all do a good job, they just can't save this borefest. Checking the credits, it's no surprise to find that this is an original story by James Webb, author of one of my least favorite military thrillers of the nineties, Something to Die For. Now he strikes again, this time on movies. Gawd, viewers, just go watch something else, okay? (On Video, August 2001)

SCARY MOVIE (2000, Satiric Comedy): If ever there was a genre which deserved its satiric roasting, it's the late-nineties "teen horror" craze, which -for all its hip self-awareness- wasn't all that much better than its predecessors, the early-eighties slasher films. SCARY MOVIE takes up the task with gusto, and despite an annoying intrusion of gross-out comedy, the film is oodles better than most satiric comedies have been in years. The script is filled with genuinely funny material, and most parodies are on-target. I'd have cut about five minutes of unnecessary vulgar material (which gets old real quickly, and ends up annoying rather than amusing), but the rest works well. Wait for the TV network version. (In theaters, July 2000)

SCREAM 3 (2000, Horror) ends the SCREAM trilogy on the worst possible note, being exactly the type of film that the first one parodied. Surprisingly tepid for a horror film, mostly because there's never any tension (idiot characters do stupid thing, and the oh-so-infallible Ghostface kills them.) nor any unsettling elements. Formula? Hell, yes! Not much laughs either, and those feel more forced than anything else. Catch it on video if you must, but there's not much to be found here. (In theaters, February 2000)

SHAFT (2000, Police Drama): The danger with iconic movies -such as this remake of a classic seventies film- is that the hype, the mystique of the characters is always invariably bigger than the end product. In this light, SHAFT does a creditable job at re-creating the innate coolness of John Shaft. A large part of this (and a suitably large portion of the film's appeal) comes from Mr. Badass himself, Samuel L. Jackson. He clicks, and so does the film. As for the story, it's an average cops-versus-baddies script, with enough fun quirks to make it modern and interesting. Pretty good? Ya damn right! (In theaters, June 2000)

SHANGHAI NOON (2000, Comedy/Action) proves again why you can't go wrong with a Jackie Chan film. Successfully blending action, comedy, buddy-movie and western elements in a fashion that WILD WILD WEST only dreamed about, SHANGHAI NOON provides laughs and thrills like the best crowd-pleasers. Chan purists will argue, reasonably, that the film lacks the "big stunts" or the awe-inspiring fights of his previous few films, but that shouldn't distract the rest of the audience. (After all, Chan is getting older) There are quite a few flaws in the script, from the waste of the "Indian Wife" to the incoherent ending. Still, if it's fun at the movie you want, SHANGHAI NOON is there for you. (In theaters, May 2000)

SHRIEK IF YOU KNOW WHAT I DID LAST FRIDAY THE 13^TH (2000, Comedy, Direct-to-video): I have a soft spot for silly satiric comedies, and SHRIEK... definitely hits the right notes by lampooning the SCREAM-derivatives. Sure, it's not that funny, nor is it very clever. A lot of the jokes are just duds, such as the "rules of a parody". And yet, it's just silly enough that I hopped up on the ride and enjoyed myself. It's also somewhat good-natured, which works very well: Even if it's not as hysterically funny or inspired as parts of the similar-themed SCARY MOVIE, it's more solid overall, and would definitely get my recommendation over the theatrically-released Wayans film. Favorite moments include incidental background murders in school, a pop-up video chase and five flashbacks over "what they did last summer". No nudity, alas, which is sorely needed in these films. (The lead actress isn't particularly attractive either, but never mind...) It's naturally not in the same league as the classic AIRPLANE! or TOP SECRET!, but if you saw -and liked- stuff like THE SILENCE OF THE HAMS, rest assured that SHRIEK... is going to make you laugh for a while. Plus, hey, it's better than most of the awful Leslie Neilsen spoofs. (On Video, December 2001)

THE SIXTH DAY (2000, Science-Fiction): The nineties have been a rough decade for superstar Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not only has no one learned how to spell his last name right, but he's gone from career highs (1990's TOTAL RECALL, 1994's TRUE LIES and most famously 1991's TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY) to mega-bombs (1993's underrated LAST ACTION HERO), pathetic comedies (from KINDERGARTEN COP to JINGLE ALL THE WAY) and severely average action pictures (ERASER and END OF DAYS). THE SIXTH DAY isn't much of an improvement over most of his 90s output, but at least it's better than END OF DAYS. Here, we get two Arnolds for the price of one, as we delve in an ambitious future marked by cloning. It's not all that successful, but it works rather well, isn't as completely routine as you'd think it would be and provides one or two good concepts. The actions scenes are okay, though they seem almost dated. (Note to screenwriters: To be clever, hip and postmodern, it's not enough to have a character say to another "Cool, a car chase!") Faint praise, but not every film has to be exceptional. A decent enough choice, provided you haven't seen TOTAL RECALL enough times already. (In Theaters, November 2000)

