From the files of

CHRISTIAN SAUVÉ

Don't say we didn't warn you

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

MOVIE REVIEWS

2003

2003-2004, Christian Sauvé

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

And I say (In alphabetical order):

2 FAST 2 FURIOUS (2003, Action): Cars, crime and chicks in sunny Miami; what else could you ask for? Okay, so Vin Diesel is missing and so is a lot of the energy of the original THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS. But it doesn't matter as much as you think: This time around, the cars look better, and if no one can outfox Michelle Rodriguez, Eva Mendes and Devon Aoki are totally appropriate eye-candy. Paul Walker doesn't have to struggle under the shadow of Diesel, and he emerges as a mildly engaging protagonist. (The homo-erotic subtext of his character's relationship with buddy Tyrone can be a little ridiculous at times, though; how many jealous glances can we tolerate before bursting out laughing?) It's a shame that about half the car chases don't really work; dodgy camera moves, overuse of CGI over stunt driving and over-chopped editing don't help in building a gripping action scene. At least the two highway sequences are nifty. The last stunt is weak and so are many of the plot points before then, but 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS goes straight in the "guilty pleasures" category; a fine way to spend a lazy evening. (In theatres, June 2003)

2 FAST 2 FURIOUS (2003, Action): Fast cars, curvy women and sunny Miami: Even the second time around, it's hard to be angry at this film even as the dialogue is painful, the action scenes aren't particularly successful and the ending is lame. At least the DVD offers some consolation through a series of interesting making-of documentaries and a few extra car-related goodies. John Singleton's tepid audio commentary does much to demonstrate the uninspired nature of the film's production. Competent without being particularly commendable, adequate without being particularly satisfying. This one goes out straight to Eva Mendez fans and car buffs. Not that there's anything wrong with being either. (Second Viewing)(On DVD, March 2004)

28 DAYS LATER (2003, Horror/Science-Fiction): It's not particularly original to mix zombie films with post-apocalyptic SF, but I suppose that every generation needs its own "last man on Earth" story. Crudely shot on muddy digital video, 28 DAYS LATER looks and feels exactly like the kind of film to acquire a cult following. Naturally, it's also the kind of film to deserve cries of "overrated!" Certainly, it's not all that good: Most of the film's first half is spent hearing character say "don't do this!" and then seeing other character do exactly that, with dire consequences. The latter half of the film slides into an unreal Ramboesque fantasy of one lone man decimating a bunch of villains. (Plus, it deals with primal topics our enlightened age would rather avoid) Director Danny Boyle adopts the stylistic philosophy that fast cutting, loud noises and grisly half-images equate terror. Alas, for some, this merely equals boredom: it will work for some and work against others. While not particularly bad nor good, 28 DAYS LATER still holds some interest, especially if you haven't drunk your fill of post-apocalyptic horror. (In theaters, July 2003)

AGENT CODY BANKS (2003, Teen/Thriller/Comedy): This isn't the first teen James Bond parody, but it's a good one... that is, until it forgets to be a parody and simply apes the convention of the Bond formula. Frankie Munez is quite good as a truly sympathetic teen character whobecomes an "agent in training" for the CIA without his parents' knowledge. The film depends on him and his charm does more for the film than any of the special effects. His struggles to combine teenage life with his covert mission aren't particularly imaginative, but they're a lot of fun. (The sequence where the elite CIA operatives help out for the housework is a highlight.) At least the particulars of the Bond formula are followed: Girls, gadgets and even a touch of gambling. Angie Harmon is almost too hot to be in a kid's movie, but at least it's something for the older teens to look at while the plot slows down. The film as a while is energetic. Stupid, too, but not much more so than, say, the latest Bond ripoffs for so-called "adults" (hellooo, XXX!) Alas, the charming quality of the first hour wears thin as the third act becomes a thrills-free carbon copy of the typical Bond ending, complete with an exploding fortress and the grotesque death of the villain. The overall effect is a disappointment, especially given the overall high level of quality of the SPY KIDS series. Oh well. We'll be there for the sequel. (In Theatres, May 2003)

THE ANIMATRIX (2003, Science-fiction): Yes, this is a ploy to get even more money out of MATRIX fans. But when it's such an interesting money-grab, one can even be enthusiastic about the attempt. A collection of nine anime shorts set in the world of THE MATRIX, this is a fun little collection showcasing the strengths of "Japanese-style animation" along with the possibilities of the Wachowski Brothers' creation. Styles vary enormously, from the hyper-CGI photorealism of "The Last Flight of the Osiris" to the stylized hand-drawings of "Kid's Story". The tone is uniformly dour, though, with death to the protagonists being a recurring motif; few happy endings here, and even one piece that can be seen as an apology for teen suicide. But it's pretty good stuff, and the interest level remains constant despite stories hindered both by length and by the constraints of operating in another person's universe. The DVD is stuffed with supplements, from an introduction to anime to making-of featurettes that are almost longer than the pieces themselves. It's an essential stop for all anime fans, and an interesting curio for others that are at least familiar with either anime or THE MATRIX. (On DVD, June 2003)

AMERICAN SPLENDOR (2003, Biography/Drama): Given how Harvey Pekar's “American Splendor” series of comic books is all about the fascinating dullness of ordinary life, it's entirely appropriate for its movie adaptation to be similarly interesting and boring, with a little real-life twist. Paul Giamatti is Harvey Pekar, but Pekar is also in the film, commenting on what's being shot about his own life, with friends and family similarly reacting to the depiction of themselves. What's more, the film regularly makes use of comic book iconology, flipping through actual “American Splendor” illustrations and switching back to film. It's an unusual approach, maybe even one that makes the film a must-see for serious cinephiles. As far the rest of the content goes, well, it's about a comic book writer struggling to make ends meet: There isn't much that's interesting there, and that is the whole point of the film. AMERICAN SPLENDOR is remarkably successful at juggling uneasiness with interest, an approach that will either be cause for admiration, boredom or scorn. Or sometimes all three. (On DVD, September 2005)

