From the files of

CHRISTIAN SAUVÉ

Don't say we didn't warn you

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

MOVIE REVIEWS

2002

2002-2004, Christian Sauvé

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

And I say (In alphabetical order):

8 MILE (2002, Drama): The biggest surprise of this film is not how conventional it actually is, but how much it doesn't suck, especially as a pop music star vehicle. I may or may not like Marshall Bruce Mathers III / Slim Shady / Eminem (a rapper who sells because he annoys the parents of his target audience... gee, that's an original tactic for anyone who doesn't remember Elvis, KISS, Public Enemy, Ice-T, Marilyn Manson and dozen of others) but he seems willing to take chances in this project, and the film works because of this willingness. It's not as if he's stretching; this tale-from-the-hood protagonist is everyone's archetypical underdog, and the structure of 8 MILE is immediately familiar to anyone who's seen a sports film or two. (Still, the silliness of the intrigue is obvious whenever one tries to summarize the film: "So this guy's having trouble with his mom, his girlfriend, his work, his friends, his car... but then he says poetry to another guy on a stage and like -bang- he wins everything, man!") But when it works, it works, and after seeing 90 minutes of Jimmy "Rabbit" Smith getting humiliated, beaten up, trodden upon and cheated on, it's curiously satisfying to see him get the upper hand by acknowledging the reality of his situation. Mathers may not be much of an actor, but he does have a quality that makes him compelling for the film's duration. Director Curtis Hanson's done a good job with material that might have bombed in any other hands. As is stands, 8 MILE might not be anything spectacular, but it's more than good enough for what it tries to be. (In Theaters, November 2002)

25^TH HOUR (2002, Drama): Spike Lee detractors might be pleasantly surprised with this film, a low-key drama that feels like his least militant, yet most mature work to date. Actor demi-god Edward Norton stars as a convicted drug dealer spending one last day of freedom before heading to prison for seven years. Naturally, several plot lines come together during that last day as he says good-bye to family, friends and, er, "business acquaintances". The rhythm is tepid, but handled nicely; there's seldom a dull moment. It all builds to a strong conclusion, but a few set-pieces overshadow the narrative arc: an uninterrupted conversation over the wreckage of Ground Zero; a joyfully incorrect sequence in which Norton swears at New York's population; a last-minute fantasy that threatens to cheapen the whole film. But it all holds together in an intriguing drama. Part of it we've seen before (Philip Seymor Hoffman's arc is duller than his character), but most of it is intriguingly new; how do you say goodbye for seven years, maybe forever? The cast is up to the subtlety of the material, with particular kudos to Barry Pepper as a friend whose tough-love rhetoric hides profound guilt. (Babe-watchers should also note that Rosario Dawson has seldom looked better) This is the first film to confront the post-WTC New York City, and if some shots feel gratuitous, at least it hasn't shirked away from the challenge. All and all, it's a solid film, worth a look without being spectacular. (In theaters, February 2003)

40 DAYS & 40 NIGHTS (2002, Comedy): Josh Hartnett has never been a truly dynamic performer, and his turn in this sex comedy comes close to sinking the picture. His puppy-dog charm manages to save it from utter collapse, but what we're left with is a completely average film that will quickly fade from memory. The premise (abstinence for Lent) itself isn't completely compelling. Without providing too much information on your reviewer's sex life, going 40 days without sex doesn't seem like too much of a sacrifice. (The nature of a protagonist for whom this would be a Big Deal is enough to make one go—ew!) To the screenwriter's credit, he manages to sustain the premise until the end—though frankly, only a few scenes stand out as being particularly funny. The last 30 minutes of the film get mired into standard romantic plot shticks. (Your reviewer is a bit of a thicke in these matters, but not jumping right into bed with a potential paramour wouldn't seem to be that much of a problem. Maybe it's a San Francisco thing.) Then again, everyone in this film seems to be working in offices where sexual harassment laws seem to be unknown. For the rest of us, though, 40 DAYS & 40 NIGHTS is a tepid fantasy that will quickly evaporate without a trace. Well, maybe aside from being an early film in the Shannyn Sossamon oeuvre; her Goth-girl personae is thin, but compelling. (On VCD, May 2002)

ABOUT A BOY (2002, Comedy): Another satisfying entry in the "British novel adaptation" category, ABOUT A BOY is a bit too meaningful to be strictly funny. Oh, Hugh Grant is at the top of his game as an immature bachelor who discovers a better life: his internal monologue contains enough quotable gems to keep you smiling. But it's small quibbles such as a deliberately humiliating finale, a ghastly-looking Toni Collette (who might actually look worse and worse in each successive film) and, oh yes, a suicide attempt that sour the comedy of the film. Now, purists may argue that it simply makes the funny stuff funnier and (again) more meaningful, but for anyone looking for the next BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY, well, it's no breezy summer entertainment. Make no mistake, though; this is a great film, well-written and decently directed. But as far as enjoyment goes, hmm, your mileage may differ. (In theaters, July 2002)

ABOUT SCHMIDT (2002, Drama): One of Niven's Laws (From SF writer Larry Niven) states "Think before you make the coward's choice. Old age is not for sissies." However glamorous or easy it may appear, being old sucks. Being retired is even worse. That seems to be the message of ABOUT SCHMIDT, a profoundly depressing look at a man who comes to realize he's a complete failure. OK, OK, it's not as bad as that, and Writer/Director Alexander Payne makes darn sure there's a ray of hope somewhere. It still doesn't make the film more enjoyable. This is the type of story built around a series of humiliation vignettes: situations are set up where the only suspense is in knowing how the protagonist will make a fool of himself. Jack Nicholson is good in one of his least Jack-Nicholsonish roles yet. But few are sympathetic in this story, and that includes one of the most obnoxious daughter role in recent memory. Older viewers will probably get much more out of this film than I did; I just couldn't care less. (In theaters, January 2003)

ADAPTATION (2002, Drama): Brilliant at times, unsatisfying at others, ADAPTATION is a frustrating film that either mishandles a boffo premise, or exploits it in a way that won't please everyone. Yes, I get the joke, that a screenwriter struggling with an adaptation wrote a script as if written by two screenwriters about the process of two screenwriters adapting a book. (Whew!) Yes, I know where reality and fiction leave off. Yes, I realize that the third act is written by "Donald" the lovable hack. But somehow, the last third also forgets to have fun and for such an amusing premise, it's surprising to see how much ADAPTATION takes itself seriously at times. What could have been full of winks to the audience instead feels sloppy and unfocused. It is a deliberate artistic choice, of course, but is it the most appropriate one? Would this have been a better film if "Donald" had written the first two-third, and Charles the rest? What if the dual-personality sub-theme had been explicitly exploited? As someone with (amateur) screenwriting experience, I like anything about the creative process and love even more "wacky" movies, and yet found myself wishing for more, more, more in the latter third of the film: You're screwing with the audience, Charlie, but why not push it even further? Was the coda truly necessary in light of the "mess up the audience" manifesto? What about the insufficient exploitation of the alternate meaning of "adaptation"? Couldn't anything more be done with this? Where's Robert McKee when you need him? (In theaters, January 2003)

ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS (2002, Comedy/Action): I don't think anyone will ever claim this to be a great film, but frankly, it doesn't have to be: As soon as we're dropped into this lush Miami backdrop, with Ice Cube playing a burly protagonist, the rest takes care of itself. As the title suggests, the story revolves around millions of dollars, to which we can add Cube's bounty-hunter, a con artist, evil euro-villains, hot girls, sunny locations and enough ebonic profanities to exasperate even a hardened sailor. The rhythm is well sustained, the locations are worth looking at and the chemistry between Mike Epps and Ice Cube works well enough to make us forget that Epps often tries to be as irritating as Martin Lawrence. Certainly the female side of the film's Miami creds is impressive: Valarie Rae Miller, Eva Mendes and Carmen Chaplin make the most of their limited screen time and if Mendes has looked better in other films, she here displays some good comedic skills. Plot-wise, m'well, the film takes some regrettable shortcuts: the importance of the lottery ticket seems to diminish midway through and there are a few unfortunate coincidences here and there. But is it really worth discussing when the whole package is so charming? Probably not. Throw that film in with the BAD BOYS series, 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS and reruns of MIAMI VICE for plenty of undemanding fun. The DVD contains a pleasing array of short documentaries (including a general piece on music video directors making the leap to the big screen) as well as a mildly engaging audio commentary. (On DVD, June 2003)

AMERICAN PSYCHO 2 (2002, Comedy/Thriller): I don't think anyone expected anything great from this straight-to-video sequel to the underrated 2000 black comedy. While this isn't up to the level of quality of the first film, it's actually not bad at all. Story: Patrick Bateman's teen killer dedicates her life to crime-fighting, and if a few other students threaten her inevitable internship at the FBI... well, they'll have to be taken out of consideration, right? The biting black comedy works more often than it doesn't and if there are a number of useless plot twists in the third act, the film's conclusion still packs a cute little punch that goes a long way toward satisfying any viewer with a taste for that foolishness. Interestingly enough, there's very little gore in this film despite the regular murders: the emphasis is on the sarcastic narration and the black comedy more than the visceral horror thrills. William Shatner (yes, him) turns in an amusing performance as a middle-aged teacher, while Mila Kunis just may do good things if she keeps getting interesting roles like the psychotic "Rachael Newman". As a teen horror film considered on its own merits (and not as a sequel), it's surprisingly decent (far better than most of the crap that actually makes it to theatres) because it's more funny than grisly. The DVD contains a few deleted scenes (some good stuff there), outtakes (ditto) and two commentary tracks, but director Morgan J. Freeman's whiny, obvious patter is insufferable after ten minutes. (On DVD, July 2003)

ASTERIX & OBELIX: MISSION CLEOPATRE (France, 2002, Comedy) is the second cinema adaptation of the classic "Asterix & Obelix" comic book, and it was a risky proposition: Not only is the first (animated) movie rightfully considered a classic (ooh, those musical numbers... "Quand l'appétit va, tout va!"), but the first live-action Asterix and Obélix wasn't very well received critically. This second live-action film is better than the lackluster ASTÉRIX ET OBÉLIX CONTRE CÉSAR and falls short of the insane greatness of ASTÉRIX ET CLÉOPATRE, but still results in a rather good historical fantasy-comedy. The style is often frenetic, with plenty of sight gags, multiple anachronisms, some good dialogue and a constant sense of fun. MISSION CLÉOPATRE is so packed with jokes that even though non-French-European viewers (including French-Canadians) might not understand half the gags, there are still more than enough left to amuse. It relies a lot on pop culture, though (including a reference to STAR WARS), so I wouldn't be surprised if it's not nearly as good in ten or fifteen years. In the meantime, enjoy the performances, the jokes and the visual effects. (In Theaters, June 2002)

AUSTIN POWERS 3: GOLDMEMBER (2002, Comedy): As a big fan of the original film's low-budget spy parody, I was let down by the scatological humor of the sequel and this impression only worsens with AP3. The jokes become increasingly self-referential, up to a point where there isn't much here that doesn't refer to the AUSTIN POWERS mythology itself. Spy parody? Forget it! It doesn't help that the "writer" is working with a palette of roughly five jokes, which are repeated time and time again way beyond the point of diminishing results. What's worth saving are the first five minutes, which feature a series of celebrity cameos and a high-energy opening sequence. The rest goes downhill fast, even though I think this film is better than the second one if only because the gross-out humor is toned down in comparison. The only latter flashes of humor, though, are a G*dz*ll* reference and a gag on reading white subtitles on white background. (Alas, as with all the other jokes, this last joke is stretched for about a minute more than it ought to be.) On the other hand, it's still good to see the familiar gang of Powers characters come back. Among the new character, though it's mixed bag: Michael Caine is particularly good as Nigel Powers. Beyonce Knowles is positively adorable in one scene (in Power's pad) and simply wasted in the rest of the film; she deserves better material. As for the title character, Goldmember is one of the lamest thing about the film, a character who doesn't elicit one single laugh. The rest of the film plays as a parade of wasted opportunities; why don't you go see UNDERCOVER BROTHER for a film that not only does disco-blacksploitation right, but is also considerably funnier to boot? (In theaters, July 2002)

BARBERSHOP (2002, Comedy): Surprisingly enjoyable "black comedy" that will actually end up speaking volumes to just about everyone. The quasi-theatrical nature of the film is undermined by some silly sequences outside the barbershop itself, but the real strength of the film is in its delicious dialogue and the snappy interplay between the characters in the shop. Outrageous discussions spring freely between barbers and clients, resulting in a warm and likable film that works much better than anyone could expect. Ice Cube and Cedric the Entertainer both do excellent jobs in their roles, with particular props to the latter for a performance in which his natural persona is nearly unrecognizable. Eve also does quite well in a first acting role. The special edition DVD contains a wealth of material, including a bunch of truly interesting featurettes on not just the usual film-making process (including the difficulties in matching location shooting in freezing Chicago with interior footage in a Los Angeles studio), but also a few thoughts on costume design (Yay for Devon Patterson!) and a fun documentary on the recent evolution of male hairstyles. Truly a film worth seeing if you haven't already done so. (On DVD, January 2004)