SMALL TIME CROOKS (2000, Comedy) is the type of perfectly adequate film that is neither too impressive nor too awful to talk about. Woody Allen plays his umpteenth neurotic character, the first act is the funniest, the ending isn't all that good, it's more of a smiling comedy than a laughing comedy. (In theaters, July 2000)

SNATCH (2000, Crime/Comedy): Well, if you loved director Guy Ritchie's first film, LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS, get ready to run and see SNATCH, because it's pretty much the same film. Low-level English criminals, complicated plot, multiple camera tricks, fast editing, time-shifting, incomprehensible English accents; it's all there, and the level of quality is pretty much identical. While it's not as delightfully surprising as the first film, it's probably more self-assured. (It is somewhat darker, though) Most of the actors are excellent in their respective roles, but special notice must go to Brad Pitt as a gypsy boxer. Make sure to turn on the subtitles before watching the film. Good fun. (In theaters, January 2001)

SNATCH (2000, Crime/Comedy): Sure, a great script is always a good basis for a great film, but it usually takes more than that. Director Guy Richie is this element for SNATCH, confidently mixing virtuoso editing, unusual -but appropriate- camera tricks, wonderful music and an assured mastery of all that's cool. Part of the success must be shared by the actors, of course (with a special emphasis on Vinnie Jones and Brad Pitt), without whom coolness would have no face. This is one film which you won't get tired of watching, if only because of the density of some of the material. The DVD is everything you'd hope about SNATCH, from an informative audio commentary to a honest making-of featurette. Snatch SNATCH as soon as possible! (Second Viewing, On DVD, August 2001)

SPACE COWBOYS (2000, Techno-thriller) is two very different films in one. The first 90 minutes are a one-note comedy about old guys going into space. How droll. How implausible. Then, in the last thirty minutes the protagonists finally make it into space and the film switches gears to full-blown humourless technothriller with a pure-SF ending shot. Both movie are good; it's the transition between the two that may annoy a few viewers. Otherwise, the film is quite enjoyable, with great performances by four veteran actors (Eastwood, Gardner, Sutherland and Lee Jones, though Tommy positively looks like a young man compared to the other three). The romance feels hammered into place, and doesn't bring all that much to the film. Otherwise, the film is directed with a quiet self-assurance that is a welcome change of pace from the last few space techno-epics. Point for further discussion: The rise of the action films for the elderly? (In theaters, August 2000)

STATE AND MAIN (2000, Comedy): Hollywood loves to make movies about itself, writers love to write about themselves and actors like to act about themselves. So it's no surprise to see STATE AND MAIN come together as a none-too-biting comedy about "Hollywood people" descending upon a small town and wreaking havoc on the community. Of course, the writer gets the best role, and politicians get the big wooden paddle. Good performances by everyone from Sarah Jessica Parker to the incomparable William H. Macy. Hey, even Rebecca Pidgeon isn't nearly so annoying. A comedic lull in the fourth fifth, as the inevitable dramatic conflict is raised and solved. A few chuckles, and a big laugh at the end. Didn't bowl me over, but passed the time in a pleasant fashion. (In Theaters, June 2001)

SUPERNOVA (2000, Science-Fiction): It's not often that you're disappointed by a film that's better than you expected. But there's an exception to be made for SUPERNOVA, yet another cheap January sci-fi release. Already famous for a troubled production history (including directors storming off the project and removing their names from the credits), SUPERNOVA had the potential of a modern trash classic, a film so bad that audiences could actually revel in its pure awfulness. Unfortunately, SUPERNOVA is actually not-so-bad, with adequate technical values and a plot that sustains interest for the full length of the film. The only really sore spot, for me, is the interior set design, which rivals STAR TREK (The Original Series) for sheer illogic and apparent cheapness. (rows of blinking colored lights? Slanted glass corridors? Come on!) Not a good film, but not a truly disgusting one, and that's too bad. (In theaters, January 2000)