BAD BOYS 2 (2003, Action/Crime): You don't have to be a sadistic teenage sociopath to enjoy this film, but it definitely helps. Given that the original BAD BOYS was the last dying gasp of the 1984-1995 era of R-rated buddy-cop adventures, it's fitting that this sequel feels, in many ways, like a throwback to the eighties. Equal parts "Miami Vice" and "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City", this is first and foremost an action film, and it is never better than during the first fantastic car chase, featuring disintegrating cars dumped from a vehicle carrier on a claustrophobic Miami bridge. Memorable stuff even in a summer season packed with great car chases. (And memorable even though the basic concept has been used previously in TOKYO RAIDERS, much like the shantytown smash-down may very well have been suggested by a similar sequence in POLICE STORY.) Other action sequences hold up rather well, and clearly show that even if director Michael Bay proves to be illiterate, he can move the camera and film mayhem like nobody else. Stupid action movies like this one are his forte, not pretentious pseudo-patriotic drivel like PEARL HARBOR. His nervy direction is one of BAD BOYS 2's many pleasures, along with the cool Miami locations, a wonderful Gabrielle Union, a très slick Will Smith, Joe Pantoliano's caricatural cop chief and a few good comedy bits. Heck, even Martin Lawrence is generally tolerable, anchored as he is by Smith's solid presence. He's annoying, but he's supposed to be. Had the movie concentrated on its strengths, if would have been a dynamite piece of action film. Alas, it doesn't, and goes floundering in lengthy "hilarious" digressions (Martin's exstasy trip is unbearable), gratuitous gross-outs and lame setups. It all adds up to a bloated two-and-a-half-hours film that contains a bit too many clunky elements to be totally successful. (In theaters, July 2003)

BAD BOYS 2 (2003, Action): I love filmed mayhem, and few recent films have delivered so much of it as Michael Bay's cheerfully sadistic sequel. It's far from being a perfect film as a whole (dumb humor, choppy storytelling, uneven interest, etc.) but parts of it attain something very close to action perfection. The MacArthur Freeway chase sequence is an anthology piece; the shantytown destruction is a guilty pleasure; the opening credit sequence is a model of big-budget storytelling and the hearse pursuit is a gift for everyone's inner sadist. Still, whatever you think of the film, there's plenty of good things to say about the special-edition DVD, which gives an unparallelled glimpse in the making of a big-budget action film. There is little or no narration; the "video diary" approach, on the other hand, is tremendously effective. There is no audio commentary on the film, but the plethora of extras on the second disk make this absence irrelevant. I was especially impressed by the Freeway chase making-of. Spectacular! (Second Viewing)(On DVD, March 2004)

BAD SANTA (2003, Comedy/Crime): Tired of the cloying psychological manipulation so pervasive during the holidays? Counter-program it with the meanest Christmas film since LE PERE NOEL EST UNE ORDURE. Here, Billy Bob Thornton plays a foul-mouthed, unkempt thief whose annual modus operandi involves playing along as a mall Santa while he and his diminutive accomplice scout the location for security weaknesses. So far so good, but it's the utter disregard for any holiday sweetness that makes this film so enjoyable. "Rated R for pervasive language, strong sexual content and some violence", indeed. Thornton's performance is admirably foul, with Tony Cox and Bernie Mac all ably supporting (Meanwhile, Lauren Graham is adorable as a bartender with a Santa fetish). Heck, even the kid (Brett Kelly) is more creepy than he's sympathetic, and that takes some guts nowadays. Suffice to say that for the longest time, the film refuses to bow to any kind of sentimental softening, faltering only at the end, at a point where even the most misanthropic viewer may be tempted to say that it's about time. It is, in other words, a Christmas movie for those who are sick and tired of Christmas. Good fun, good jokes, a few uncomfortable moments redeemed by a few great lines and an overall sense of delightful nastiness. Strongly recommended for everyone likely to end up on Santa's naughty list. (In theaters, January 2004)

BASIC (2003, Crime/Thriller): There's a fine line between a good and a bad twist ending, but BASIC stepped over the line well before its final few minutes, roughly at about the time it becomes obvious that the film will make absolutely no sense. Good twist endings allow you to go back and watch the film in an entirely new light, but no such exercise is possible with BASIC. This isn't a RASHOMON-like exercise in truth-telling... not when everyone's lying with radically versions of the story that have no reasonable reason to exist. Don't bother trying to make sense of the film; smarter people than us all have tried and failed. (Can anyone explain the sudden closet fight/kiss? I mean; really?) Oh well; at least John Travolta is a lot of fun to watch throughout, perhaps the only reason anyone would have to sit through this mess. The headache-inducing cinematography is filled with rain, thunder and lighting, making this film best enjoyed at home rather than the theatre. It's a measure of how the film squanders its potential that it features two of the most attractive women working in film today (Connie Nielsen and the luscious Roselyn Sanchez) only to stick them in deeply unattractive outfits. Not to mention the waste of such actors as Samuel L. Jackson (in what amounts to a quasi-cameo), Taye Diggs or Harry Connick Jr. A lot of missed opportunities here, in a film that ought to have been much better. It's still quite entertaining -the ending alone makes it all seem pretty cool-, but it could have been much, much better. (In theaters, March 2003)

BIG FISH (2003, Drama): Tim Burton is known for the exuberant quality of his visual imagination, and if BIG FISH is more sedate than usual in terms of eye-candy, it's still certainly not a run-of-the-mill film. Alternating between realistic segments in which a young man faces his dying father and more lurid moments in which fantasies are presented on-screen, BIG FISH inevitably comes to fuse both threads together in a moving finale. It's the complete movie experience: You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll want to throw up (but only if you already have a splitting headache coming into the film). Albert Finney is effective as the narrator of his own life and Ewan MacGregor is a renewed delight as the hero of the tall tales being told. (And yet Helena Bonham Carter steals the show as a reclusive woman who may or may not be a witch) It's not Burton's best film: Often plodding along, sometimes not visually effective enough, it can disappoint as much as it pleases. But by being a celebration of the necessity of fantastic stories, BIG FISH ends up forming a central part of Burton's cinematic oeuvre. It will certainly play better to older and less jaded audiences, but it's certainly hard to dismiss casually. Bits and pieces of it are likely to resonate a long time in viewers' heads, much like for Burton's other films. (In theaters, January 2004)

BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE (2003, Comedy): It would be a misuse of frustration to blame movies for society's ills, and especially inappropriate to single out a comedy as an offencive depiction of current problems. And yet, despite the slight gags and so-called comedic moments, watching BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE remains a slightly unpleasant experience. So Steve Martin exemplifies the uptight white guy? Queen Latifah (who co-produced this thing, so it's not as if she's an innocent bystander) is all black womanhood? Yikes. We're merely trading intolerant bigotry for stereotypical herding. In this light, the film's unsubtle scorn of old-school bigotry is a particularly dishonest tactic. Now, if I let go of my cynicism for a moment, I can admit that all actors are relatively pleasant and that Eugene Levy once again steals the show as a jungle-fevered enthusiast of fine ebony flesh. But BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE usually plays more like a low-level irritant than a particularly charming comedy. White men can't jump, black folks have all the mojo and acting like a moron is a straight path to hipness. Yeeeah. Meanwhile, ebonics is seen as something noble and mobster's bars are exclusively peopled with a darker shade of tan. This is what passes for progressive entertainment. White movie's burden indeed. (In Theatres, May 2003)