BELOW (2002, War/Horror): Much like EQUILIBRIUM, this rather good film received a confidential distribution in the United States, was never shown in Canada and quickly went to video as if it was unworthy of a wide release. Don't believe the lack of marketing: BELOW is the kind of little B-movie gem that deserved a much, much bigger audience. A canny blend of WW2 submarine thriller and supernatural horror, BELOW is another one of director David Twohy's unassuming but excellent films (see TIMESCAPE, THE ARRIVAL, PITCH BLACK, etc.). While you're unlikely to recognize any of the names in the cast, don't worry: The film is a slick piece of entertainment, a great crowd-pleaser with a few twists and plenty of extra chills. (Yay for the Lovecraft-reading sailor!) It slowly builds to a pretty intense situation, with just about every single submarine mishap in the way. Some darkly humorous situations (bong-bong-bong went the depth charge) are a highlight. Despite the relatively low budget, the film looks fantastic, with beautiful cinematography and nearly-perfect set design. A treat for anyone looking for those overlooked B-grade gems. Don't miss it. The DVD contains an ordinary making-of featurette which doesn't do to much to compensate for the sparse and jokey audio commentary: Director Twohy and the cast members present at the track's recording don't take the film very seriously and seem more intent on being sarcastic than informative. (On DVD, January 2004)

BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM (England, 2002, Teen/Sport/Romance): Behold the most charming teenage sport romance since BRING IT ON. A successful blend of light ethnic drama and underdog comedy, this is the kind of low-budget film that doesn't need much more money to keep the audience interested. A good script coupled with great performances... and voila! Keira Knightley may be the "sexiest tomboy beanpole on the planet" (to borrow an unfortunate expression from the embarrassing ads running on AICN), but she's nowhere nearly as hot as Parminder Nagra, the adorable protagonist of the story. You don't need to be a fan of soccer/football to cheer for our plucky heroine as she tries to reconcile both her Indian heritage and her English culture. (Don't worry, it's far from being as dreary as it sounds) Certainly a painless conversation piece about ethnic integration if there's one, BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM earns that highest distinction; a film that deserves to exist. While the script often takes easy dramatic shortcuts ("comic" misunderstandings can often be seen coming miles away), the film also exhibits a remarkable level of realism on how some characters react to some situations. Good stuff. The direction is appropriate, with frenetic soccer scenes and lush wedding sequences. Existing in a continuum forged by films like THE FULL MONTY, MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING and EAST IS EAST, BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM is one delicious piece of cinema. Please don't miss it. (In Theatres, April 2003)

BIG TROUBLE (2002, Comedy/Crime): Anyone in the mood for a silly crime comedy could do much worse than to take a look at this film. Roughly a dozen familiar actors pop up in a narrative that deftly manipulates a large character cast without too much confusion. The story might be uncomfortable for some, as it features a nuclear warhead being smuggled past airport security, but don't let that distract you from a darn good film that is roughly in the same vein than SNATCH and LOCK STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS. Dave Barry's novel is decently adapted, preserving some of his dry wit (mostly though Tim Allen's narration) and most of the insanity that seems so prevalent in South Floridian crime thrillers. It's simply a lot of fun. (In Theaters, May 2002)

BLADE II (2002, Horror/Action): Once in a while, the mid-twenties male movie geek that I am finds a reason to fall in love with cinema all over again. Strangely enough, truly great films don't do this as often as flawed B-movies that I happen to really enjoy. Sure, okay, TRAFFIC is a good film, but it doesn't inspire me to the same level of devotion as the wonderfully quirky DUDE, WHERE MY CAR? BLADE II is one of those films about which I can rave for hours, simply on the basis that it's one of those all-too rare horror/action film that really push the gore/action quotient to insane levels. It's furiously paced, it stars a highly charismatic hero (Wesley Snipes, better than ever), it doesn't skimp on the special effects and gives you a geek-worthy movie experience. BLADE II improves on most of the strengths of the original; more action, more vampires and more coolness. (One notable exception is the scant development of the vampire-world mythology, which revert from the original's "council of vampires" to a more hum-drum "vampire monarchy") The action sequences are directed with impressive skill and fluidity, though some blurry shots betray an imperfect integration of CGI and live-action elements. For director Guillermo del Toro, this is a triumphant return to mid-budget American films after the tepid MIMIC. Perhaps the best things about BLADE II is how much it pushes the limits of its MPAA-approved rating, ending up as one of the hardest-R movies in recent memory. Hence my unconditional love for the film, vampire-slayings and tense action sequences aside; if middle-aged ladies can have their sensitive BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY and pre-schoolers can have their safe THOMAS THE MAGIC TRAIN, then why can't I get my BLADE II? Thank you, Snipes and del Toro; once again, cinema has something to offer me. (In theaters, March 2002)

BLADE II (2002, Action/Horror): Adrenaline junkies should take note that there aren't many better choices than this one as far as sheer action coolness is concerned. This film doesn't try to do any anything but bring a kickin' action comic book to life, and boy does it succeeds like few others. BLADE II is packed with cool scenes, loud music and plenty of macho posturing. It's almost perfect for what it wants to be. The DVD is enough to make any geek fall in love with the film again, as the 2-disc edition is dominated by the imposing presence of director Guillermo del Toro. His candid co-commentary (along with producer Peter Frankfurt) is reason enough to buy the DVD; profane, honest (he regularly points out flaws in the finished film, and is even less merciful with the original script he had to shape up for the screen), quick with an amazing array of classic comic/anime/film references and devastatingly funny, del Toro proves to be the best man for the job and a talent to watch. In comparison, the second commentary (featuring writer David S. Goyer and Wesley Snipes) is a bit too smug and scattered. If you like action movies, this is it; the slam-bang jewel of 2002. (Second Viewing, On DVD, January 2003)

BLOOD WORK (2002, Crime/Thriller): I'm getting too good at this thriller shtick. Barely a few minutes in the film, I pegged the "secret killer" at the character's oh-so-innocuous first scene. The rest of the film didn't hold many other surprises; the procedural details are fascinating, but any sagacious viewer will be ahead of the lead protagonist by minutes. Clint Eastwood is always interesting enough to watch, but here he overdoes the "labored breathing" act. (It doesn't help that his casting destroys most of the story's initial dynamics. Here, we're more concerned about him breaking his hip falling down than popping a blood vessel in his transplanted heart.) Some of the supporting actors are fine (Wanda de Jesùs! Fiiine!), but others seem to be there only to overact. Clichés abound, culminating -of course- in the climactic shootout. Plus you have to stomach both a series of awful "deep and meaningful" double-entendres about blood, hearts and such, but also a romantic scene between Eastwood and someone still thirty years away from retirement age. There are enough good things in BLOOD WORK to keep you interested, but too many bad things about it to keep you from seeing it in the first place. You might as well wait until it plays on TV. (In Theaters, August 2002)

BOLLYWOOD HOLLYWOOD (Canada, 2002, Romance/Comedy): For a while, this film nearly doesn't work. Hampered by its low budget, lousy audio, choppy editing, lame comic timing and overall lack of Ooomph, this Canadian Bollywood take-off sputters. Fortunately the luscious Lisa Ray (oooh!) appears on-screen in a tight angora sweatshirt (double oooh!) and this unforgettable sight is soon followed by a fantastic musical number starring Bollywood celebrity Akshaye Khanna. Then we're ready to follow the film along, wherever it leads. Even if it's in familiar PRETTY WOMAN territory, despite the self-awareness of director Deepa Mehta's script. As is the norm with Indian films, the story definitely takes a back seat to the musical numbers (of which there are too few) and the megawatt charm of the leads. The nearly-local Toronto backdrop adds to the enjoyment. Other highlights include a fun group musical number atop an apartment building, a credit sequence starring the film's crew and amusing subtitles that tell you exactly what the scenes are about. It all amounts to, what else, a fine time at the movies. I could quibble with a lot of other things, but this is the kind of film where I'd feel guilty doing so. Viewers with a deeper familiarity with Bollywood will undoubtedly get more out of this film than I did. I just wish a bigger budget could have accommodated a few more dancers, a few more numbers and a better sound quality. (In Theaters, November 2002)

THE BOURNE IDENTITY (2002, Thriller): Don't worry if you don't remember much from the original Robert Ludlum novel: There's scant resemblance to the original story beyond the premise of an elite secret agent who's lost his memory. This remake is a solid thriller; perhaps too much so: There's a definite sense of deja-vu here, as the film laboriously puts together what may be one of the blandest, least imaginative thrillers in recent memory. All of it is familiar by-the-numbers spy stuff. I could hand you the film' premise and you'd develop a story roughly similar to this BOURNE IDENTITY. Matt Damon is decent as the hero, but not particularly noteworthy. The same can be said of directory Doug Lyman, who does the job with a very occasional flourishes but seldom any sustained panache. I drifted off midway through, bored by a second or third repetition of the same plot structure (Agent is sent to kill Bourne. Bourne kills agents, learning tantalizing clue. Agent dies before telling more) and I'm not sure I missed out on anything. Well-done but bland. There's a nice little care chase, though. (In Theaters, June 2002)

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE (2002, Documentary/Essay): There's a lot to say about America's fascination with guns, deaths and violence, and it's probably for that reason that Michael Moore's documentary film clocks in at nearly two hours. But don't worry, because you won't feel bored at any point: Moore runs from comedy to tragedy in such a way that you can't help but be impressed even as you realize how he's manipulating you. We warned, though, that this isn't as much filmed journalism as much as it's filmed editorial. Some parts don't really work, but there's so much great stuff elsewhere that it doesn't really matter. As a Canadian, I supposed that I'm having an easier time seeing the absurdity of the American condition... indeed, watching BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE does at time feel like a big love-you letter to Canada. (It helps that Canadian money co-financed the film) Moore comes up with surprising conclusions about violence in America, but there are times where we'd wish for more analysis (or, at least a deeper exploration) rather than some of the showier stunts he pulls. His commentary on the culture of fear is fascinating, though, and the ways he uses in which to make his point are quite effective. Don't be surprised if you come out of this film liking Marilyn Manson more than Charlton Heston. The real tragedy of BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, though, is that despite every viewer telling others how good, how insightful and how entertaining it is, people simply won't bother to see it. In 2002, more people will forget about trash like AUSTIN POWERS 3 than people will see BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. And yet, in 2052, guess which film will be most remembered? If there's still a United States of America by then, that is... (In theaters, October 2002)

BUBBA HO-TEP (2002, Drama/Horror): Whatever your expectations for this film, they're likely to be challenged. Billed as a comedy in which Elvis and JFK battle an evil Egyptian mummy in their retirement home, BUBBA HO-TEP also ends up being a surprisingly effective dramatic meditation on old age and getting the most out of life. Who would have thought? The low budget takes its toll on the film (especially at the end, and in the clumsy way it's all edited together), but the able performance of geek-legend Bruce Campbell as the ageing Elvis is worth the price of a rental by itself. Otherwise, well, it will take a complex audience to appreciate all of BUBBA HO-TEP. Funny and moving, silly and tragic, realistic and fantastic, it somehow manages to keep everything together as it progresses from scene to scene. If you find a quirkier film this year, I congratulate you. Cult movie, you say? Well, obviously. (On DVD, December 2004)

CABIN FEVER (2002, Horror): The best thing about Director Eli Roth's first feature is how it sticks to the basics of old-school teen horror: This forest-cabin tale brings back memories of the first EVIL DEAD films, but the schlock treatment is classic eighties: some nudity (Yay for Cerina Vincent!), a lot of bloody effects, a downbeat ending and incredibly sadistic jokes make CABIN FEVER a straight throwback to a certain school of B-grade horror films. This is not to say that the film is without problems, though: For all comparisons with the EVIL DEAD films, CABIN FEVER remains desperately pedestrian, with only a few restrained scares in its arsenal (Just a flesh-eating virus? Bah!) and not much in the way of comedy until the very end, where the film takes an abrupt and sustained turn in black humour. The plotting also has its share of deeply dumb moments, with bad luck being a constant player in whatever happens to the characters. Some of it works ("Have you seen my cousin?"), some of it doesn't ("That's my wife!") and some of it is just weird ("PANCAKES!") Mostly of interest to the horror fans, I suspect that CABIN FEVER will be best-remembered as an early work in Roth's career, if not an minor embarrassment to a few of the younger actors when their career take off. (In theaters, September 2003)

CATCH ME IF YOU CAN (2002, Crime/Drama): Everyone loves to see a deserving hero get away with something, and that's exactly what this Spielberg film delivers. This is the loose biography of con man Frank Abagnale, who spent the late sixties impersonating airline pilots, doctors and lawyers and forging checks to great profit. Constantly outwitting authorities, he was eventually captured... but still managed to beat the system. This delightful film announces its colors from the onset, through a deliberately retro credit sequence that plunges us back in the time period. Leonardo DeCaprio is convincing in the variety of roles Abagnale chooses to play, and the direction is comfortably laid-back. This film could have been done at any time over the past twenty years; there is nary a "modern" technique in sight. A cursory glance at interviews with Abagnale is sufficient to uncover significant deviations from reality (there was, for instance no single FBI agent pursuing Abagnale through all these years), but the fiction is a compelling, entertaining piece of entertainment. Spielberg is a consummate professional, and he knows how to create a feel-good piece of cinema. Even the too-long ending is built to show how one could see Abagnale simultaneously becoming a law-abiding citizen while beating the system even more outrageously than as a criminal. CATCH ME IF YOU CAN isn't a particularly deep or challenging film, but it's a lot of fun. A terrific criminal procedural enhanced by a compelling cat-and-mouse story, it's pretty much designed for maximum entertainment. Enjoy! (In theaters, December 2002)