THE TAO OF STEVE (2000, Romantic Comedy): Independent filmmaker attacks traditional romance in what ends up being an interesting, but ordinary film. Purporting to go behind the scenes of male seduction techniques, it merely end up being an entertaining film with enough fun quirks to warrant a look. The story's been done before, a Don Juan falling for the one woman he can't truly lure. That the Don Juan is overweight is merely misdirection. (In fact, watching carefully, it's obvious that the lead actor is heavily padded to appear far more obese than he truly is.) Some scenes feel forced. ("I'm the special of the day") Think of it as a date film for those dates who can't be swayed by the usual romantic tripe. (In theaters, December 2000)

TAXI 2 (France, 2000, Action/Comedy): Straight sequel to the hugely entertaining French car-chase/shoot-em-up action/comedy that somehow still hasn't been re-made by Hollywood. Luc Besson wrote the script, and it shows, what with the simplistic plotting, trite -even juvenile- humor, broad clichés and punchy pacing. It doesn't matter very much, as we're there to see car crashes and gunfights. On that level, TAXI 2 works well, and if the film isn't as good as the first one, it's as sympathetic and even a bit funnier. The direction is rather good, if at time needlessly hectic. Worth a double-bill with the first one, if you can find it... (In Theaters, October 2000)

TAXI 2 (France, 2000, Comedy/Action): Dumber than the usual, but maybe a little bit funnier, this is a film that's best seen right after the original for comparison purposes. (Some slight gags also make more sense.) The "impregnable car" still looks cheaper than anything that deserved to be on-screen. There isn't much to say about this film, really; it's slightly offensive in its casual racism and definitely a lot of fun nevertheless. The Region-1 DVD contains the film, the trailer and a too-short making-of featurette that still offers some good behind-the-scenes footage. (Second viewing, On DVD, February 2003)

TIME AND TIDE (SEUNLAU NGAKLAU, Hong-Kong, 2000, Drama/Action): My expectations were probably set a touch too high for this film. I should have been happy just to see a recent HK actioneer on a big theater screen. What I got was fine enough to keep me interested, though not overwhelmingly impressive. It's as if the movie works extra-hard not to make us care about the pathetic protagonist and the lesbian policewoman (!) he accidentally sleeps with (!) and makes pregnant (!!!). It's when watching things like that that you really start bitching about the sad state of screenwriting around the globe. The storytelling is so chaotic that you'll understand what's going on maybe five minutes later. There are a few action scenes, but nothing truly new or exceptional; just people shooting at each other. Fortunately, we eventually get the exceptional apartment fight (with a wonderful canyon-like urban environment, used to maximum effect), a good airport sequence and an over-the-top scene mixing gunfights and childbirth that relegates HARDBOILED's finale to the rank of amateur in attempted audience manipulation. (Waah! One life begins! Bang! One life ends!) I give it a solidly mixed review. (In theaters, August 2001)

TIME CODE (2000, Drama): New technology leads to new artistic possibilities, and you can't illustrate this any better than by watching TIME CODE, an audacious concept-film which works well at challenging our perceptions of movies. The gimmick is conceptually simple: Now that digital video cameras can film nearly 90 minutes' worth of continuous material, it becomes possible to have a one-take film. But that's not very practical if you follow multiple characters, hence director Mike Figgis' use of four continuously-running cameras, dividing the screen in four quadrants. It sounds complex, but pretty soon you'll be wondering at how well it works. There's a lot to keep you interested here, from a lesbian couple to an on-screen sex scene to infidelity to murder. The acting is quite good. It boggles the mind to imagine the behind-the-scenes work involved in doing this film. There are flaws, of course; some stuff isn't so well-paced, and the soundtrack is definitely obtrusive. However, this is a film to watch: Not only as a discussion piece, but also as a reflective piece on the conventions of cinema and the new possibilities of the medium. If you miss the artistic significance of TIME CODE, don't worry: a mouthpiece character neatly delivers them to us near the end of the film. Ultimately, though, it's original, and sometimes, that's all it takes to watch a film. (On Video, December 2001)