BULLETPROOF MONK (2003, Action/Fantasy): Kung-fu is cool. Ancient secrets on scrolls are cool. Chow Yun-Fat is the king of cool. Sean William Scott can be cool. Jamie King will be cool one day, once she acquires a distinct personality and starts playing off her resemblance to Catherine Zeta-Jones. Nazis are cool, and gorgeous blonde Nazi psycho bitches are even cooler. Why, then, is BULLETPROOF MONK so uncool? Maybe it's the lazy direction. Maybe it's the uneven script which neutralizes every cool thing with an uncool things seconds later. Hey, if you can't even use a mega-über-cool character name like "Mister Funktastic" properly, you're just not trying. BULLETPROOF MONK barely distinguishes itself in the "let's pair an Asian cinema star with a hip Hollywood young thing" sub-genre that has become so tiresome in recent years. Rather than exploit Hong-Kong cinema stars' innate charm, they try to shoehorn them in yet another Hollywood formula and the result is generalized boredom. BULLETPROOF MONK has a few worthwhile moments, but frankly... it's as if the filmmakers didn't even care. So neither will we. (In Theatres, April 2003)

CALENDAR GIRLS (United Kingdom, 2003, Comedy): One wouldn't think that seeing a bunch of British retirees taking off their clothes would automatically translate in a good time at the movies. But that assumption is twice flawed: First, that's ignoring the fact that lead actress Helen Mirren is still a fox at age 58; second, that the film is developed not like a porn movie but as a light comedy in the "Brits-take-it-all-off" THE FULL MONTY vein. Whew! It's not a complete success, however: Adapted from a true story, the script suffers from gratuitous drama and other forms of padding. The third act runs far too long for little payoff and it's difficult to buy into the supposed rift between the two lead characters. It's hard to be critical about such a piece of fluff comedy, or even to spend too much time reflecting on it, so CALENDAR GIRL simply gets a mild recommendation and not much else. (In theaters, March 2004)

CHARLIE'S ANGELS 2: FULL THROTTLE (2003, Comedy/Action): I loved the original film for its sense of go-for-broke energy and its casual disregard for mere conventions such as, oh, physics. The sequel is bigger, louder and even more furious than the original (the opening dam sequence is a perfect Big Dumb Action Sequence; I was left wishing for more, more, more!) but somewhere along the way, the delirious pace starts working against itself. More money and more attention has made director McG a needy and insecure director. The fantastic long shots, the mean focus, the clear palette of the original are gone and replaced with mayhem, chaos and confusion. It doesn't work quite as well; the composition of the shots lacks confidence and clarity; we're left with grittier pictures, sequences with few outstanding shots and a sense that someone is just trying too hard to win our approval. Not that I'm a demanding viewer; in this case, the adorable goofiness of Cameron Diaz (plus my unquenchable thirst for more Lucy Liu) is enough to make me giddy with excitement. Some of the stunts are, indeed pretty cool and CHARLIE'S ANGELS II is a beautiful monument to nonsensical blockbuster-making. But the structure is off (Demi Moore's true alignment it revealed much too late), the subplots are irrelevant (did we need all of those back-stories?) and even capable players like John Cleese, Crispin Glover and Bernie Mac aren't particularly well-used. Heck, I shouldn't complain: There are some very cool moments (Lucy Liu doing the ferret; the use of Edwin Collin's "A Girl Like You"; Crispin Glover's backstory; the CSI sequence) but it's not as purely entertaining as the first one. Darn! (In theatres, June 2003)

COLD MOUNTAIN (2003, Drama/War): Mix in a tragic love story, scenes of war and destruction, plenty of cameos from recognizable actors, lush landscapes, a quirky performance from an established star (Renée Zellweger, playing a character that squints less than usual) and plenty of historical period detail. What do you have? Why, a sign that it's Oscar-bait season again. Granted, COLD MOUNTAIN is more entertaining than what you may imagine for a Civil War love story: There's a lot more gunplay and nudity than I expected. There are some remarkable visuals (including a nightmarish, but historically accurate "crater of doom"), one big explosion, good performances and an interesting look at civilian life in the Deep South during that period. Jude Law is credible in a role in which every woman he meets wants him in their bed and Nicole Kidman has a good turn as a blonde Southern belle left to her own devices. Story-wise, though, this is a film with significant problems: huge coincidences are shamelessly used as plot drivers and the overall thrust of the story is quite predictable. As if that wasn't enough, the episodic nature of the screenplay is a disappointment: whole sections could be cut out without any impact on the rest of the film. (Why yes, I'm thinking about the Natalie Portman "Sara" segment) It's certainly not bad at all, but neither is it a masterpiece. Oscar-bait, like other type of films, can also be overrated. (In theaters, January 2004)

CONFIDENCE (2003, Crime): Ah yes. The con film that begins with the narrator describing his own death. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is all going to turn out nicely, but the twists and turns are the name of the game and if CONFIDENCE isn't particularly revolutionary, it plays well enough. I've been, inexplicably, a mild fan of Ed Burns for a while and he certainly knows how to play as the lead man in a gang of con artists on a rampage in Los Angeles. One operation goes too well, they find out they just double-crossed a powerful crime lord and suddenly, they must atone for their miscalculation by performing another con. Double-crosses, counter-crosses, infini-crosses follow. Fans of Rachel Weisz will not be disappointed, as she demonstrates an uncanny capability at playing a scheming seductress. The rest of the supporting cast is also quite good, with the usual props to Dustin Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and Andy Garcia. The direction moves with a certain style and the screenplay efficiently propels the story forward. The ending is a bit of a mess; I'm not even sure if it makes any sense at all. But in a con film, these senseless twists are the norm, and they are easily forgiven as long as it ends in a satisfactory fashion. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a happier ending than the one featured here, and this happy impression is the one to keep. (In Theatres, April 2003)

THE COOLER (2003, Romance/Comedy): Don't be surprised if you start wondering, twenty minutes in the film, how much more of the protagonist you can take. William H. Macy stars as Bernie, a fantastically unlucky man who works a low-rent Vegas casino as a cooler, a man whose bad luck is so contagious it evens up the odds in favour of the house. As you may suspect, this uninterrupted streak of bad luck doesn't stop at gambling: Romance is similarly impossible, and there is a basic pathetic quality to Bernie's existence that overwhelms everything else. Bernie is a loser mostly because he's never learnt to be anything else, and his trouble start once he begins to turn things around. Stuck with an unbearably evil boss (Alec Baldwin), his budding romance with a friendly waitress (Maria Bello) may be his salvation or his doom... depending on where Lady Luck decides to take him. As with most movies dealing with the element of chance, the plot can often be an accumulation of improbable coincidence. But the film gradually improves out of its initial humdrum beginning, using its low-life Vegas locale to good effect. It's not a spectacular film (despite odd moments of good direction) nor is it something you'll start cheering for, but it's the kind of movie that leaves a good impression once the first act is over. (On DVD, January 2005)