CHANGING LANES (2002, Drama/Thriller): The trailers will try to sell you a black-versus-white story of a poor family man being unjustly tormented by a rich young lawyer. But that's not quite the story of CHANGING LANES, which proves to be more complex than that. Our young rich lawyer (Ben Affleck, in a rather good role) proves to be the protagonist with the most to learn. Our middle-aged family man (Samuel L. Jackson, also quite good) turns to be a walking ball of barely-repressed anger. Neither is particularly sympathetic, and that proves to be one of the film's weaknesses. CHANGING LANES proves to be curiously tepid, as the quasi-juvenile war of dirty tricks between both rages on for a full day. The awful coincidences propelling the plot forward, the contrived situations manipulated by the screen writer and the all-too-sugary conclusion are also sore points. On the plus side, though, there's a great confrontation between Affleck and Sidney Poitier, an unconventional battle of characters and an attempt at social reflection on the meaning of civilized behaviour. Unfortunately, the film stumbles as many times as it advances, and the end result is merely so-so. (In theaters, April 2002)

CHICAGO (2002, Musical/Crime): By the end of the very first musical number, it's obvious that this is a triumphant return of the classical musical. CHICAGO isn't as audaciously post-modern nor as self-conscious as MOULIN ROUGE, but whatever go-for-broke edge it lacks doesn't really matter when it's so well-done. This ultra-cynical tale of profitable crime isn't particularly complicated, but it's told with plenty of style. Even the outrageous musical numbers are carefully integrated as being part of the characters' imagination with what's certainly the best editing of the year. Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Richard Gere sing and (tap)dance and yes, they're believable. What's not so obvious are the other great supporting performances, from Queen Latifah to John C. Reilly to Colm Feore's non-singing part. The result is pretty amazing. I wanted to clap at the end of some sequences. Who could have guessed that a musical written in the thirties would contain such biting social commentary even today? The ventriloquism/puppetry sequence alone is worth the price of admission, not to mention the "had it coming" tango, the court-circus piece or even the preposterously appropriate tap-dancing around legal arguments. No doubt about it; CHICAGO is a superior film that makes an effort at showing us far more than what is required to tell a good story. It's remarkably funny, paced like an action film and surprisingly memorable. See it. Now. (In theaters, December 2002)

CIDADE DE DEUS ([City of God], Brazil, 2002, Crime): Wow! Dynamic crime drama, straight from one of Brazil's most dangerous neighbourhood: If you thought inner-city black crime movies had it bad, then nothing will prepare you for the casual fashion crime is portrayed in this film. Kids with guns, shooting others and laughing to tell about it. Any thought of “boring foreign cinema” will quickly evaporate as the director changes styles, plays structural tricks and never loses our attention. Many characters are gracefully handled with minimal confusion: the script is a minor tour de force. This is a fabulous film: maybe not one you'll care to see twice, but definitely one that deserves to be see once. The DVD contains a fabulous one-hour documentary that shows that the reality is even worse than the fiction. (On DVD, July 2005)

CHIK YEUNG TIN SI (aka SO CLOSE, Hong-Kong, 2002, Action): Three beautiful Asian women in a CGI-heavy action movie. Sound promising? It is, but don't expect too much from the end result. It's not bad, but as the film twists and turns into something tragic, it's not hard to see where audiences would have been more satisfied with a few more conventional storytelling choices. At least the action scenes are competently executed and the three lead each hold their own. I suspect that most guys will pant over Lynn and Sue, but as far as I'm concerned, it's Karen Mok as a gum-chewing tough cop that hold the movie together. Among the action scenes that leave an impression, I count one remote-controlled car chase that feels ripe for a Hollywood rip-off, and a climactic sword fight that's as good as it feels out of place with the rest of the film. As for the rest, well, viewers familiar with Chinese action movies will feel at home with the stylish action, lacklustre plot, silly MacGuffin and uncertain pacing. It's still a fine DVD rental. (On DVD, May 2007)

CITY BY THE SEA (2002, Thriller): Very gritty, dark, pseudo-realist crime drama starring (even in absentia) four generations of fathers and sons on various sides of the law. Set against a moody tattered town on the eve of self-destruction, this film wants to be an exploration of similarly-damaged characters constantly wrestling with questions of right and wrong against difficult circumstances. Am I being too profound, here? Because frankly, there isn't a whole lot to be amused about in CITY BY THE SEA, a dour film that does its best to sap all energy out of its premise. Pretty much everything takes place at night, with haunted, tired characters that look like they could enjoy vacations. (Indeed, one of them can't wait to get to Key West.) After ROAD TO PERDITION, this is yet another 2002 crime film trying to tie in all sort of symbolism through its fixation on paternity. It works maybe too well, bordering on a rather repulsive misogyny: All three of the film's female protagonists are depicted as quitters who would rather completely abandon the male heroes rather than help them out. (It's not an accident if the sunny happy coda doesn't have a single feminine presence: They all disappeared from the story some time before.) Robert de Niro looks haggard and hurt, and except for James Franco's beaten-up role, that's pretty much the only standout of the film performance-wise. If you're looking for a depressing crime drama, go ahead, have what you're looking for... but otherwise, pass! (In Theaters, September 2002)

CLOCKSTOPPERS (2002, Teen/Science-Fiction): A line of dialogue in this film essentially states that "it's a terrible thing to let children play with such wondrous technology", and that pretty much sums up my own feelings about CLOCKSTOPPERS. When such cool effects as virtual cameras are used to prop up an average teen science-fiction film, well, there is a tangible impression of waste. It's not as if it's a bad film, mind you: Jesse Bradford does a good job as the lead (though he's not nearly as cool as in BRING IT ON) and Paula Garcés is fine to look at (though older than her character by nearly a decade, to the delight of post-teen males in the audience). It's just that the script makes no attempt at being anything more than simply a science-fiction film for teens. Some of the antics are juvenile, the romance feels contrived and artificial, the enemies are too caricatured to be believable and, well, everything seems so intentionally aimed for teens that it loses the rest of the audience. The "logic" of hypertime is shakily established, and then carelessly broken time and time again. (The DJing sequence is particularly painful to watch) Naturally, the special effects are a lot of fun (though you can see most of them in the trailer) and done with a certain amount of skill. Too bad that they serve such a forgettable script. (In theaters, April 2002)

COLLATERAL DAMAGE (2002, Action): There was a time, during the eighties, when Arnold Schwarzenegger could star in any action feature and draw crowds. Now, either the quality of his films has declined, or the audience has tired of the formula, because since 1995 (ERASER, END OF DAYS and now COLLATERAL DAMAGE), it doesn't work quite as well. In fact, given the film's simplistic pre-11/9/2001 approach to terrorism, it's hard to see past the stupidity of the ending, the dullness of the setup and the ridiculous nature of the narrative. In another decade it might have been an enjoyable shoot-em-up, but not it border on the offensive. No wonder (North)Americans are so hated elsewhere in the world; if this passes for popular entertainment, we're due for a serious re-evaluation of our priorities. Now, granted, Schwarzenegger is fine as a protagonist, even though he -as a "fireman"- sets up explosive devices with the skill of a Navy SEAL. (There are also a great pair of supporting performances by John "No one gives a damn about us Canadians" Turturro and John Leguizamo.) The problem lies elsewhere; the film attempts to be complex, but that intention is constantly undermined by silliness, awful coincidences and a pitiful climax. (Doesn't it strike anyone that it might be a bad idea to cut metal natural-gas pipes with an axe, sparks and all?) In short, it's too sombre to be fun, and too stupid to be clever. There isn't much left. (In Theaters, February 2002)

CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND (2002, Biography/Drama): Hmm. A real-life game show producer (Chuck Barris) writes "an unauthorised autobiography" in which he invents a shadowy secret life for himself: TV executive by day, CIA hired killer by night. The demands and women of both of his life take their toll on him. Sounds fascinating? It ought to have been, but unfortunately the screenwriter (Charlie Kaufman, yes, of ADAPTATION and BEING JOHN MALKOVICH fame) and director (George Clooney, yes, the actor) adapt the book in a wholly weird and stylised fashion. It could have worked, but the lead character in the tale (Barris, well-played by Sam Rockwell) turns out to be a highly repulsive protagonist. While it's difficult to fault anyone (least of all Clooney, who exhibits some competency with the camera), the film itself sorts of falls flat. It feels like a series of vignettes rather than a flowing story. Julia Robert's character, for instance, turns up in four or five scenes, but is supposed to be an important part of Barris' life. It doesn't click, and ultimately, neither does the film. The humour quotient is low and the interest level flags intermittently. I wasn't asking for another TRUE LIES, but at least TRUE LIES managed to hold together all the elements it was given. Make not mistake: CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND is an interesting experiment... but not a completely successful one. (In theaters, January 2003)

LE COLLECTIONNEUR ([THE COLLECTOR], Canada, 2002, Crime): French-Canadian cinema has, in the past ten years, adopted many marketing tactics from Hollywood, and here comes yet another one; the bestseller adaptation. Given the success of Chrystine Brouillet's mystery series starring inspector Maud "Biscuit" Graham, its cinema incarnation was inevitable. The result is not bad, though it feels heavily derivative of everything else in the American serial-killer tradition, perhaps unjustly; is it possible to read a profiler story nowadays without thinking about Silence of the Lambs? From a technical standpoint, there isn't much to complain about in LE COLLECTIONNEUR; the direction is efficient, the overall level of quality is comparable or even higher than most low-budget crime thrillers. The script, on the other hand, is a mixed bag; levels of language vary widely, often even in the same scene with the same characters. The "edgy" child-prostitute sidekick feels gratuitous and annoying. Even the acting had occasional bad moment; Maude Guerin is often flat as the heroine, usually-dependable regulars like Yvan Ponton and Yves Corbeil are unnoticeable and the child actors are only a notch above annoying. Luc Picard mails in his performance as the psycho; it's a good one, but it's not up to his usual intensity levels. Still, the film has a definitely local atmosphere, and isn't bad at all when seen as a whole. (In French, In theaters, March 2002)

THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO (2002, Adventure): For some reason, swashbuckling adventure is a genre that, if well-executed, never fails to set my spirits soaring. The romance, the action, the drama of it all! THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO is the first such good film since 1998's THE MASK OF ZORRO and the wait has been worth it. Here, the filmmakers run back to the classics for source material (Alexandre Dumas' eponymous novel) and run with the concept, producing a film that has the feel of a timeless treat. Jim Caviezel surprises as Edmund Dantes, the innocent-to-awesome hero of the story; while Caviezel's previous roles have been serviceable but hardly impressive, here he gets the chance to exhibit a great deal of range, strut a badass attitude and triumph against all odds. (He even exhibits a killer goatee) In comparison, even the dependable Guy Pearce is over-staged. (On the other hand, Luis Guzman finally gets a juicy supporting role!) Technically, the film is highly successful, with limpid directing, a good screenplay and top-notch cinematography. Even though the film is a solid 135+ minutes, it feels more epic than overlong. The epitome of good fun for everyone, THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO is an unqualified success. There's no reason to bitch and moan about the level of quality of Hollywood movies as long as films like this one continue to be released; go, rent, watch and enjoy! (In theaters, March 2002)

LES DANGEREUX (Canada, 2002, Comedy): Yikes. I can understand that black comedy isn't a familiar genre in French-Canada (where the preference goes more to crude popular comedy), but it's not an excuse to mess up this film so badly. While the film enjoys a relatively flawless second quarter (which compares more or less with such films as SNATCH), everything goes to hell as the movie advances toward its conclusion. This simple tale of kidnapping can't be bothered to maintain an even tone throughout, nor to respect the intelligence of the audience: The staging become more and more ludicrous, the finale is extended beyond anyone's reasonable patience and the whole thing ultimately ends in a muddled mess. Headliner Stéphane Rousseau grandstands without any adult supervision and Véronique Cloutier is allowed to torture viewers through two musical numbers. (On the other hand, she's pretty cute... but not enough to make us forgive everything.) The stereotypes are unworthy of existing in a movie released in 2002, and so are some of the plot shortcuts used in lieu of clever plotting. (Can you believe the "lost glasses" shtick? Me neither.) Oh, it's not as if the entire film is unpleasant, but the tremendous waste of potential here is almost offensive. We've got enough stupid American movies up here; we don't need to make our own. (In theaters, December 2002)

DEATH TO SMOOCHY (2002, Crime/Comedy): There's a really good reason why dark comedies don't enjoy much success at the box-office: For every successful GET SHORTY or PULP FICTION, there are dozen of film that don't understand that violent death with winks don't necessarily equal big laughs. In DEATH TO SMOOCHY's case, someone forgot that it makes more than a sappy plot with murders and swear words to be funny, and ultimately, there are maybe three laughs in the whole film. Oh, the narrative foundation is promising; corrupt kid shows, the Irish mob, dwarves, a huge purple rhino, ice-skating and a kid's show host groupie. What makes everything fall apart is the dry and dour tone in which everything is handled: It's as if an accountant got hold of a SIMPSONS episode and tailored it to cut all the laughs. What doesn't help is the sheer irritating nature of nearly everyone in the film, from a pestilent Robin Williams (even though he should get accolades for moving away from his amiable screen presence of late) to a grating brain-damaged ex-boxer. True, Edward Norton, Catherine Keener and New York are as good as ever. But the whole film surrounding them is tedious and annoying. The finale is especially vexing, as it forgets its own nature in favour of an all-sweet finish. A lot of wasted potential for this one... (In theaters, April 2002)