TITAN A.E. (2000, Science-Fiction) is a terribly frustrating film on several levels. First and foremost is the script, of course, which is a mishmash of fun situations and botched execution. Some of the set-pieces are impressive, and compelling on a teen geez-wow level, but the screenplay is marred by ordinary character development, trite dialogue and an episodic nature that doesn't cohere very well. Each details that shows that someone has been paying attention ("Exhale!") is followed by an inanity that destroys the illusion. But beyond the words, there are also several problems with the pictures: The state-of-the-art in Computer-Generated Imagery has advanced so much in recent years that the subpar 2D character animation as practiced by Don Bluth Studios now clashes vividly with the background 3D CGI. This jarring lack of continuity remains through the film, dogging any viewer's suspension of disbelief. Still, it's worth a look. Even though it doesn't approach anywhere near the levels set by THE IRON GIANT, TITAN A.E. is entertaining for its whole duration and should provide adequate entertainment for the whole family. Your inner early teen should appreciate even if you don't. (In theaters, June 2000)

TOKYO RAIDERS (DONG JING GONG LUE, Hong-Kong, 2000, Action/Comedy): Unlike many dour HK action films, this one doesn't waste any time pointing out its amusing nature, as it begins with a playful fight scene in which star Tony Leung dispatches a series of opponent in a way which would make James Bond feel ashamed. In fact, the martial art scenes in TOKYO RAIDER often feel like riffs on Jackie Chan's antics, including a male/female fight accompanied with a tango-inspired musical piece. Acting highlights go to Leung for his portrait of a dapper action man, but it's no secret that the action scenes are the film's main selling points. The highlight is the middle fight/chase sequence, which involves a golf-club battle, a chase using a motorized skateboard and a deliriously fun sequence aboard a car-freighter truck. The closing boat chase underneath one of Tokyo's highways is also impressive. It's a shame, though, that foreigners such s myself won't properly appreciate the cultural shock of Chinese characters in Japan. (There are a few scenes where characters have to translate for each other, which of course doesn't come across very well in English!) The DVD includes a fluffy making-of documentary which proves to be eerily similar to its Western counterparts. (Interestingly enough, the subtitles of the documentary don't exactly match the subtitles of the feature...) Despite some lengths and a touch too much pathos in a film that is otherwise quite lighthearted, TOKYO RAIDER is one of the most polished, accessible HK action films of the year. Don't miss it! (On DVD, August 2002)

TRAFFIC (2000, Crime/Drama): Generally speaking, I've given up on cinema as a narrative medium. Sure, it can show me cool pictures and exciting battle scenes, it can make me laugh or wow me with special effects, but films that succeed at telling me a story are few and far in between. That's, in large part, what pleased me so much in TRAFFIC: The sense that it's willing to tell a large, complex story in a way that's appropriate for the medium. Granted, it's an adaptation of a British miniseries (which explains the density of plotting) but a good one, relocating the action and reformulating it in terms of American interest. TRAFFIC is, roughly, three stories centered around three locations. The weakest of the bunch is about some rich kid getting addicted: it's all very TV-movieish familiar and smacks of facility (Our rich white girl even gets a black pimp, which is good for a meta-giggle or two.) At least the Mexican story is less black-and-white (if you'll excuse the juxtaposition and the cinematographic in-joke) and the Californian story carries some suspense. In any case, this rather long film passes quickly, and carries through to a satisfying ending. Technically, the film is exceptional, from the nervy direction to the convincing cinematography. (Though the color tinting is very heavy-handed) All acting credits are excellent, from the movie stars (Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones) to the B-stars (Benicio del Toro, Randy Quaid) to the character actors (Luis Guzman, Miguel Ferrera). As if that wasn't enough, TRAFFIC is a welcome change from the usual Hollywood pablum in that it's willing to tackle a controversial political issue. Whether it has something of value to say takes back place to the willingness of the attempt. All in all, one of the best films of the year. (In theaters, January 2001)

U-571 (2000, War/Adventure) is a fresh return to the rah-rah-rah school of war movies, a gleeful throwback to a time where cinematographic war wasn't hell, and surely wasn't complicated by abstract concepts of moral ambiguity. Here, our heroes are red-blooded Americans and our enemies are civilian-shooting evil Nazis. For once, no confusion and no dithering; just an old-fashioned wartime adventure that will glue you in your seat for a zippy 90 minutes. Director Jonathan Mostow delivers the goods and even though the script is strictly from the cookie-cutter school of screenwriting (the end is abrupt and every non-action scene should be subtitled FORESHADOWING), it's almost guaranteed that you won't be bored. Good special effects (except for the unfortunate end explosion) mesh with the convincing sets to create a good historical feel. This is everything you want in a good (not great) film: Heroes to cheer for, impossible odds, clear action and a thrilling victory. Be sure to buy a new sound system along with the DVD. (In theaters, April 2000)