THE CORE (2003, Science-Fiction): Let's first settle one detail: Yes, THE CORE can be tremendously stupid at times. Even I, quite willing to give the film every chance it asked for, nearly lost it completely at the geode sequence. Scientific mistakes abound, and that's not even counting the numerous times where the special effects completely misinterpreted the script (I can accept the Coliseum being destroyed by huge lightning strikes, but seeing it explode? Ahem.) And yet, and yet, despite the predictable nature of the plot (Who dies next? Take your pick. Or don't, because it's already obvious.), the early silliness (so, what, they had a whole convention of pacemaker-wearing people?) and the dull characters (D.J. Qualls as an elite hacker. Ergh.), I found a lot of things to love in THE CORE. For one thing, this is exactly the type of city-destroying disaster film I feared they wouldn't be made in the wake of the September 11^th events. (Though, times changing as quickly as they are, shuttle crashes and tragic Frenchmen have acquired a very different resonance in between the production of the film and its release.) Second on my list of warm and fuzzy feelings about the film was the variety of (often poorly integrated) cool scenes, from seeing the Golden Gate Bridge get it to a few nifty camera shots. Finally, and this may be my biggest yay-movie sentiment, THE CORE is a straight-up shot of Golden-Age Hard-SF. You know; the genre where humanity's cleverness is its own biggest virtue, evil characters see the errors of their ways and disaster is narrowly averted. The kind of stuff I like. Even despite whatever misgivings I may have about the rest of the film. (In theaters, March 2003)

THE CORPORATION (2003, Documentary): The real revelation here is not how corporations are amoral entities whose ethical concerns are non-existent in light of shareholder profits; we knew that, and several of the examples used by the filmmakers to demonstrate their thesis are also quite widely known. No, the real pleasure and interest of THE CORPORATION is in how captivating one can weave talking heads, dramatizations, stock footage and editorial cinematography in one captivating package. It's nearly two and a half hours long, but it's all good and fascinating from the beginning to the end. Interviews from an impressive variety of guests (from a Fraser institute representative to Michael Moore, Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky) are cleverly integrated in a strong structure. Eerie narration (echoing a "future viewpoint" reminiscent of THE ANIMATRIX's "Second Renaissance") and original computer-generated sequences provide the framework of the piece, which -like many recent documentaries- doesn't even try to provide a balanced viewpoint. This is a thesis, not an attempt at a definitive study. One thing for sure; this is brainy entertainment, the kind of intellectual material that is surprising to see in theatres. No wonder if it's a film adaptation of Joel Bakan's eponymous non-fiction book. A few of the stories told here are well-worth pursuing, including the tale of an attempted 1933 coup to overthrow... the American government (Search for "Smedley Butler" for more details). More modern examples of corporate malfeasance are even worse, from attempts to privatize rainwater, to modern-day advertising, to the ruling stating that televised news don't necessarily have to be truthful. Despite occasional missteps (such as the pretty portrait of anti-globalization forces), it all adds up to a convincing argument, one that is sure to become even more important over the next few years as the divide between civil rights and corporate profits will become even more obvious. (In theaters, July 2004)

CRADLE 2 THE GRAVE (2003, Crime/Action): Well, that was fun. Some will argue that the best part of the film is the opening heist sequence. I'll disagree in a moment, but said lightning-fast sequence certainly sets the breakneck rhythm of the film. The result may be moronic beyond measure, but at least it moves quickly enough that you won't have time to reflect on the problems until after the film is over. (Thanks to a funny sequence that plays over the credits, that means that the moment of reckoning takes place after all is done.) The biggest strength of CRADLE 2 THE GRAVE (don't look for a relation between this title and the film) is how it doesn't solely depends on Jet Li and DMX as the protagonists, but assigns a lot of time to a bunch of highly amusing sidekicks. There are a few good action sequences, the best of which involves a chase between police cars and an ATV: it's a lot more fun than you'd think it would be. Alas, this chase is better than the scattered ending, which gracelessly cuts between three or four underwhelming action sequences. Overall, CRADLE 2 THE GRAVE is a fun little action film, probably the best American film Jet Li has been in (it is not, however, Jet Li's best performance in a stateside movie given the lack of material he's got to work with here.) Gabrielle Union fans will be pleased to note that she not only turns in a fine performance here, but she also does a strip-tease. As if you needed any other reason to see the film... (In theaters, February 2003)

DAREDEVIL (2003, Action): Marvel Comics' recent run of decent movie adaptations continues, though DAREDEVIL isn't much more than decent. The problem isn't to be found in the built-by-numbers story or the lead cast: While Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner and Michael Clarke Duncan are a touch bland but okay, Colin Farrell steals the show with one of the most delightfully over-the-top villains in recent history. Nope, the problems are concentrated in the choppy editing, the nervous direction and the lack of oomph. Resemblances are easy to see with SPIDER-MAN, up to a point where it's possible to worry that comic superheroes movies will all pretty much have the same trauma/story setup. Still, this is darker than usual, though the film chickens out near the end when comes the time to seal some characters' fate. I was very disappointed at some of the so-called action sequences, which were often over-edited in a choppy mess. (The bar fight is a prime example of this). Some of the operational details of Daredevil's lifestyle are also sadly unexamined, though some of it may be left in the rumoured 25 minutes of cut footage. What can't be fixed though more footage, though, is the soundtrack which is already dated "Summer 2002" by its overuse of RIAA-approved rock bands cloned from Creed genes. Still, I'm not complaining too much; as comic book movies go, this is still one of the good ones, and even if it's lacking, it's not completely awful. It'll do. (In theaters, February 2003)

DARK BLUE (2003, Crime/Drama): Corrupt cops are a dime a dozen in movies, but we should be so lucky as to have them played by Kurt Russell! His take on a cop whose sense of justice doesn't stop at legal technicalities is one of the best things he's done in years. The story isn't terribly original (the similarities of TRAINING DAY may stem from the fact that both scripts were written by the same person), but it carries itself ably up to the third act, which is brought down by a hideous coincidence, a gratuitous "big speech" ending and a lack of resonance with 1992's L.A. riots. DARK BLUE isn't a film that's going to be remembered a few years from now, but it's decent enough entertainment; the type of thing you see on late-night TV and watch with a vaguely satisfying impression. There's real fun in seeing an unorthodox police investigation produce some results and, as mentioned, seeing Kurt Russell in a meaty role for once. (In theaters, February 2003)