DIE ANOTHER DAY (2002, Action): Forty years after DOCTOR NO, James Bond is back with his twentieth movie, and this one is kind of a half-hearted renewal. In the first hour, we actually see something new: James Bond failing and being captured. Shocking! you say as the suave British spy does things never seen before. He is tortured (with a Madonna song, appropriately enough), exchanged for another prisoner and has to fight his way back in the service. Tons of winks to previous Bond adventures are there for the sharp-eyed viewer, including a further nod to "the original James Bond" for those hardcore Bond fans. The only sour notes come from Halle Berry, whose Jinx has to be one of the worst Bond Girl ever: her line delivery is flat and perfunctory, with the added disadvantage of a crass attitude that make Bond look downright humble. Yikes! The second half of the film isn't as appealing, given that it simply delivers Yet Another Bond Adventure with the usual trappings, boring action sequences and overlong finale. Jinx is scarcely worth rescuing, the villains are flat, the directing/editing gets more and more incoherent as the film goes along and some truly hideous CGI shots (Bond surfing amongst the icebergs) contaminate the otherwise good visuals. I did like parts of the end sequence, but the rest is just dull, dull, dull... Still, it's hard not to like Rosamund Pike and the sword-fighting sequence. Add those to the good first hour, and we've got a better-than average Bond. Which is all you need, really. (In Theaters, November 2002)

DIVINE SECRETS OF THE YA-YA SISTERHOOD (2002, Drama): There seems to be an insatiable appetite for twisted multi-generational family redemption stories and this film is only another one of those. Characters hate each other, bicker, are forced in strange circumstances and discover things about their past. The conclusion is usually preordained. What saves this film from triviality is the impressive acting talent featured for the occasion (with a nod toward the uncommon number of, er, "mature" actors assembled here) as well as the occasional sharp dialogue sprinkled here and there. It's a sympathetic film if not a very substantial one, and your overall liking will probably notch a point or two above or below depending on your personal tolerance for this kind of stories, set in a southern United States setting and starring Sandra Bullock. Oh, and repeated cries of "Ya-ya!" --which, truth be told, can be more addictive than the film itself. (On DVD, August 2003)

DOG SOLDIERS (2002, Horror/Action): Low-budget, but effective hybrid between a horror movie and a military action film. The hook is simple: a platoon training in Scotland finds itself hunted by a pack of werewolves. They barely make it in an isolated country house before being besieged by the creatures. Who will last the night? The beginning is a bit slow and the seams of the budget sometimes show in the restrained direction, but DOG SOLDIERS does have an extra bit of oomph to make it stand out in memory. In the grand tradition of cheap horror films, writer/director Neil Marshall uses what he has at his disposal in the most effective fashion and the result holds up even to jaded viewers. There are a number of twists and turns, along with a suitably chaotic conclusion. Not bad. (On DVD, September 2005)

DRAGONFLY (2002, Fantasy): Fans of angels tearjerkers are sure to go gaga over this latest Tom Shadyak schmaltz-fest (it's like PATCH ADAMS, except with less laughs and more dead people). Others, like me, are unlikely to be impressed. While the hackneyed story would have had a certain interest at, maybe, "Twilight Zone" lengths, it more than overstays its welcome at 106 minutes. The outline of the story is obvious from the get-go, and so is the conclusion. Worse; the third act is stretched over an interminable 30 minutes despite an almost total lack of content. I suppose that this is scarcely of importance to people interested in this kind of feel-good life-after-death formula film. Kevin Costner isn't too bad as the protagonist, and that assessment stands for most of the other actors. (On DVD, August 2003)

EIGHT-LEGGED FREAKS (2002, Science-Fiction/Comedy): It's been a long dry spell for us giant-spider movies enthusiasts, but at last, the wait is over and EIGHT-LEGGED FREAKS is everything you can wish for in a giant-spiders movie. It features a small town under attack, a few endearing characters from Central Casting (Including the scrumptious Kari Wuhrer as a shotgun-blasting sheriff; woo-hoo!), loads of weapons, clever tactics, a high body count and, oh, hundreds of giant spiders. It's loads of fun for whoever can appreciate the pure artistic meaning of a giant-spiders movie. It's not completely successful (the pacing lags at the end, and some characters -like the conspiracist DJ- are just insipid), but frankly I'd be hard-pressed to find a better monster B-movie since the original TREMORS. Enjoy yourself squishily! (In theaters, July 2002)

EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS (2002, Comedy/Sci-Fi): Silly, funny and not afraid to be a little stupid when it needs to be, this is a triumphant return of the B-grade monster movie. Camera-equipped PDAs and digitally-created spiders notwithstanding, this is a throwback to the golden era of bad fifties sci-fi, and a pretty enjoyable one at that. At least it's honest it what it attempts to be (as the commentary quickly establishes) and never aspires to any higher purpose. While the film won't break through to general audiences with no particular hunger for giant spider movies, it holds up rather well to a second viewing for this fan of the sub-genre. The DVD is otherwise serviceable, with an amusing commentary track, a diverting short film and a few deleted scenes (including one which answers one of my biggest "huh?"s) but, curiously enough, a rather remarkable lack of making of material on visual effects. Oh well. It's bug-squishing fun enough as it is anyway! (Second Viewing, On DVD, January 2003)

ENOUGH (2002, Thriller): Pure exploitative trash! Take a beautiful female protagonist, give her the worst psycho husband ever imagined and then give her a rationale for killing him. It doesn't take much more to make such an obviously manipulative film. The surprise here isn't how unsubtle is the film as much as it's how it all works so well: The husband is enough of a crazy maniac that killing him doesn't seem an act of female aggression as much as a righteous purge for all humankind. (You just have to see how he behaves with other men to figure out how much of an eeevil antagonist he is.) Jennifer Lopez is wonderful (as usual) as the protagonist, going from innocent to victim to fighter in one satisfying arc. (I don't like her short hair nearly as much as her usual hairstyle, but that's pretty shallow, isn't it?) Let's not fool ourselves: ENOUGH is pure thriller trash without social signification, but executed well enough that is becomes somewhat of a guilty pleasure. Your mileage may vary. (In Theaters, May 2002)

EQUILIBRIUM (2002, Science-Fiction): Now THIS is the best Science-Fiction film of 2002 you won't see. Shamefully under-distributed in theaters (and not at all in Canada, hence leading me to, er, "alternate" distribution systems), this science-fiction film brings together an Orwellian techno-fantasy with some of the most amazing action sequences of the year for a science-fiction experience that'll bore you, then kick your eyeballs with split-second fight scenes that will make you gasp "Did I really see that?" EQUILIBRIUM mixes martial arts with guns and a whole lot of style. I'd describe it as "GATTACA with gun-kata", if you want a ready-made blurb. Yes, the first hour is slow (neither dumb nor pretentious, though... and that's already quite a recommendation), but that last forty minutes... watch out! It all culminates in a deliriously cool hand-to-hand fight scene where both fighters fires guns at each other point-blank. Damn! I guarantee you haven't seen anything like it. Christian Bale turns in one of his best performances as the uber-cool priest who turns to the good side. A bunch of other known actors also pop up here and there: Sean Bean, Taye Diggs, William Fichner as well as Emily Watson (who looks positively hot with a long wig) have small roles in this low-budget film. Writer/Director Kurt Wimmer has done miracles with what looks like a tight budget and an even tighter schedule. I can only wonder about what he could accomplish with the means to execute his vision. In the meantime, don't fret or delay; get a copy of EQUILIBRIUM by any means necessary and get fired up! (On VCD, December 2002)

EYE SEE YOU (aka DETOX, D-TOX, 2002, Crime/Horror): Yup, the thought of seeing Sylvester Stallone in a slasher film is just as bad as what's up there on the screen. Starts as a boring serial killer cop drama, then becomes even worse as a slasher film where the bodies pile up so quickly you barely have the time to register who's dying. I'm not kidding: the first few victims are greeted by “What? Who?” before yet another person gets killed. The setting has promise (in the usual “dark and damp” category), but the rest is just tedious. Stallone, surprisingly, seems better than the surrounding material. It all implodes in a blah fashion: the killer is revealed, everyone shrug, no-one wonders why this film was held on the studio's vaults for three years before making it straight to video. Too bad; the reviews from theatre film critics would have been entertaining to read. The DVD contains some useless extra materialm including deleted scenes that are even more wretched than the whole film. (On DVD, July 2005)

FAR FROM HEAVEN (2002, Drama): The most impressive thing about this film is how it presents a fifties melodrama as a period piece, without once resorting to cheap irony or contemporary arrogance. While the story is simple (a perfect housewife discovers that her husband is gay and then falls in love with a black man), the tone is maintained with a great deal of control. It is possible to be bored and generally unsurprised by the film (which includes all the expected ostracism scenes), but it's difficult not to respect the care with which it is fashioned. Save from the titling and some editing choices, the film looks and feels as if it could have been made at any time since 1958. Acting is top-notch, but particular attention has to be given to Dennis Haysbert, who finally comes to the forefront after several turns in smaller-scale projects. It's easy to watch the film and make tongue-in-cheek comments about what's going on, but writer/director Todd Haynes has something different, and very earnest in mind. One finally realizes that it would just be rude to be ironic in face of such raw sentiment. (In theaters, January 2003)

FEATDOTCOM (2002, Horror): There's a good reason why critics savaged this film when it first came out: It's just not very good. Whatever visual polish the film may possess is bludgeoned into impotence through endless dark and damp cinematography. No point for variety here; the whole film quickly becomes annoying. While FEARDOTCOM wants to explore the dark side of the Internet, it ends up feeling silly and forced; as the bizarre deaths pile up, one gets the impression that nothing will be explained. As it turns out, this is the correct impression: the conclusion devolves into silly serial murderer stuff, complete with a throwaway line about how the ghostly energy of mumbo-jumbo can leak (or leap, or squeak) from the Internet into the real world. Don't gag me; I'm already doing that. Stephen Dorff and Natascha McElhone do their best with the material, but it's a hopeless situation: McElhone is miscast (she's better in more aloof roles) and Dorff is ineffective at giving life to the lame dialogue. The film descends so firmly into dull disinterest that I switched midway through my first viewing to the director's audio commentary. Director William Malone seems well-intentioned, but FEATDOTCOM can't be salvaged with good intentions. (On DVD, May 2004)

FIDEL (2002, Biography): While this 200-minutes long film may not be easy entertainment, it's a splendid piece of docu-fiction that at least gives the impression of teaching about Cuba's post-WW2 history, through the life of Fidel Castro from his early days as a lawyer to the dictator of today. Fidel himself makes for a complicated subject, a heroic rabble-rouser who comes to be corrupted by his own ideals. While the film goes easy on the historical character during its first half, things get a lot more dramatic after the revolution, as Casto becomes darker and his regime... doesn't measure up to the expectations. The quality of the reconstitution is adequate, especially given the reduced budget for a four hours-long made-for-TV docu-fiction. It's surprisingly accessible, even despite the dropped threads, lopsided structure and often-simplified historical material. The Cuba crisis is particularly condensed, though it does a fine job at explaining the situation as seen from Fidel's viewpoint. A good choice for anyone looking for a bit of easy history: not so good for those who just want to see a movie. (On DVD, December 2006)

FORMULA 51 (2002, Crime/Action/Comedy): If "Samuel L. Jackson in a kilt" doesn't raise your eyebrow and your interest, that's fine, move along, nothing to see here... but for everyone else, FORMULA 51 is a fun little crime comedy. Dynamically directed by HK action maven Ronny Yu, this film follows the adventures of a very American chemist (Jackson, wearing a kilt throughout) stuck trying to make a drug deal in Liverpool, UK with the help of a reluctant sidekick (Robert Carlyle) while under the gun of a hired assassin (the unspeakably cute Emily Mortimer). Oh, there's also Meat Loaf, as "The Lizard". I'm not going to pretend that this is a classic for the ages, but there are quite a few fun moments here and there, from a dynamic opening credit sequence to a golf-club whuppin' to a car chase (where both leads go "aaah!" at the same time, thereby fulfilling a basic requirement of buddy comedies) to plenty of double-crosses. It's crunchy good fun, though there's a bit too much spilt bodily fluids to be clean fun. There's some amusing material on British/American differences, which is fitting for a Canada-Britain collaboration, I suppose. Younger fans of action/crime comedies should consider checking this one out. More mature viewers may wish to pass... (In theaters, October 2002)

THE FOUR FEATHERS (2002, Historical/War/Adventure): It's hard to see where a swashbuckling, romantic Victorian-era adventure could go wrong with Shekhar Kapur (ELIZABETH) at the helm and such fine actors as Heath Ledger and Kate Hudson in the cast. But it does. It crashes miserably, wallows in interminable desert sequences and infuriates by its pretentiousness. The film is, save for one or two good battle sequences, dull-dull-dull. It's overlong, badly structured so that the highlights are at the middle rather than the end, doesn't present characters we can cheer for and don't do much to erase or subvert the insufferable colonialist mentality of the time. The final battle, which should be a simple fistfight between two men, is transformed in an overblown confrontation using plenty of filtered angles, slow-motion sand throwing and a full orchestral score of Arabic influence. It gets tiresome quite quickly. Actors, director, cinematographer; all are wasted in this unnecessary film that feels about twice as long at it should be. (In Theaters, September 2002)