UNBREAKABLE (2000, Fantasy): Think comic books. Think comic book movies. Chances are that you're thinking about superheroes. Zap! Pow! Bang! Special effects! Cackling villains! Intrepid superheroes saving the world! Who would have thought about, essentially, making an intimate realistic superhero origin story? M. Night Shyamalan could have make any film he wanted after the success of THE SIXTH SENSE and he chose that project, a gift to comic book fans all over the world. The result is a nifty film that will sharply divide audiences if not outright infuriate them in the last fifteen seconds. Just keep in mind that it's a superhero fantasy film that will most likely spawn a trilogy, and everything will be fine. The only serious flaw of the film is the languid pacing, which saps the energy that a snappier film would have had. As it is now, the film is far too slow to warrant more than a good rating despite its original intentions. (In theaters, December 2000)

VERTICAL LIMIT (2000, Action): If you can depend on any one director around to deliver a solid action film, it's Martin Campbell. Here, he follows GOLDENEYE and THE MASK OF ZORRO with another technically superb piece of pure entertainment, the mountain-climbing thriller VERTICAL LIMIT. Granted, he doesn't have a lot to work with in terms of plot: Filled with impossibilities, clichés, bad dialogue and major structural problems, VERTICAL LIMIT does not work on the page. (Though I'll admit at being rather amused, as was the rest of the Ottawa-area audience, at the jab about French-Canadians. It helps that my mother's a nurse named Monique.) The problem worsens with the casting, with blandness-incarnate Chris O'Donnell and anti-babe Robin Tunney. (While competent actors both, they simply aren't compelling as action heroes) But in an air-conditioned theater with a huge screen and heavy bass speakers, you can practically fool yourself that you're having a good time. As soon as an action beat comes up, Campbell's technical skills come in focus and you can be assured of audacious camera shots, expert editing and white-knuckle thrills. Too bad that most of the good action scenes are at the beginning and the middle of the film rather than at the end; this proves to be the single biggest failing of the film as it deflates more than it goes out with a bang. Certainly worth a look for action junkies, as it stands as one of the best action films of 2000. Granted, it wasn't a very good year to begin with... (In theaters, December 2000)

THE WATCHER (2000, Thriller): Dull, unimaginative thriller that will make you angry at it rather than angry at the villain. Keanu Reeves and James Spader do the best they can with the material they're given, but ultimately there isn't much to single out in this unremarkable attempt at a psychological drama. It's always a pleasure to see Marisa Tomei again, but there are limits to the lengths at which I will go in order to gawk at her again. If ever there's a WATCHER 2, for instance, I'm staying home. (On Video, December 2001)

THE WAY OF THE GUN (2000, Crime Thriller): As this film was written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who also penned THE USUAL SUSPECTS, you could have expected a good crime thriller done with wit and effectiveness. The end result is not as satisfying: First mistake is to depend on two singularly boring small-time criminals as protagonists. (Which shouldn't be interpreted as a dismissal of the good acting by Ryan Phillippe and Benicio Del Toro) Second mistake is the languid pacing, which allowed me to doze off twenty minutes without missing a single important plot point. Third mistake is a weak conclusion that neither surprises nor satisfies. Add to that the manipulative use of a pregnant woman, uniformly unlikable characters, pretentious narration of the criminal-thinks-deep-thoughts type, boring gunfights and you get a below-average thriller with nothing special. (In Theaters, November 2000)

WHAT LIES BENEATH (2000, Horror) exasperates the seasoned moviegoer at the same time than it thrills everyone who seen only one of two films a year. The endless use of jump shots (you know the drill: everything goes quiet when suddenly -WHAM- something appears in the frame.) is not only overused (there are nearly a dozen of them in the film) but they're so obviously predictable that they'll cause more groans than shrieks. The plotting plods along, wasting at least forty minutes of everyone's time (and a few million dollars) with useless subplots and red herrings while, at the same time, the poster, trailers, ad copy and video box cover all jump-start the film by basically telling everything but the last fifteen minutes (which can be easily predicted by, again, the seasoned moviegoer, who's seen this stuff far too many times already.) The setups are all so obvious that they might as well be underlined with subtitles stating PAY ATTENTION; THIS WILL COME UP LATER. Still, not everything is awful; the film is boring until maybe thirty minutes before the end, when we move in true thriller territory and the directing itself seems to break loose from the pedestrian form it had followed this far. (And so we find ourselves peeping through floors and tracking someone from a long shot of a bridge to inside a truck cabin.) The awfully convenient ending (crashing through all this shrub to end up at this exact spot?) is way overboard, but by this time, the audience (seasoned or plain) is just grateful that stuff's happening and special effects are used that it doesn't really matter any more. A shameless, big-budget, big-stars film that doesn't have a clue, but which will most certainly fool every casual viewer that it's somewhat good. (In Theaters, October 2000)