DARKNESS FALLS (2003, Horror): After THE RING, it's hard to be generous to run-of-the-mill horror films, but even in normal circumstances, it would be pretty hard to get excited about DARKNESS FALLS. It's a monster movie like all others, except that it's too strangely similar to PITCH BLACK and happens to steal at least one sequence from REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. Once past the promising prologue, it's dull, really. A killer tooth fairy? Come on, you can do better than that! A monster that can't attack in the light? Well don't give me a film where even pitch darkness is illuminated by what looks like a 40-watts full moon (oh, and with constant lightning). The staging is moronic, the characters are dumb and the dialogues are even dumber. Sure, there are a few oddly affectionate moments of self-aware camp ("Are we going to die?" "Yes."), but despite the presence of one hot heroine (take note: Emma Caulfield), the rest of the film is completely unremarkable. Maybe it can impress anyone who's never seen even another horror movie in their life. All the others, however, will yawn rather loudly. A killer tooth fairy. Goodness. (In theaters, January 2003)

DELIVER US FROM EVA (2003, Romance/Comedy): Most romantic movies start with a unique hook before devolving in identical third acts, and DELIVER US FROM EVA is no exception. A biting start featuring a strong-willed female character and some fluid directing leads to a third act that seems indistinguishable from countless other romances. Disappointing, but not too much: There is still plenty to like here and there in the film. I, of course, am an unabashed fan of Gabrielle Union, and she gets plenty of fabulous material as the eponymous Eva, going from shouting matches to romantic smoothness to energetic moments like “And-then-we-burned-a-hole-in-the-floor!” Faaabulous, which makes the last-third erosion of her character all the more disappointing to see: In a development that is sure to anger not just feminists, her hard-willed character becomes a mewling kitty as soon as she gets a good night's of, er, not-sleep. At the same time, the three sympathetic henpecked boyfriends who get the plot moving are revealed to be moral weaklings who pretty much deserve everything they can get. None of that is meant as a slight of James Todd Smith (aka LL Cool J) in the male lead role, appropriately smooth and amusing as needed. The direction also has its moments, though those tend to sputter off as the film advances. In the end, DELIVER US FROM EVA a decent film, worth watching for Gabrille Union fans, but also a disappointment and a sign that there's still plenty of room for improvement in how romantic comedies are structured. (On DVD, September 2005)

DOWN WITH LOVE (2003, Comedy/Romance): I'm way too young to recall the carefree naughty comedies of the early sixties, but, heck, I've seen AUSTIN POWERS and I'm a sucker for crackling dialogue. It only took "from director Peyton Reed" to get me in the theatre (his previous film was the wonderful BRING IT ON) and he doesn't disappoint with this charming irony-free (well, mostly) throwback to another era. Ewan MacGregor and David Hyde Pierce are magnificent in their roles (unfortunately, Renée Zellweger is too thin), but it's the direction which takes centre-stage, with a wonderful blend of inconsistent special effects, outlandish set design and effective camera work. The script is more fun than most other comedies you'll see this year, with plenty of zingers, fresh dialogues and a mean twist or three at the end. Exceptional date movie. Good stuff; I can't wait to hear the director's commentary on the DVD. (In Theatres, May 2003)

DOWN WITH LOVE (2003, Romance/Comedy): I'm overly pleased to report that this, my favourite romantic comedy in a long while, remains as fresh and delicious than my memories of my first viewing indicated. Everything clicks in this film, from the performances to the direction, the script to the costumes. What is more apparent on a small screen is how much of a character is Mark Shaiman's score, as it seamlessly underscores every single twitch, blink and nod on-screen. There hasn't been a film so delightful in a long while, and it doesn't play as much as it delivers a constant jolt of fun. I remain convinced that director Peyton Reed is one of the best new directors out there; certainly, the totality of his romantic vision for DOWN WITH LOVE is deeply impressive. The DVD is packed with good stuff, the best of which is a breathlessly interesting audio commentary by Reed himself. Tons of smaller documentaries (plus one useless HBO infomercial) complete the package. It's a shame that this film couldn't find much of an audience anywhere; in the meantime, it'll stay in my DVD collection as a secret weapon to charm unsuspecting guests. (Second viewing)(On DVD, March 2004)

DREAMCATCHER (2003, Science-Fiction/Horror): Take a large blender, stuff in as many Stephen King novels you can, set everything to puree and let it spin. Then let the result rot for a few weeks and you'll have the main elements of DREAMCATCHER. The saving grace of the film is how it manages to polish a trash B-movie script that teeters on the edge of parody and -somehow- transform it in a horror film that looks as if it can fool some of the audience in thinking it's actually any good. Gleefully mixing psychic powers, childhood friendships, evil aliens, explosive parasites, nutty soldiers and a large dose of phallic imagery, DREAMCATCHER plays a lot like a drunken send-up of the Stephen King oeuvre. Alas, it never even seems to realize how ludicrous it is: Director Lawrence Kasadan puts a professional gloss over the whole production that visually sets it apart from most of the B-movie schlock out there. There are plenty of gory moments, CGI critters and yucky scenes, so all will not be lost for horror fans. But others may wince at the dialogue, the literal representations of elements so familiar to King's symbolism and the atrocious ending. DREAMCATCHER is seldom dull, but it's even more rarely satisfying. Morgan Freeman is wasted, but his eyebrows turn in a memorable performance. In some ways, this film will be remembered --as a train wreck of a movie, a gloriously gonzo mishmash of ill-fitting parts and a liberal rip-offs of other works. It's a bad film, but a spectacularly bad one. (In theaters, March 2003)

ELEPHANT (2003, Drama): This is a very frustrating film. As a naturalistic, quasi-documentary representation of a high-school shooting, it's simultaneously pointless and brilliant. Gus Van Sant is an experienced director and ELEPHANT is never better than when it develops its chronology of events through alternate overlapping viewpoints; the camera literally follows one character, then another, then another and it eventually interlocks to forms an almost-coherent picture of what just happened in the span of a few minutes. There are delicious moments of "don't go there!" suspense as we develop an understanding what is happening at the same moment. (Pay attention, though, and you'll discover at least one vexing moment of mismatching chronology. Hint; follow the "we'll be back by one-thirty" line.) Alas, the genius of the premise is not equalled by the execution: the real-time camera moves can be exasperating ("A powerful film about getting from Point A to Point B!"), there are some technical goofs (street is dry; street is wet) and not all flashbacks work equally well. Worse, perhaps, is the film's lack of an impact: While Van Saint should be commended from turning his film in a message about something, ELEPHANT falls into the opposite trap --to present but not enlighten. Some live, most die arbitrarily, but there is no dramatic arc, no attempt at a resolution. Even the film's final frames leave a lot unsolved and unexplained. Good point for realism, but this is a mere embryo of what could have been done with the concept. (In theaters, February 2004)