FRAILTY (2002, Crime/Horror): Sometimes, the problem with cinema is that you have to pad a film in order to make it marketable. There is not much of a commercial outlet for 45-minutes-long films outside of anthology TV shows, and even then it's a gamble. The sad result is all too often a thinly-plotted film stretched over at least 80 minutes, dressed-up with a lot of "atmosphere". FRAILTY is a lot like that; not exactly bad, but so long and deliberate that you'll have ample opportunity to ask yourself what happens next, which logically leads to the "twist" conclusion well before the end of the movie. Technically, at least, it's rather good. The acting is fine, especially from the two young boys, and the direction -by co-star Bill Paxton- is serviceable. However thin the story is, it's neither silly nor stupid which already gives it an advantage over most of the other horror films out there. Interesting, and maybe even more so when played in 2x fast-forward. (In theaters, April 2002)

FRIDA (2002, Biography): I don't know much about Frida Kahlo, and so I suspect that much of the film's content was lost on me. On the other hand, I can testify that it does a credible job at telling her story. Salma Hayek hits a career high with this role which takes her from teenhood to old age in a fairly smooth fashion. (Plus, we get to see her naked and nude) The script is all right, but what makes the film come alive is Julie Taymor's direction, which attempts to give to the film the style of Kahlo's paintings. Some of the symbolism is a touch too obvious (the butterflies on her full-body cast... awww...) but don't worry; there's plenty of story to enjoy too. There are a bunch of familiar faces in small roles, from Antonio Banderas to Edward Norton (both uncredited) and Geoffrey Rush. (In theaters, February 2003)

FULL FRONTAL (2002, Drama): There are times when I worry about seeing too many movies. The usual casual moviegoer sees maybe five to ten movies a year and likes most of them because, hey, he doesn't know better. Big-time cinephiles such as myself easily see five times as many movies and feel their critical judgment consequently affected. Years ago, I would have hated FULL FRONTAL, with its deliberately-muddy cinematography, non-linear structure, very loose narrative coherency and frustrating improvised dialogue. But I was surprised by how willingly I went with FULL FRONTAL. In many ways, it's another entry in what others have called the "Hollywood Home Movie" genre. But unlike THE ANNIVERSARY PARTY, FULL FRONTAL is funny. And unlike TIME CODE, it's not quite as much in love with its own cleverness. We can almost feel writer/director Stephen Soderbergh nudging us in the ribs throughout; "Get it? Get it? It's all a joke!" (Indeed, Soderbergh himself appears in a quirky movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie moment, his face hidden behind a "censored" black box.) FULL FRONTAL is a bunch of very loosely-connected vignettes. Some work; some don't. I still ended up laughing more than at AUSTIN POWERS: GOLDMEMBER. But don't try to link everything together too much; many scenes simply don't fit together anyway. See FULL FRONTAL for the industry jokes, the tons of cameos or the edgy feel of a film made without studio supervision. Just don't expect ordinary, safe material. (In Theaters, August 2002)

GANGS OF NEW YORK (2002, Historical/Drama): I don't worship at the altar of Martin Scorsese, but after seeing what he did with this script, I'm now quite willing to attend the occasional get-together. GANGS OF NEW YORK is a sumptuous re-creation of a fascinating historical period, when the infamous Boss Tweed's Tamany Hall reigned over a city that actually deserved its corruption. Immigrants against so-called natives, rich against poor; if America was born in the streets (as the film's tagline suggests), then it had a difficult gestation. This story is your good old revenge plot, as a son vows to avenge his murdered father. This 1860ish New York is grimy, lively and completely alien to us, as firefighters fight it out for the right to loot a house and gangs can hack at each other in complete impunity. Leonardo DeCaprio fares well in a good bad-boy role, but he pales in comparison to Daniel Day-Lewis, who delivers a great performance as an oddly endearing villain. The film is worth seeing more for the direction and the historical re-creation than for the rather simple story: cinema geeks will love it for the pleasure of seeing a true artist move a camera around, with plenty of budget to realize his vision. The abruptly political ending is initially hard to swallow (it doesn't help that it cheats us of a dramatic climax after a long buildup), but it does make a point. Who even remembered such events taking place in NYC? Dust those history books... (In theaters, December 2002)

GIN GWAI (aka THE EYE, South Korea, 2002, Horror): Argh! The hype, the hype! After hearing so much about this film, here I find myself considerably disappointed. As with so many horror film, THE EYE's first act is very promising: As a young girl undergoes a cornea transplant to regain sight, she starts seeing things that we, as sighted viewers, know aren't normal. A bunch of utterly chilling scenes do much to crank the tension as she gets to see death in action. But then the film stumbles during its development, as the explanation it offers for the supernatural events end up being less than the sum of all chills. That would be bad enough, but then the film tackles on an extra act filled with CGI catastrophe and a detour into supernatural disaster. It really betrays the beginning the film, and paints over our initial chills with a generous coating of slick film-making seemingly inspired by action movies. Not quite what the film initially promised, and that's too bad. Maybe that also accounts for the film's good reputation: What if everyone remembered the first thirty minutes and forgot the rest? (On DVD, May 2007)

THE GOOD THIEF (2002, Crime/Drama): There's really only one good reason to see this film, and it's Nick Nolte's lead performance as he transforms himself from a frumpy tired junkie loser to a high-rolling gambler with the world in his hand. It's a great role, and one that few other actors than Nolte would have the required presence to achieve. Otherwise, well, the film isn't nearly as compelling. Tchéky Karyo and the beautiful Cote d'Azure setting are good points, but they do little to compensate for the rest of this pointless film. The beginning is particularly laborious, as its meticulously paints the sordid Euro-trash existence of the lead protagonist. It's only after he hits rock-bottom and has to plan ahead for One More Score that the film acquires any dramatic inertia. If you can forget about Nutsa Kukhianidze's horrid performance as the mumbling, somnolent heroine (Hey, I know she's supposed to be a Russian girl, but she can't even be bothered to mumble properly!) the middle part of the film very slowly builds to a casino heist caper that promises a good time. But the film loses it in the last third, as three different operations take place at the same time without much relationship to one another, leading to a sentiment of diffuse dissatisfaction. Luck, not plotting, shapes the ending, leading to a supremely ironic finale that doesn't quite know what to make of itself. See it for Nick Nolte, maybe, but don't go looking for a good story in there. (In Theatres, May 2003)

THE GURU (2002, Comedy): Halfway between the sex farce and the Bollywood derivative (complete with a number of snappy dance numbers), this is a light and unassuming comedy with plenty of sympathetic characters and a number of amusing moments. The sexual content of the film may surprise some, especially after the (mostly) innocuous trailers. (On the other hand, the DVD back cover refers to the film as a "sex-obsessed comedy", which may not be the most felicitous choice of words, but certainly does a fine job at describing the tone of the film.) It's such a light movie that it seems almost cruel to criticize parts of it, but here goes: The "idiot plot" shortcuts really bothered me. Jimi Mistry plays a likable protagonist, but his character is written like an idiot, who's reduced to reading notes verbatim rather than spin stuff on his own from what he's given. Then there's his rapid rise through the star system and his "double life", which he manages to keep hidden from one another. Erg. Sure, most of that is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. But it's annoying. Just once, I'd like to see a hero who could actually play off those "mistaken identity" situations in a way similar than Real People would. Oh well. If you can get over that (and certainly, the magnificent sight of Marisa Tomei in underwear really does help a lot), the rest of the film is delightful. (On DVD, December 2003)

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS (2002, Fantasy): I'm probably not alone in saying that the Harry Potter series is essentially critic-proof as far as I'm concerned. The way they're handled, I will simply pay up and enjoy with nary a complaint. Fortunately, it just so happens that this film, like the previous one, is quite good. A happy mix of magic and good storytelling, this second instalment builds on the first one and deepens the universe in which Harry lives, though understandably not as much as the book does. While there are significant differences between the book and the movie (enough to make some go "huh?" at some of the film's least coherent moments), those aren't critical or thematically different from the source material. The acting is top-notch (with a particularly amusing Kenneth Branagh), and all three lead youngsters ably demonstrate their ability to hold a picture together: Daniel Radcliffe is more assured this time around (a characteristic he shares with his character) and Emma Watson's Hermione is still my favorite character (despite a shortened screen presence). The impression of unoriginal manipulation so prevalent in the first film is here attenuated. Good stuff for kids and adults, genre fans and mundanes. Why is it that we'll have to wait two whole years before the next one? (In Theaters, November 2002)

HART'S WAR (2002, War/Drama): Everyone's got their favourite movie genres, and if yours happen to be prison films, war adventure or courtroom drama (or better yet, all three), you'll love HART'S WAR, a derivative thriller that pulls many different familiar elements in a satisfying whole. After our protagonist is captured by the Germans late in World War II, he's thrown in Stalag 6, a POW prisoner camp where it doesn't take five minute for him to make an enemy out of the highest-ranking American officer. What follows is a prison film, a murder mystery, a courtroom drama and a war movie, in this order. It's all very convenient, but it flows well and entertains a lot. Colin Farrell continues to impress with a sympathetic -but flawed- protagonist, and Bruce Willis is completely comfortable in a role highly reminiscent of his character in THE SIEGE. Director Gregory Hoblit turns out another fine film (after 2000's FREQUENCY), with a good mix of crowd-pleasing elements. I could have done without the unsubtle anti-racism preaching when it wasn't required, but I was also generally swept by the rest of the film, warts and all. Good entertainment; solid and pleasant. (In Theaters, February 2002)

HEAD OVER HEELS (2002, Comedy/Romance): Mixed bag that stuffs too many different things in one single container. Let's run it down: Smart single art restorer with relationship problems: Okay, that works as far as I'm concerned (Monica Potter looks like a cuter Julia Roberts to me). China Chow as her lesbian colleague? More, more, more! The premise that she's "forced" to take up residence with four supermodel room-mates? Funny stuff, that. Freddie Prinze Jr. as the center of female attention? I can deal with that. The slide from quirky romantic comedy to bathroom humor? Eh... not too sure. The further slide in comedic thriller territory? Eek. Ultimately, the writers throw together too much stuff. Some of it sticks (the supermodel humor) and some of it doesn't (like the cops-and-gangsters plotline). Some of the humor is just too juvenile to be effective. But I've seen worse. This year. Heck, this month. (On DVD, December 2002)

HERO (YING XIONG, China, 2002, Action/Drama): Wow! After seeing the film, it's hard to understand why Miramax held on to it for so long: While it may not be the most profound martial arts film ever shot, it certainly ranks up there as one of the most beautiful, along with a pleasing patina of sophistication when it comes to plotting. At first, it appears as if Jet Li plays a stoic warrior asked to tell the emperor the story of how he managed to kill three ferocious would-be assassins. But that's not the real story, and that's what we slowly discover as the film progresses. It's not a complicated plot, but the structure is unusual enough to keep us interested. Of course, the fights are the core of the film's appeal. Mercifully well-edited, they flow seamlessly and end slightly before we grow tired of them. But what puts this film over and above its comparable brethren is the flawless cinematography, which paints every fight scene with a very different colour palette. Digital effects are sagaciously used to heighten the sense of unreality that make this film so unique. In the end, HERO achieves an unusual distinction: that of being a martial art film of interest even to people without much interest in martial films. (In theaters, August 2004)

HIGH CRIMES (2002, Crime/Thriller): I wasn't a big fan of the original Joseph Finder novel, and as far as movies go, HIGH CRIMES is roughly of the same level of quality; strictly middle-of-the-pack, and maybe even a bit lower than that. The biggest problem, of course, is that the "big twist" of the film can be seen hours in advance. It doesn't help that the central casting (Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman, both rather good) is instantly reminiscent of other featureless thrillers. Multiple changes to the book's storyline help to simplify the action, and to speed up the narrative. Whatever can be said about the hum-drum nature of HIGH CRIMES, at least it usually moves quickly, and is over almost before you start asking yourself good questions about what's happening. The final twist isn't as gloriously insane as in the book, but the film's coda is far more satisfying than the way the novel ends. For audiences unfamiliar with the source novel, though, HIGH CRIMES remains an average stock thriller, nothing worth getting excited about. For times where you positively have to watch a thriller and you haven't seen that one... (In theaters, April 2002)

HISTOIRE DE PEN ([PRISON STORY], Canada, 2002, Crime/Thriller): Prison dramas are, by now, a well-established kind of crime stories, and HISTOIRE DE PEN plays on familiar ground when telling this story. All the requisite elements are there, from the schizoid comic relief to "the hole" to the intimidation on prison grounds to homosexual violence and the callousness of "the outside world." Not much is new here, especially when you consider that the overall story arc feels a lot like writer/director Michael Jetté's previous HOCHELAGA. But HISTOIRE DE PEN is raw and (mostly) un-romanticized. This is far from THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION in that pretty much all of the characters are unlovable, unrecoverable and rather stupid to boot. There is a certain impressive visual polish, especially given that it's a low-budget French-Canadian production, and few dull moments mar the narrative. But the dialogues of the film are striking by their inappropriateness, scarcely sounding as if they really come from the hardened protagonists; a more consistently street-level dialogue style would have worked better. The ending is also a bit loose, taking the resolution out of the prison context, which strikes as kind of a cheat. This isn't a pleasant film, but it's an interesting one for most of its duration. (In French) (In theaters, October 2002)