WHAT WOMEN WANT (2000, Romance/Comedy): It's not easy for an actor to grow old, but Mel Gibson has done so enviably well, enhancing a tough-guy image with considerable willingness to play quirky roles and hard-won charm tempered with age. In short, he's the perfect lead for WHAT WOMEN WANT, a gender-driven comedy about an uber-macho with the sudden power to read women's minds. Fantasy-lite concept handled with some rough skill, though a promising first half eventually peters out in traditional dramatic arcs, including a few long-foreshadowed life crises. It's not even a passable script overall, with Marisa Tomei pretty much used as a one-joke character despite the overall creepiness factor. Well, at least it's good to see her in another big-budget role again. But, overall, WHAT WOMEN WANT is pretty much what the audience wants, and if it doesn't really go anywhere new or fresh, at least it's reasonably entertaining up until the last fifteen saccharine minutes. (In Theaters, March 2001)

THE WHOLE NINE YARD (2000, Comedy): As a French-Canadian, this film is more than a pleasant surprise, explicitly featuring a Montreal-area setting as a background to a big-budget dark comedy. Never mind Patricia Arquette's amateurish French accent; the other details (the house styles, the cars, the Re-Max real estate signs) sell the film. Bruce Willis is in there, practically playing a parody of his hitman character in THE JACKAL. Amanda Peet bares her chest to the camera and provides most of the film's charm with her role as a spunky... er... dental assistant. Matthew Perry's befuddled dentist is the straight core of the film, though his various pratfalls underscore his ability to play the comic role. The script is not without a few problems (what's about the undercover agent?) but the direction keeps things moving briskly. As with most comedies, this one isn't a must-see, but fills a slow evening quite decently. (In theaters, May 2000)

WOMAN ON TOP (2000, Romance/Comedy): Charming little romantic comedy with a strong touch of magical realism. If you usually like Penélope Cruz, you will love her in this film as she plays an endearingly flawed Brazilian chef trying to succeed in San Francisco. (Her affliction? Nausea whenever she can't control her motion. It's a problem in transports and in bed, hence the title. Naughty!) It's a slight little film, but it works well throughout. It will make you hungry, very hungry. Not sure if it's an ideal date movie, but you could do much, much worse. (On Video, December 2001)

WONDER BOYS (2000, Drama): While we're used to see Michael Douglas in antiseptic professional roles (WALL STREET, TRAFFIC, etc...), he's equally convincing here as a rumpled-up English professor caught in a web of adultery, lies and creative rut. He looks like an unshaven hound-dog and mostly acts like it too. Fortunately, he proves more than adequate to carry the movie on his shoulders. Toby Maguire's usual drowsy acting style also works well here, which is more a reflection on how well he picks his roles to suit his style rather than any stretching of his abilities. The rest of the supporting cast is one of the best in recent memory. Blackly funny, cynical and almost comforting in the way it plays on the clichés about Writers and Academics, WONDER BOYS is a lot of fun. (Though it'll work much better on said writing/academia audiences) As an added bonus, it's well-written, occasionally clever and far from being stupid. Who could ask for more in a movie? (On Video, November 2001)

X-MEN (2000, Science-Fiction): When all will have been said and done, the biggest measure of X-MEN's success is how it didn't disappoint the legions of fans and hordes of non-fans that went to see it. It's incredibly hard to make a film about iconic figures, but X-MEN manages to pull it off. The script wisely focuses on only a few characters, grounds the fanciful comic elements in reality (such as the black leather uniforms rather than yellow spandex) and plays around the ever-popular theme of discrimination, almost bringing some actual thought in the process. Director Bryan Singer does a decent job on most of the film, but his action scenes clearly show his lack of experience with special effects and action editing: They feel disjointed, don't flow nearly as well as they should and rarely use wide-angle shots that would firmly establish the action flow in viewers' mind. Nevertheless, the film is enjoyable, features a breakout performance by Hugh Jackman (as fanboy favourite Wolverine) and delivers value for the money. Not a bad performance for a summer blockbuster. (In theaters, July 2000)