ELF (2003, Kids/Comedy): There are two movies warring for attention here: An innocent kid's film about the meaning of Christmas through the antics of an elf lost in New York, and a silly comedy that has to please the adult fans of Will Ferrell. No surprise, then, if the film gives out such a mixed impression. Parts of it work, but they come from different films. Ferrell is sweetness incarnate as the Elf lost in New York, but ELF is equal part amusement and embarrassment as he's confronted with the very grown-up streets of NYC. The romance and the last-act thriller may have worked in other contexts, but here they just feel forced and badly integrated to a kid's film. Not entirely pleasant to watch nor particularly funny, ELF exists in a demimonde of conflicting goals. Only Ferrell's compelling performance saves it from complete disinterest. (On DVD, March 2005)

FINAL DESTINATION 2 (2003, Horror): Splatter fans should rejoice, because the most distinguish characteristic of this sequel to 2000's creepy supernatural thriller isn't the plot as much as the appalling disregard shown for the human body. In this version of reality, receiving a plate glass window pane on the head isn't going to give you a fatal cerebral commotion; it's going to liquefy your body in a mass of reddish organic material. Such gore is commonplace in this movie, which pushes the envelope of its hard-R rating to levels seldom seen nowadays. On one hand, I'm sort of glad to see that the film doesn't wuss out. On another, even the jaded moviegoer that I am isn't terribly compelled to encourage this gratuitous school of schlock cinematography. It doesn't help that the story is a thin re-tread of the original. But whereas the previous film had a nasty little unnerving focus, this one feels looser and filled with nonsensical plot holes. (Why should a suicide attempt fail while another one succeeds?) The tone of the sequel may be more consistent compared to the first film's shifting atmosphere, but there's something distasteful in the Grand Guignol level of so-called humorous gore shown here. It's even out-of place with the showcase sequence of the film, a horrific traffic accident that will make everyone's teeth grit together for several continuous minutes: There are plenty of spectacular explosions and crashes, but scarcely any enjoyment in seeing dozen of people being graphically dismembered. Oh well; at least the movie kills off some unexpected victims. This is one for the gore fans; you know who you are. I don't think we need a third film, though. (In theaters, February 2003)

FINDING NEMO (2003, Animated/Kids): Pixar seldom misses its target, and they succeed once again with FINDING NEMO, an irreproachable animated feature aimed at kids but appropriate for adults. Once again, everything is top-notch: The animation is spectacular, the script is pure gold, the characters are sharply defined (Who doesn't love surfer-turtle Crush? "We were like 'Woah!' and you were like 'Woah!' and I was like 'Woah.'") and the direction takes advantage of the possibilities of CGI while remaining firmly grounded in real-world conventions. You already know you're going to see it and you already know you're going to like it; why should I even spend more time discussing it? The only serious complaint I've got is that in their quest to please Disney, Pixar has released their most Disney-like (and their weakest) effort to date. Even the bad old clichés hold true, with the mother of the protagonist dying a horrible death in the prologue (c'mon; this was tired even in BAMBI's time!) Oh well; it's still better than most of the other films you'll see this year. (In theatres, June 2003)

THE FOG OF WAR (2003, Documentary): No one goes to the movies expecting a cogent treatise of geopolitical power and tips for more efficient warfare. Yet that's exactly what THE FOG OF WAR is all about; a late-life summation of what ex-Secretary of Defence Robert S. McNamara learnt during his life and his tenure at the top of the Kennedy/Johnston administration. From World War II to the Vietnam War, with a scary detour through the October 1962 Cuban Crisis, McNamara reminisces, summarizes, explains and justifies thirty years of American foreign policy. Good stuff, coming from someone who was heavily involved as it was happening. There is probably another film to be made to show the same events from another viewpoint; through THE FOG OF WAR, we get flashes of McNamara's reputation, but Errol Morris' film merely presents his subject's viewpoint without much by way of counterpoint. Still, the film is fascinating, especially given how it features one single talking head for most of its duration. McNamara is a mesmerizing speaker, and what he has to say would be most appropriate within the pages of a scholarly history book than a film. Military buffs and student of post-WWII world history will learn a lot from it. (In theaters, July 2004)

FOOLPROOF (Canada, 2003, Thriller/Crime): It's amazing to see what a competent screenwriter will do with a few good actors and next to no budget, and so FOOLPROOF's cheap price tag doesn't have much of an impact on its effectiveness. The setup is mildly ridiculous (three friends with a knack for making up "foolproof" theoretical plans to rob real places are blackmailed into executing a real caper), but the execution works well despite a few obvious setups. Ryan Reynolds is suitably smart and funny as the protagonist and Kristin Booth makes herself attractive through pure attitude, with a consequent effect on the motion picture as a whole. We've seen a lot of caper thrillers in the last few years, but FOOLPROOF manages to stay with the rest of the pack. (It helps that it's so distinctly Canadian, complete with the good money, car plates and Tim Hortons coffee) I have a few problems with some scenes that try to be either too dramatic or too misdirecting (Rob's Evil Goatee!), but the overall package... holds up quite well. (In theaters, October 2003)

GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS (2003, Documentary): Yes, James Cameron still hasn't directed any feature-length fiction film since 1997's TITANIC. But if this is the kind of stuff he's doing on his "holidays", well, it's just as good. In this documentary, we follow Cameron and his crew (including stalwart actor Bill Paxton) as they revisit the wreck of the Titanic in late 2001. Paxton makes a useful everyday character as he's (justifiably) impressed by the whole proceeding: his doofus act as they take him to the wreck is a useful proxy for everyone in the audience. The technology used for this round of exploration is quite impressive, bringing movie-making savvy to underwater exploration, along with a full underwater lighting rig, 3D cameras (whose footage is sadly converted to 2D on the DVD) and remote-controlled ROVs. The exploration of the Titanic itself is cleverly augmented by CGI, overlays of live-action footage and interviews with experts. Hard-SF fans will squeal in glee at the appearance of Charles Pellegrino, author of several books on the Titanic, archaeology and other nifty stuff. It's engrossing material, but becomes even more so when the tale evolves into a techno-thriller mode as one of the robots has to be rescued after technical difficulties. Fascinating stuff, though some knowledge and passion for the subject of the film is almost essential. Well worth tracking down. (On DVD, August 2004)