THE HOURS (2002, Drama): Shameless Oscar-bait film that would be wholly unremarkable if it wasn't for the acting talent and the self-conscious focus on time-tested critic-nip. Throw together a cast of self-destructive characters, edit between multiple storylines, throw in a few soliloquies about the nature of life and you've got yourself a nice little package "for your consideration." Fortunately, the film isn't as dull or preachy as it may sound, and despite the deliberate nature of the material, it's not completely dull. In fact, there is a lot to like here, from a shared willingness of the actors to suffer for their part (Oscar lust will do that to you) to a dazzling structure that hops between three eras and a dozen characters. While your sympathy for self-destructive suicidal characters may run low, THE HOURS offers a bit more than that and may actually be worth a look. (In theaters, February 2003)

ICE AGE (2002, Animation/Comedy): It's always risky to pre-judge a film on its trailer. ICE AGE's trailer promised us a madcap cartoon with animal characters. The film itself includes the trailer as its first few minutes, but then continues on to tell us a far more conventional kid's story in the Disney rather than the Warners style. Even though the end result is a fine piece of film for the kids, I'm still disappointed. Granted, I started as a hostile audience given my lack of affection for the look of the film; I thought the character designs were some of the ugliest things I'd seen in a while. That impression gradually disappeared though the movie, to be replaced by a far more substantial shortcoming: ICE AGE is a bunch of very funny vignettes strung together with only an adequate plot. It's probably all right for kids, but as an adult I though that there were some seriously dull stretches in between Squeak's antics and the other action highlights (like the dodo segment or the wild ice cavern sequence) ICE AGE has occasional charm, but it's not an all-and-out success. (In theaters, March 2002)

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST (2002, Comedy): I like adaptations of Oscar Wilde's plays. I just do. Trying to explain why or how I loved THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST would be useless if you don't share my overall love of such stories. Wilde can be cynical without being dour, romantic without being sappy and this is one of this film's biggest strengths. Did you like AN IDEAL HUSBAND? Rush to see EARNEST, then. Good acting, warm finale and ultra-sharp dialogue. Plus great performances from Rupert Everett, Colin Firth, Reese Witherspoon and Frances O'Connor, who should stick to period pieces if we're to compare this to MANSFIELD PARK and/or BEDAZZLED or WINDTALKERS. Wonderful date movie. I guess. (In Theaters, August 2002)

INFERNAL AFFAIRS ([WU JIAN DAO], Hong Kong, 2002, Crime/Drama): Hong-Hong crime cinema's traditional fascination for the criminal/policeman duality here finds its masterpiece. Tony Leung and Andy Lau play polar opposites as (respectively) an undercover policeman infiltrating criminal gangs and a criminal infiltrating the ranks of the police forces. After an effective opening sequence, the cards are on the table for all to see and the game begins as to which man will uncover the other before he is himself discovered. But the plot is only half the story as this tense crime drama is developed with great skill and grace. The direction is fluid and the suspense runs high. While some leads go nowhere, the film a s a whole is a superior cops-and-criminals drama in much of the same vein as HEAT or L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. This is world cinema at its accessible best. (On DVD, March 2005)

INSOMNIA (2002, Crime/Thriller): A Southern-California detective (Al Pacino) is sent to Alaska to investigate the murder of a young girl. Stuff happens, someone dies, some blackmail takes place and suddenly our protagonist is caught up in complex moral dilemmas, which aren't helped by his progressive debilitation from lack of sleep. There isn't much to say about INSOMNIA besides that it's a good thriller, with enough grimness and storytelling savvy to keep everyone interested until the end. The Alaskan cinematography is spectacular, and so are most of the actors involved. Director Christopher Nolan's follow-up to the boffo MEMENTO isn't nearly as brilliant nor as convoluted, but he proves adept to the task of telling a more classical story. Now let's wait for his next feature... (In Theaters, May 2002)

JOHN Q (2002, Drama): Is it possible to tell the difference between a social-issues film which demonstrates its views through action and a melodrama which looks to social issues as an excuse? You'll have a hard time deciding while watching JOHN Q, a film whose message at time seems too forced to be taken seriously. (And that's not even considering the health care panel discussions between hostages and hostage-takers.) The real acting treat in the film isn't the ever-dependable Denzel Washington as much as it's the supporting characters played by veterans James Woods and Robert Duvall. Despite heavy audience manipulation and the inconsistent tone, JOHN Q is a competent thriller, an undemanding drama-of-the-week with a sheen of social respectability. Rarely subtle (good=poor=black, bad=rich=white), often shameless and barely surprising. But it works, somewhat. (In Theaters, February 2002)

K-19: THE WIDOWMAKER (2002, War/Drama): The fall of the Soviet Union has revealed countless good stories about life on the other side of the Iron Curtain, and a few dramatic ones. This cold-war thriller detailing a particularly dramatic nuclear submarine trip highlights the appalling conditions of the Soviet Navy and the heroism of the men stuck on these boats. It's compelling, but far more so as a fictionalized documentary rather than a straight-up thriller. Not much is done to differentiate the characters, but director Katheryn Bigelow knows how to crank the tension on scenes that need it, and the big centerpiece of the film works well as a suspense sequence. The rest of the film is quiet, saddled with an unnecessary epilogue and doesn't deliver nearly as much as it ought to. Nevertheless, there is a lot to like in the authentic re-creation of life aboard these submarines, the set design and the unusual glimpse in a wholly different environment. Worth a look for submarine buffs, certainly, but the general public expecting a war thriller may want to wait a while. (In theater, July 2002)

KNOCKAROUND GUYS (2002, Crime/Thriller): Kept in the studio's vaults for a while and released in theatres mostly to cash in on Vin Diesel's popularity, this film is slightly better than the usual straight-to-video, but not by much. My biggest problem with the film is the way it smothers a rather fun mob comedy with a wrapping of intense drama. Your mileage may vary, but it's far more fun to see a gang of slick New York mobsters deal with a sleepy Midwest town than to hear the constant whining of a pretty Mafioso's son. The ending is lazy, killing everyone in sight in an attempt to solve plot problems. Acting-wise, Diesel is as good as usual, but doesn't stretch his range much. Barry Pepper continues to atone for the BATTLEFIELD EARTH debacle. Along with 2002's WE WERE SOLDIERS, maybe we can forgive him now. Seth Green is misused, but John Malkovich is just right. This is the kind of film you can rent without too much guilt. But then again, it's nothing special. (In theaters, October 2002)

KUNG POW! (2002, Comedy): Let me be frank: This isn't a very funny film. It starts from one joke (hey, let's re-dub an old kung-fu film, insert a character in them, add new scenes and be really silly!) and doesn't add much more to it. The humour is often juvenile and repetitive (oo-ee-oo-ee!) Even so, I ended up grinning through most of the film and laughing like an idiot every five minutes or so. Don't ask me why, because I'm as baffled by it as you are. It's probably the sheer silliness of it all that got to me, as cows, squirrels and woodchucks are used as weaponry and evil French Aliens try to take over the world. (Mm. That was a rather huge spoiler.) Good silly fun, nothing more. The DVD contains a bunch of extra scenes (most of them are just lame) and a few more language tracks (French, Spanish, Commentary, "original dialogue" and a "book-on-tape" dry English narration that's hilarious for about five minutes.) (On DVD, October 2002)

LIFE OR SOMETHING LIKE IT (2002, Comedy): There isn't much to tell about this film, mostly because it's so vacuous. The premise is familiar and short enough to be explained away in a thirty-second trailer, but the resolution is given away in the very first shot of the film, leaving the rest as little more than an exercise in filling in the numbers. Okay, so Angeline Jolie, Edward Burns and Tony Shaloub are talented actor who can rise above the material they're given, but sadly, the screenwriter isn't particularly gifted, and LIFE OR SOMETHING LIKE IT flops around, goes through the motions and generally delivers what we expect from it, which isn't much given that it's a romantic comedy. I wish we could have had a longer glimpse of Jolie-as-a-teen-rocker (With glasses! Whoaah!), but that's just me; the film does nothing with it. And so should we. (In Theaters, June 2002)

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS (2002, Fantasy): The neatest thing about this film was being able to buy the ticket in absolute confidence. Peter Jackson is a god of cinema; the first volume of the trilogy was all we'd asked for. What could go wrong? As it turned out; presssciously little. THE TWO TOWERS is so close to THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING in terms of pure cinematic quality that it doesn't even matter discussing which one is better; it's all good. Sure, there are more liberties taken here with the source material, but that's because the second volume needs those liberties in order to be told in an engaging manner. The result is surely worth it, with one of the best medieval-era battle ever put to film, some scenes of astonishing beauty and an awesome variety of great images. Good action, a dash of horror, a stunning CGI performance by Sméagol/Gollum and some pretty amusing comic relief. What can I say? 2002 top ten material, must-buy DVD and quasi-instant classic. THE TWO TOWERS only reinforces the certitude with which we'll buy tickets to THE RETURN OF THE KING a year from now. (In theaters, December 2002)

LOST IN LA MANCHA (2002, Documentary): True, Terry Gilliam's filmography has a hole in between 1998's FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS and 2005's THE BROTHERS GRIMM. Watch this film to understand why: A true documentary gem for any serious cinephile, LOST IN LA MANCHA is the story of a failed film project, one that even started shooting before being shut down. Imagine the worst luck that can fall on a film project, and there you will find Gilliam's failed DON QUIXOTE, the odyssey of which is luckily captured in LOST IN LA MANCHA. Ironies run thick in the making-of that ended up being a work in itself: We can only look at the few pieces of completed footage and wonder how the film could have turned out had it been successful. At times hilarious and heart-breaking, LOST IN LA MANCHA is a unique documentary, especially if you're addicted to those “making of” special DVD features. Heck, it even has its own deleted scenes and special two-disc edition... (On DVD, September 2005)

MEN IN BLACK II (2002, Science-Fiction/Comedy): Lazy and lame follow-up to the amusing 1997 film. It's not bad per se, but it's awfully self-indulgent, bringing back several fair jokes from the original (blowing up an alien's head, a talking dog, the insufferable worms, etc.) and stretching them way past the point of self-diminishing return. It doesn't help that the formidable Men in Black agency of the first film is here reduced to a bunch of incompetent bumblers. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones still manage to look good with what they're given, which is saying something given the general inability of the script to build something original. Barry Sonnenfeld's direction is featureless and the editing is sadly tepid, bringing back more memories of WILD WILD WEST than the original MEN IN BLACK. Hey, it does have good moments, but frankly I expected much more. I mean; how incompetent do you have to be in order not to produce comedic gold out of this premise? (In theaters, July 2002)

MEN IN BLACK II (2002, Science-Fiction/Comedy): It's lame, boring, repetitive and self-indulgent, but for some strange reason, MEN IN BLACK II is not completely worthless. Despite showboating like no one else, Will Smith manages to remain likeable, and Tommy Lee Jones still shines whatever the lines he's fed. The script might be a trite hack-job recycling all the elements of the first film ad nauseam, but whatever imaginative deficiencies it has, at least some of the production aspects of the film are quite nice. The 2-disc DVD package quickly gets tiresome, though, combining an endless amount of repetitive promotional material that actually thinks this is like, the best movie ever. Director Barry Sonnefeld's commentary is occasionally annoying, but probably worth one listen. Despite numerous references to "the original ending" (which featured the World Trade Center), a curious void exists when it actually comes to showing us what it was about. Could this be yet more cowardly behaviour from a studio which allowed such an unremarkable film to escape from development? You're not forced to watch the film to answer. (Second Viewing, On DVD, January 2003)

MEN WITH BROOMS (Canada, 2002, Sport/Comedy): Finally, Canadians now have a darn good reason to be culturally chauvinist! Deliberately engineered to tickle typically Canadian chords, MEN WITH BROOMS takes the usual sports/romance comedy template and applies it to the god-sent sport of curling, with highly enjoyable results. Writer/Director/Star Paul Gross does his best with a low budget (the deficiencies are most visible during the curling scenes, which aren't much flashier than televised curling) but the real strength of the film is the script's sense of fun. Good humour permeates MEN WITH BROOMS and ensures a constant level of giggling. It helps that the characters are enormously likeable, with particular props to the Gross/Molly Parker lead couple. MEN WITH BROOMS is shamelessly manipulative, but it works. (What doesn't work as well is the whole wacky-Americans/NASA subplot, which feels a touch too contrived. Similarly, there are occasional tonal problems, especially in the third quarter.) The film even features digitally-created beavers, which somehow pushes back the state of the art in computer-generated special effects. All too often, local movies leave us saying a vaguely guilty "it's good, for a Canadian film.", but MEN WITH BROOMS actually warrants a "It's good, because it's a Canadian film." Shoo, Atom Egoyan and your depressing work; the new hip Canadian cinema is here! (In theaters, March 2002)