GIGLI (2003, Crime/Romance): While the trailers are trying to sell you this movie as a romantic comedy and the critics are trying to tell you this is the most wretched thing in ages, the truth lies somewhere in between. It's a low-octane crime "comedy" in which a dumb thug and a lesbian hit-woman fall in love while they sequester a mentally retarded young man. For most of the film, it's just a dull piece of dull cinema, hampered by a bad script, no visible sense of humour and two leads who do nothing to deserve our sympathy. Only during the last half-hour does the film truly turn offensive, milking every second of its turgid conclusion like it was pure gold rather than the torture it evolves into. Two gory scenes played for laughs do nothing to focus this scattered miscalculation, through stereotypical cameos by actors such as Christopher Walken and Al Pacino offer some balm for our pain and suffering. There have been more obnoxious movies that GIGLI this summer (LEGALLY BLONDE 2 springs to mind), but few that manage to reach such a level of uselessness. Jennifer Lopez tries too hard to be sexy (and, amusingly enough, fails for the first time in many movies) while Ben Affleck offers no particular depth to his obtuse character. The real villain, though, is writer/director Martin Brest, who delivers a film that has all the sexual sophistication of its retarded character. Don't stay for the credits; just when you think the movie can't hurt you any more, it reprises the vomit-inducing retarded acapella version of Sir Mix-a-Lot's "Baby got Back". After that, one can almost wish for a painful death for everyone associated with the production. (In Theatres, August 2003)

GOTHIKA (2003, Thriller/Horror): Hey, that wasn't terrible. Oh, it's no great art: crazy people, an insane asylum, a murder or two, possession by vengeful ghosts, yadda-yadda. The best thing about this film is Mathieu Kassovitz's direction, trashy in a B-genre fashion with enough CGI stuff to keep things interesting. Otherwise, well, it moves relatively quickly and seldom wastes any time in setting up its scares. As long as you enjoy Halle Berry in a shower; what else do you need? Well, a plot maybe, and one that doesn't solely bring back memories of WHAT LIES BENEATH. But then again it's "just" a horror movie, and a decidedly non-scary one at that despite the desperate spring-loaded cats at regular intervals. The audio commentary on the DVD shows both director and cinematographer struggling to make this something more significant than an average horror film, only to hear Kassovitz cave in at the end and ruefully recognize that this is, after all, just a silly genre film. (Oh, don't get me started on the last scene...) Still, not bad. Could have been worse. (On DVD, August 2004)

THE HIRE (2003, Action): This collection of BMW short films is obviously a promotional item through and through, but when it's wrapped in such delicious filmmaking, why complain? Collecting eight short films from eight top-notch directors, THE HIRE stars Clive Owen as a driver with a fondness for BMW vehicles and dangerous situations. While the cars remain a constant, the mood of each piece varies considerably, going from drama to comedy to romance to fantasy. Good stuff, and with the calibre of the directors involved (John Woo, Joe Carnahan and Tony Scott are only the first three names on the credits), each short film is a pretty spiffy work in itself. Then there are the extras: documentaries that are longer than the short films, audio commentaries, technical specs and plenty of pretty pictures. I don't think that this is available in stores, but DVD addicts and fans of action film making will certainly want to head over to bmwfilms.com and order their copy. It's well worth the ten bucks or so. (On DVD, March 2004)

HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE (2003, Comedy): If you wanted a mixed bag of this and that, here's the film for you. Let us run it down: The good stuff include more animated performances than usual by Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett (admittedly, that's not saying much!), a fascinating premise mixing police work with side interests, a whirlwind tour of Hollywood's entertainment businesses, plenty of sun and fun, some inspired comic sequences and a cool chase that uses just about every terrestrial transportation device. The bad points, alas, include an inconsistent tone, an overly complicated plot, unbelievable situations, many scenes that just don't work and an overall feeling of production laziness. It all adds up to a curiously detached viewing experience, as if every time we wanted to like the movie, it did something stupid to avoid too much attachment. The gratuitous demise of the villain leaves a sour impression that remains. (In theatres, June 2003)

HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG (2003, Drama): It doesn't take a long time, through the leaden cinematography and the ominous performances, to understand that this is not a story that will have a happy ending. As a house becomes a battleground for a desperate young woman (Jennifer Connelly, as willing as ever to sink in an unglamourous role) and a hardened Iranian immigrant (Ben Kingsley, in a masterful performance), the conflict involves more and more victims in the spiral. Forget about antagonists and protagonists; here, everyone is a victim, and that's never so true than at the end of the film. This emotional demolition derby ends with only one person standing. (Alas, it ends at that moment, with scarcely any nod at the aftermath) This is the stuff "dramas" are made of; it may not be pleasant to watch, but it's unarguably powerful. The directing is sober, making ample place for the cinematography and the performances. The plot is a sadistic exercise in rock-throwing, so don't be surprised as some of the more outlandish twists and turns; it's not playing fair in its pursuing of pure pathos. Not a particularly good choice for entertainment, unless you seek reassurance that your own situation is not, in fact, so desperate. (In theaters, February 2004)

HOW TO LOSE A GUY IN TEN DAYS (2003, Romance/Comedy): Fluffy, slightly original romantic comedy that shows promise but then devolves in the usual yadda-yadda. There's interest in the basic premise (dual bets: she has to break up; he has to stay with her; hijinks ensue) but once it's properly presented, it's immediately discarded in favour of the usual idiot characters, dumb misunderstandings and wacky chase sequences. The whole film is contrived, but the last quarter hour overdoes things in this regard. It's still not an entire waste of time mostly because of the charm of the two leads: Kate Hudson is even pretty cute in her "Kathie Lee Gifford on crack" mode. Matthew McConaughey is blander (in keeping with Romantic Comedy male lead tradition) but not entirely boring. It all amounts to a fair film, slightly too long but still pleasant enough. (On DVD, March 2005)

THE HULK (2003, Science-fiction/Action): It seems unusual to praise a movie for its editing, but THE HULK's most memorable feature is the way some scenes are cut, with fancy wipes, angles-as-boxes, overlapping moving pictures and other fancy stuff like that. It's the closest thing yet to re-interpreting the comic book grammar on-screen. It sure makes some dull scenes interesting, which is fortunate given the number of boring moments in THE HULK, a comic book adaptation by way of Oedipal tragedy. Director Ang Lee ends up directing a very Ang Lee movie indeed: Male rage symbolism is mixed with deep family trauma to end up with something that's not far from the dismissive "THE ICE STORM starring Shrek" rumour heard just before the film's release. There are a few nice moments in the second hour (it's pretty cool to see F-22s and Comanche helicopters properly presented on-screen) but the film is still marred by a structure that takes to much time to deliver, and a superfluous ending that feels more like an afterthought than a climax. Too bad that the film chose to resolve a family drama through an overuse of special effects... Otherwise, well, Jennifer Connelly is too thin, Eric Bana will be a star soon enough, Nick Nolte is his usual gruff self and some of the special effects are iffy. Have I forgotten something? Probably the same thing that the filmmakers forgot: Even though this is a comic superhero movie, it's just not a lot of fun. Maybe we'll have to wait for the sequel for that, now that the pesky family/origin story is out of the way.