MINORITY REPORT (2002, Science-fiction): The notion of being able to foresee crimes before they occur is nicely pulpish; not based on any scientific theory, but sufficiently interesting to make us say "what if...?" The problem comes when you try to fit this pulpish notion in a believable "real" world, in which case the incongruities between story conceit and execution become more and more uncomfortable. That's a lot how I feel about MINORITY REPORT, an excellent SF film that takes itself so seriously that the seams holding it together become nearly intolerable. The original story by Philip K. Dick is interesting but abandoned midway through (as the whole "Minority Report" concept becomes merely a MacGuffin), and the film's attempt to provide authenticity through a "real" future becomes increasingly ridiculous. The vertical highways clash with the film's other levels of technology, the "precog" concept seems non-scalable and non-renewable, the logical loops become more and more convoluted... Even worse, the procedural aspects of the film are simply untenable, a fatal flaw in a film that spends a lot of time setting them up; a would-be victim is left alone after an aborted crime; the process "witnesses" disappear as soon as they should be important; the security measures of a top-secret facility are laughably deficient... I wouldn't pick apart such flaws in James Bond movies or dumb SF films like STARSHIP TROOPERS, but MINORITY REPORT is so seductive in its willingness to imagine an original, plausible future that it's almost asking nit-pickers to double-check. And it fails the test of scrutiny. Or does it? Despite my multiple reservations, I realize that it's one of the best SF films I've seen in a long time, and is likely to remain on my Top-10 list at the end of the year. It's packed with great action scenes, posits fascinating questions and features some wonderful special effects. What it doesn't do is damning, but what it actually does is impressive. Despite multiple problems and flaws, MINORITY REPORT remains one of the must-see films of 2002, a solid, provocative blockbuster that's almost better than it deserves to be. (In Theaters, June 2002)

MURDER BY NUMBERS (2002, Crime/Thriller): It doesn't take much to make me happy in a theater; just deliver a movie that's better than I expected. In the case of MURDER BY NUMBERS, I expected a so-so thriller, and I got that, plus a solid performance by Sandra Bullock, a complex set of character interactions, hissable villains and a few interesting details of police work. Bullock (who co-produced the film) should get points for playing a darker version of her MISS CONGENIALITY policewoman character, a damaged cop using work as a shield—no, it plays much better than you'd expect. The two antagonists are thoroughly despicable teens who decide to kill for kicks, probably working from a stoned reading of Nietzche's greatest hits. Other matters, large and small, come to complicate everything, and the result is a nicely entertaining film that's much better than the conventional trailers would lead you to believe—that is, until the ending, which is every bit as conventional as the trailers suggested. It's unspectacular but satisfying entertainment. (In theaters, April 2002)

MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING (2002, Romance/Comedy): The surprise hit of summer 2002 is nothing more (or less) than a deliberate attempt at giving a certain audience exactly what it wants. As such, it works really well: Writer/star Nia Vardalos delivers a romance, a family reconciliation tale as well as a duckling-to-swan transformation. The romance might be the film's least impressive element, especially when compared to the impressive evolution of the protagonist. This isn't simply a Rachel-Leigh-Cook-with-glasses metamorphosis, mostly because no one pulls any punches in representing the "before" state; baggy clothes, thick glasses, stringy hair, blank stare and makeup-enhanced face lines, Vardalos throws herself in the pre-transformation role with abandon and emerges as an even more adorable woman at the end of the process. That's when the romance kicks in, but it's not nearly as interesting as a process by which we discover the eccentricities of this particular Greek family. It's a welcome glimpse in an ethnic group that's long been neglected by Hollywood. (Expect a surge of imitators in the next few years.) It ends exactly as we think it will; no surprises, but good warm fuzzy feelings. It's not a raucous comedy; the pacing is only a-joke-a-minute and the film wouldn't have felt out of place as a television movie-of-the-week. But it's worth seeing, especially if you're stuck in a situation where you have to see a movie with a wide audience; this will do for the whole family. (In Theaters, August 2002)

LA MYSTÉRIEUSE MADEMOISELLE C ([THE MYSTERIOUS MISS C], Canada, 2002, Kids/Comedy): Surprisingly engaging kid's film, partly about love of reading and the goodness of libraries. (How can you not love a film about that?) There is the usual amount of cheap kiddie pandering, ill-used "hip" kid-speak, dumb character moments and not a lot of emotional depth, but it is, after all, a film for the young ones. As such, it's still more than good enough to hold on to any adult's attention. The directing is surprisingly engaging (woo, moving cameras!), and the acting talent is fine. Story-wise, the "beauty and the beast" interludes are interesting, but repetitive as they don't add much to the film: the title character remains frustratingly distant, molded as she is in a deliberately mysterious role. The DVD is a touch disappointing, offering few special features and, in fact, not even any subtitles. (On DVD, February 2004)

NARC (2002, Crime/Drama): It's not a complicated cop story, but it's told with plenty of style. Sometimes that's all you need. Jason Patric is suitably understated as the flawed protagonist with plenty to prove, but it's Ray Liotta who steals the show as a brutal policeman with even more to hide. The opening sequence is a visceral piece of extreme shakycam; the rest of the film is slower, but it builds to a crescendo of emotional exchanges that ought to rivet everyone's attention. Writer/Director Joe Carnahan is a bit too scattered to be completely effective (his segues in dark humour stand out in a film that otherwise struggles for attention), but he knows how to use a camera. The look is raw, Detroit-winter cold (shot in Toronto), unpleasant and very realistic. Ultimately, this is a simple but compelling cop story, a gritty crime drama of the likes we hadn't seen in a long while. It's not for everyone, but fans of the sub-genre will bless the stars for sending a good film their way once in a while. (In theaters, January 2003)

ONE HOUR PHOTO (2002, Thriller): This is Robin Williams' third "evil" role of 2002, and it's probably the one in which he disappears most completely. (While I did like his turn in INSOMNIA, it wasn't all that different from, say, GOOD WILL HUNTING. In DEATH TO SMOOCHY, of course, he simply let loose with his stand-up persona gone pure wacko.) The film itself is so-so, but his role is such that it's remarkably easy to forget that "Sy the Photo Guy" is played by Robin Williams. He's one of the few interesting things in this story of a desperately lonely man whose fantasy life threatens to spill over and actually hurt someone. The script can be lauded for not turning into a prototypical "guys goes nuts" structure, but on the other hand, ONE HOUR PHOTO doesn't do much with the elements it's choosing to use. Some musings about the nature of memory as it relates to photography are not sufficient for entertainment, and the blurry motivations of the protagonist, coupled with his inexplicable lack of professionalism (you'd expect such a character to scrupulously cover his tracks by, say, paying for everything rather than risk his job) are a bit mystifying in this context. Then there's a creepy nightmare scene that's effective, but seems misplaced in the center of the film. The ending is also a bit of a head-scratcher, leaving no clear resolution to the central conflict. (to put it simply, where do you think the character is going from here?) All in all, ONE HOUR PHOTO works, but just so. It's not a fully satisfying experience, and its deficiencies can overshadow its strengths. (In Theaters, September 2002)

ORANGE COUNTY (2002, Comedy): Even though it was marketed as just another road-trip teen comedy, ORANGE COUNTY has a bit more to offer. It's the "oh-so-sweet" story of a teen trying to find his way in life, despite his tortured family, troublesome friends and incompetent adult figures. The journey isn't as raucous nor as raunchy as some of the trailers would like you to believe. A bunch of mostly-unknown young actors get to beef up their resume with some skill (along with a few more familiar faces, from supporting players John Lithgow and Jack Black to cameos by Kevin Kline and Ben Stiller); we'll probably see them in other movies soon. The pacing is okay though not spectacular, and that ultimately stands as an assessment of the film as a whole: Better than most teen comedies, sure, but ultimately nothing overly remarkable. The conclusion is of the "awww" variety, though one is compelled to wonder if the protagonist is ultimately one of those pitiful one-true-story type of writer. (In theaters, March 2002)

PANIC ROOM (2002, Thriller): David Fincher is one of the few dependable directors out there, and PANIC ROOM is another good example of why he's always worth a look. In this case, like in THE GAME, he takes a script with a few serious problems and transforms it in a technically polished piece of suspense moviemaking that elevates the material to a mesmerizing level. From a film-geek's point of view, PANIC ROOM is a lovable demonstration of skill, from an effective simple-but-ominous credit sequence to a boffo "camera-flying-around-the-house" CGI/composite shot to a wonderful mute slow-motion sequence maybe halfway through the film. His camera angles are always effective, the editing is top notch, the spatial location of everything is clearly established and the overall atmosphere of the film is as claustrophobic as it should be. But, ah-ha, what about the humans in the film? Acting-wise, everything works; Jodie Foster is rather bland, but she -as with everyone else- turns in a good performance. The biggest problem with PANIC ROOM, though, is illustrated by the fact that the film's most sympathetic characters is one of the nominal "villains". There isn't much reason to care for the protagonist besides the obvious (they're female, weak, without weapons and afflicted by an illness) and some promising character traits (like the heroine's claustrophobia and/or myopia) are forgotten in mid-film. The late appearance of a rather useless character raises far more questions than it settles. Ultimately, though, the intellectual cat-and-mouse game between characters and Fincher's technical prowess are more than enough to make PANIC ROOM a commendable choice. But it's too bad that with only a little more script work, this could have been a classic rather than merely a good thriller. (In theaters, April 2002)

PHONE BOOTH (2002, Thriller): There is something... pure about this location-locked thriller, and this purity is what director Schumacher (yep; who would have thought?) best achieves. The dynamic camera whips, cuts and twirls around one man, one phone... and one booth. Indeed, once the fantastic opening is over ("this is the story of the last user of this phone booth"), the movie loses interest whenever the camera stops focusing on the lead protagonist. Collin Farrell proves that he possesses a certain movie-star quality by carrying pretty much the whole film on his shoulders. (Though Kiefer Sutherland does excellent voice work) The screenplay is able to wring much out of few elements, and it knows enough to stop whenever the film threatens to become tiresome. There are flaws (an underwhelming justification, a diffusion of tension in the last act, disposable female roles) but none are big enough to derail one of the crunchiest thrillers in recent memory. Delicious from beginning to end through the magic of good writing, directing and acting, PHONE BOOTH isn't likely to be forgotten anytime soon. (In Theatres, April 2003)

THE PIANIST (2002, Drama): Did we need yet another Holocaust film? Well, maybe not, but few will complain after seeing Roman Polanski's latest effort. It's the based-on-true-events story of a Polish Jew whose adventures in war-torn Warsaw defy common sense. Adrian Brody turns in an Oscar-worthy performance as a protagonist who's harassed, saved, helped, forced to hide and then to flee in the remnants of a destroyed city. Technical credits are top-notch, and Polanski's direction is in fact pretty darn good in an understated fashion. The film, maybe inevitably, is stronger in its first half as we witness the casual harassment of the Warsaw Jews; whereas THE PIANIST never gets close to a concentration camp, this section film shows that plenty of horrible things did happen in the so-called "safe" city. The second half of the film is a touch less urgent and rather more surreal, as the protagonist becomes a rabbit stuck between the armies fighting for Warsaw. You haven't seen this story before. But you probably should. (In theaters, February 2003)

POOLHALL JUNKIES (2002, Sports/Drama): From the first few frames, it's obvious that POOLHALL JUNKIES tries to be very very cool. It often tries too hard, but that's a common enough flaw in movies by a rookie actor/writer/director. In this case, Gregory 'Mars' Martin (or is it "Mars Callahan"?) turns out a film that's a lot of fun to watch despite small flaws here and there. For one thing, this is a film about pool. Yes, billiard. There have been other movie on that theme before (and they'll all come to mind during this film) but for fans of the sport, this alone makes this film essential. A celebration of hustling in all of its forms, POOLHALL JUNKIES is a not-entirely-successful blend of genre (some parts seem taken from AMERICAN PIE, crime thrillers, romantic comedies and sport dramas) but the rewards offered by the film are numerous, including a fantastic cameo by Christopher Walken and some very cool pool tricks. The rest of the acting talent is a mixture between the old pros (Chazz Palminteri and Rod Steiger in a tiny role) and newcomers with things to learn from the pros. Some moments are, for lack of a better expression, too self-consciously cool --with unintentionally amusing results. ("I'm going to get my brother!") This won't matter much for an audience looking for new independent films, pool coolness or a diverting time out: POOLHALL JUNKIES will fit the bill. Don't miss it; it's an update of classic pool material by a filmmaker exhibiting considerable promise. (In theaters, March 2003)

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (2002, Romance/Comedy): I really wanted to like this film, but the problem is that film doesn't want to be liked. It reminded me (slightly) of THE SHINING, in which an intellectual director takes on a "popular" genre without having much respect or affection for the said genre. The result may be a brilliant deconstruction of romantic comedy clichés, but if you're looking for a good time, you might as well go back to the usual popular stuff. It's easy to be impressed by elements of this film, mind you: Adam Sandler's character is a direct reference to his usual screen personae, a dysfunctional moron whose childlike rages here do not go unpunished. As an actor, it's definitely a step up for him... but it doesn't make him likeable. P.T.Anderson's direction is sparse and relatively breezy, but it's also deliberately sloppy and unpolished in an attempt to lend it some art-house credibility. A few moments are genuinely amusing (I'm thinking here of the "backlit kiss", deliberately marred by what looks like a parade of visual distractions), but most of the film plays like nails on chalkboard, an impression heightened by the deliberately intrusive soundtrack that does an effective job at putting us in the mind of a loathsome protagonist. I wasn't impressed by any of the "romantic" elements, which seem glossed over for no good reason at all; in his rush to deconstruct, Anderson has forgotten to construct. Once again, even though PUNCH DRUNK LOVE is at least an hour shorter than MAGNOLIA, it still feels loose and self-indulgent. But then again, self-indulgence has been a hallmark of Anderson's work since the very beginnings. What's not present here, though, is a reason to like this film, not simply admire it. (In theaters, October 2002)

QUEEN OF THE DAMNED (2002, Horror): It's difficult not to laugh during some of the film's most ridiculous moments: Much like most Goths are simply ordinary folks trying to pass off as somehow special, this is really a B-grade horror film with his pretensions of high darkness. Most of it doesn't work, and we're stuck with a bunch of vampire poseurs for ninety minutes. This can be insufferable or amusing, depending on your mood at the moment. At least it's consistently interesting, moving from vignette to vignette in an expedient fashion. As far as vampire films go, I'm a BLADE type-of-guy, but QUEEN OF THE DAMNED could have been worse. Much, much worse. (In Theaters, June 2002)

RED DRAGON (2002, Crime/Thriller): To be entirely truthful, I never thought RED DRAGON was a project worth doing. Thomas Harris' original novel Red Dragon had already been adapted to the screen by Michael Mann as MANHUNTER, so why re-visit? The attraction, naturally, was money, with the success of the two "sequels" with an entirely new cast. Fortunately, this remake/prequel doesn't screw it up, either as an adaptation or as a thriller. It is remarkably faithful to the novel save a few updated details (for a video-camera age), more attention to superstar Hannibal and a (slightly) more upbeat ending. The star power exhibited here is impressive, but truth be told is that most of them only turn in workmanlike performances. (Particular bravos to Ed Norton and Emma Watson; particular ehs-of-indifference to Philip Seymour Hoffman and Harvey Keitel) The film is stylistically far more accessible than MANHUNTER, and will probably age much better than Mann's work. The earlier film has a few stronger areas: some of the acting is more memorable -though maybe not better-, and the toll taken on Will Graham is much more visible in MANHUNTER. The winks to the "latter" SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and HANNIBAL are obvious from the first scene on, and so help form a trilogy that may not be completely seamless, but should flow together fairly well. As a simple standalone thriller, RED DRAGON is a slick piece of entertainment, not without tics and annoyances, but much better than average. (In theaters, October 2002)

THE RED GREEN SHOW: DUCT TAPE FOREVER (Canada, 2002, Comedy): Fans of the CBC show probably know what to expect, but even if they're really indulgent, chances are that they'll be disappointed by this feature-film adaptation of Steve Smith's comedy genius. For one thing, the TV show depends on a very rigid formula that is impossible to translate in a movie. For another, the film relies on a very classical structure that will be instantly familiar to anyone who's seen a film where underdogs win a contest. There aren't nearly enough displays of mechanic cleverness that made the reputation of the show. Some moments are pretty dumb. The conclusion grates. And yet, fans of the show will get to see their favorite characters act outside the TV box for a while, against a moving camera and a three-dimensional environment. As far as Canadian comedies of 2002 go, MEN WITH BROOMS still rule, but DUCT TAPE FOREVER is okay. If you want. I guess. (On DVD, December 2002)

REIGN OF FIRE (2002, Science-Fiction/Action): One shouldn't judge a film by its poster, and that certainly stands double for REIGN OF FIRE, given that the Apache-helicopter-versus-dragons fight depicted on the one-sheet is an unfilmed part of the back-story. What we're stuck with is not an exciting techno-thriller against dragons, but yet another post-apocalyptic hunt-the-top-monster film. Once it dawns on the viewer which kind of film this is going to be, REIGN OF FIRE becomes an unsurprising exercise in filling in the numbers. Numerous plot holes dog the film's credibility, even accounting for the fact that this is a story about dragons. Interestingly enough, though, the real star of REIGN OF FIRE isn't Christian Bale, Izabella Scorupco or any of the dragons, but Matthew McConaughey! His "Zander van Zam" is a cigar-chomping quasi-parody of a gruff military man, and -boy oh boy- does he kick some butt in a role completely different from what he's done before. Anyone who had dismissed McConaughey based on his innocuous turns in films like ED TV or THE WEDDING PLANNER might be deeply surprised by his screen presence here; he's one of the few things saving this film from B-movie oblivion. Other standout sequences include a few nice dragon shots and a boffo skydiving sequence. Don't expect much in terms of cinematography, though: The somber visual tones of the film even manage to turn fire to monochrome (!) and after a while, your eye will thirst for some green. Actually, you mind will thirst for the film you were promised by the poster, but -hey- it did get you in the theater, didn't it? (In theater, July 2002)

RESIDENT EVIL (2002, Horror/Action): I'm usually a very forgiving viewer when it comes to zombie films or videogame adaptations, so don't blame me if I liked RESIDENT EVIL for what it tried to be; a trashy-but-fun B-grade horror/action film. The first thirty minutes are easily the best (save from one boffo last shot), with a finely-tuned sense of pervasive dread that promises much more than it delivers. It's much more pedestrian after that (alas!), but it never stops being fun in its B-grade kind of way. For director Paul W.S. Anderson, it's nowhere near the terrifying atmosphere of EVENT HORIZON or even the pure good kung-fu fun of MORTAL KOMBAT, but at least it's a step up from the putrid SOLDIER. There isn't a while lot of originality to the plotline (watch and identify the sources: ALIENS, Romero, Half-Life, CUBE, etc...) but it's handled with some visual deftness and a script that doesn't attempt to be anything but zombie fun. It's a bit frustrating to imagine how much better this film could have been if it had pushed the limits of its R-rating, here grossly wasted by a near-complete absence of gore and nudity. The acting is unremarkable, save for Michelle Rodriguez, who essentially reprises the same character she's played in her last two films. As far as zombie films go, it's a good one. Take it for what it's worth! (In theaters, March 2002)

RESIDENT EVIL (2002, Horror/Action): Audacious directing can save a film from total boredom, and my second viewing of RESIDENT EVIL shows that even though director Paul Anderson may be a total moron when it comes to writing stories, he's actually not all that bad when it comes to showing a story on screen. The script is still weak and highly derivative, but the rhythm is sustained, there are a few nice technical flourishes and the actors hold their own. I still like it as a B-grade zombie film. It's not as good as it ought to have been, but it'll do. (Second viewing, In Theaters, June 2002)

RETURNER ([RITAANAA], Japan, 2002, Science-Fiction): Feeling a lot like a mix between THE TERMINATOR and E.T., this science-fiction film is not without a good moment or two, but you may be better off watching the trailer rather than the film. The standard “rescue the stranded alien” with the “time-traveller tries to prevent something terrible from happening” shticks aren't terribly innovative, and the limp execution doesn't do much to help. The leads are pop-star bland, with only antagonist Goro Kishitani worth noticing. At least the direction offers a number of unusual moments, though those tend to be clustered around the action sequences. Some of the CGI work is interesting, but the trailer will act as a showcase reel far more effectively than the film. The film certainly never knows when to quit, with a third act that stretches away to infinity and beyond. (Fully ten of the last fifteen minutes are completely unnecessary.) The techno soundtrack can't do much to save the film. Watchable but in no way remarkable. The DVD contains some mildly interesting making-of footage. (On DVD, July 2005)

THE RING (2002, Horror): It had been a long, long time since we'd seen a true horror film in theatres, after years of winky "satires", insipid serial killers and cold-hearted attempts at SFX scares. (THE HAUNTING, anyone? Does anyone still remember that one?) It's a bit of a bother that Americans had to remake a Japanese horror film in order to come up with something good, but look at it this way: It's not only a creepy film, but it's also a decent adaptation. How scary is that? Horror films should work both in-theatre and some time after you've seen it, and THE RING scores twice, first by causing chills and then by working on your mind. The result might depend on a lot of cheap tactics (jump cuts, quasi-subliminal frames, loud noises and nightmarish images) but oh, does it work...! (Do note, however, that one of the best chills of the entire film comes from a very simple dialogue scene... "She never sleeps") Sitting close to the screen in a loud theatre for THE RING is a lot like being clobbered on the head by a 2x4 throughout the film. The film might lose its potency on a small-screen setup. Or it may not: THE RING mixes familiar technology with supernatural horror to produce not only evil VHS tapes, but something that works specifically on jaded horror junkies. Performance-wise, props go to Naomi Watts and to the kid, who manages to be all-knowing and pathetic-looking while still being interesting. Nobody expected Gore Verbinski (THE MEXICAN... eh...) to deliver something like this. I don't care if he ripped-off half the original film: his version works, and it works very well even if you can figure out the tricks he's using. Horror fan rejoice, and enjoy! (In theaters, October 2002)

ROAD TO PERDITION (2002, Drama): Dour, slick and professional effort that spends a lot of time trying to masquerade a familiar plotline straight out of countless mob dramas. Tom Hanks steps oh-so-far-away from his nice guy persona by playing a hitman... who's a really nice guy. (All of his murders are, of course, fully justified) This B-movie plot (mob sets up a member... who vows terrible revenge!) is given the full A-list treatment with big stars (Paul Newman!), fantastic cinematography, fatherhood musings, 1930s period details and ponderous direction. It looks great and feels eminently respectable, but its languid pacing can't hide its pulpish origins. Not bad, but a touch pretentious for what it is. (In theater, July 2002)

THE RULES OF ATTRACTION (2002, Drama): There are many things that don't work in this film, but maybe the most offensive of them all is that for all the drug abuse, sexual perversions, loud music and overall hedonism of the story, it's just not much fun. Too few naked coeds, scant enjoyment of illicit substances and sucky music combine with annoying characters and a lame "message" to produce what may very well be one of the most boring films of the year. The fault doesn't lie with the actors, who do their best (though Shannyn Sossamon's role is her weakest to date), but with writer/director/yadda Roger Avary, who mishandles some very promising material. I'm not talking about the original novel, which is reportedly quite different and rather loathsome if I'm to believe my Spy Notes on the book. Even with radical structural changes and simplifications, this adaptation feels directionless, meaningless and, yes, worthless. There are a few cute camera tricks, but don't get too excited yet, because they don't do much to support the story, nor add to them. It's like if a film student wanted to try a whole lot of new (not-so-cool) tricks without having an idea why he should do so. The film lacks spark, energy and simple coolness. Doug Liman's 1999 film GO outshines this film on all levels, from the soundtrack to the understated perversion, from the nihilism to the filmmaking. Too few, too late, too lame ("Nobody can really now another person?" Is that the best you can do for a moral?), there's no real reason to see THE RULES OF ATTRACTION. I don't even predict a cult following. (In theaters, October 2002)

S1M0NE (2002, Science-Fiction/Comedy): As with writer/director Andrew Niccol's previous movies (he wrote GATTACA and THE TRUMAN SHOW), SIMONE is best considered as a fable than hard-edged realistic science-fiction. The technical details are ridiculous, and deservedly so; Niccol is more fascinated by more abstract subjects like the relationship between truth and fiction, our fascination for celebrity, our craving for comfort through self-deception and the rapport between creator and creation. It's a lot of stuff to pack in a single film (with a few other bits here and there), but as a result, S1M0NE feels like a heady trip in fantasyland. Not everyone will "get" the film, nor even care for it, but like GATTACA and THE TRUMAN SHOW, I suspect that the cult following of SIMONE will only grow with time. There's certainly a lot of material for cinema geeks, from the throwaway gags (you saw the "eye" poster passing behind Elia Koteas, I hope?) to color composition (such as the computer-green SIMONE poster in the otherwise organic environment of the protagonist's office during the audition scene) and the overall overly stylized shot composition. Al Pacino is great -as usual- in the lead role, but everyone else does quite well in the supporting slots. Don't forget to stay during the credits for Simone's real identity (Rachel Roberts) and a funny little scene. (In Theaters, August 2002)

S1M0NE (2002, Comedy/Science-fiction): I quite liked the film in theatres, but I find my reaction to the DVD a bit more tepid. Oh, I still think it's a good film: The dazzling mixture of themes still makes me giddy with goodness and my appreciation of Al Pacino's work is once against confirmed by his amusing performance. But what seems more obvious than before is the forced nature of the laughs in this comedy. Oh, it's not meant to be a serious film, but the merely light-hearted nature of the film doesn't naturally lead to frank laughter and this very particular tone, I suspect, tends to be difficult to appreciate when you're not in a proper frame of mind. Suffice to say that a script revision could have heightened the laughs without too much effort. But I still quite like the film as it is, and I can only wait to see what else writer/director Andrew Niccol is brewing up. The DVD offers an interesting array of deleted scenes (usually cut for a good reason) and two very brief featurettes. The lack of a commentary track is almost criminal given the film's thematic depth. (Second Viewing) (On DVD, June 2003)

THE SCORPION KING (2002, Fantasy/Action): Sword-and-sorcery films are usually terrible beyond words, and THE SCORPION KING is no exception. Where it manages to be good, though, is in the fun department; despite the awful dialogues and the linear plotting, this film never takes itself too seriously. It's no CONAN, naturally, but it's much better than trash like KULL. (Some of you may remember that THE SCORPION KING is supposed to be a "prequel" to TH