THE HUNTED (2003, Thriller): By now, we've seen so many movies about escaped psycho ex-special-forces fugitives that we can dispose with exposition. And that's exactly the path taken by THE HUNTED, a film that feels like a snappy adaptation of a lengthier novel. It cares so much about its audience's comfort that it even features Tommy Lee Jones in the exact same role he's played in half of his movies for the past decade. It's strictly hunter-hunted stuff (appropriately enough), but executed with a brutal flair that doesn't flinch as blood sprays under the cool north-western drizzle. The final battle is particularly punishing, as the two lead characters keep on bashing each other with a variety of painful instruments. There's nothing nice or cool about the violence in THE HUNTED, and that alone sets it apart from most run-of-the-mill thrillers. Alas, it's not nearly enough to make it memorable. The bare-bones script has intriguing elements, but they're quickly forgotten in the rush to the conclusion. Some characters, such as most of the female characters, appear for a scene or two and then quietly disappear in the background. It's enough to make anyone wonder about a bunch of presumably deleted scenes. (One scene that should have been deleted, however, is the one where a massive manhunt is interrupted as both lead characters take the time to fashion knives from rocks and scrap metal. Hey, no kidding.) In the end, THE HUNTED may be brutal, but it's not much more than that. (In theaters, March 2003)

THE ITALIAN JOB (2003, Thriller/Action): Anyone looking for a light summer movie won't be disappointed in this one. Anyone looking for anything more than that, however, will leave unsatisfied. On most accounts, it's exactly what it tries to be: a decent heist picture, with some cleverness, a hint of sexiness, a car chase and unambiguous emotional stakes. Why am I being such a sourpuss then? Could be Edward Norton's worst performance to date, an unremarkable turn as a meek villain with none of Norton's usual flair. Could be Mark Wahlberg's charisma-free performance as the bland leader of a bunch of operatives all far more interesting than he is. Could be Jason Statham's reprise of his role in THE TRANSPORTER with all of the grins and no further chance to shine. Could be that the only hot chick we're stuck watching is the bland Charlize Theron. Could be that both the direction and the script simply do the job without any extra qualities. Could be that the action scenes are over almost as quickly as they begin. Could be the lengthy second act. Could be a whole lot of things, but the end result stays the same; a very ordinary picture that does not deviate from mere adequacy. Hey, it's your time and your money... (In Theatres, May 2003)

IDENTITY (2003, Crime): It is incredibly fitting that this film will leave viewers with (at least) two very different impressions. The first one stems from the first half of the film, which is a cliché-ridden, yet aptly-executed murder mystery that lulls us in predictable conformity. But pay attention, because the film suddenly veers in fantasyland, leading to our second impression. The central conceit of IDENTITY is so audacious it feels like something midway from genius and pure audience contempt. In a way, it rescues a film that seemed to be headed for pure clichés. In another, it slaps the audience in the face and shouts loudly "HA! DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!" Some of you will enjoy. Some of you won't care. Some of you will feel cheated. And some of you will feel all of this at once. Suffice to say that there's a lot to like at a basic level: John Cusak turns in one of his best performances in years, with able support from Ray Liotta, Amanda Peet and a good supporting cast. Director James Mangold manages to do interesting things with familiar material. Plus, of course, the script... but enough about that. Except to say that the last minute is a howler, the kind of cheap ending that has no relation to reality. But that, in many ways, is the whole point. (In Theatres, April 2003)

INTOLERABLE CRUELTY (2003, Romance/Comedy): The Coen Brothers doing a romantic comedy? Believe it... and it's just about as quirky as their other films. George Clooney scores another great performance as a teeth-obsessed attorney who comes to be fascinated by a beautiful woman (the luminous Catherine Zeta-Jones) who's out to get as much money as she can. Will they get together? Will it last? Will it have a happy ending? I can't seriously answer that without spoiling the fun. Suffice to say that this is the Coen Brothers' funniest film since THE BIG LEBOWSKI. While INTOLERABLE CRUELTY isn't particularly high on belly laughs, it's amusing throughout and plays without too many false notes. The supporting characters alone are worth seeing. Some particularly witty sequences are built around the script's cynical take on relationship, with the result that this romantic comedy feels rather more comedic than the usual puff-fluff rom-com. Good stuff. (In theaters, October 2003)

LES INVASIONS BARBARES ([THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS], Canada, 2003, Drama): To be truthful, I wasn't expecting much of this film: I'm not one for tearjerkers, gabfests, "populist" films (this film made a bundle at the Quebec box-office) nor melodramatic sequels. But there is something for everyone in the film, and if I could easily gloss over the melodrama of the dying protagonist, it was harder not to enjoy the witty intellectual dialogue between the band of literate, hedonistic friends at the centre of the film. LES INVASIONS BARBARES is seldom as enjoyable as when they trade back salacious puns and philosophical references. (Sadly, the otherwise-decent subtitles completely give up during one such exchange... though at least we were spared the indignities of a dubbed film!) Otherwise, well, there is plenty of philosophical content to keep anyone busy, from a flash-analysis of 9/11 to a devastating scene literally showing the relics of Quebec's Catholic church. (What this film isn't is "focused": the sprawling script touches upon anything and seeming everything.) In the end, I found myself cheering for the film, regardless of origin; it's so rare to see liberal intellectualism so warmly portrayed than it is here, it's just a shock to realize that it actually came from, in some sense, my own culture. Go figure. (In French, In theaters, May 2004)

IT RUNS IN THE FAMILY (2003, Drama): Tolstoi once muttered something about dysfunctional families being unique and interesting, but the wisdom of his maxim continues to be lost in Hollywood, where the "dysfunctional family" movie has acquired a set of clichés that are usually followed to the letter. Family members hate each other until a terrible event brings them together. Young people are rebellious; old people face death, middle-aged people face overwork and adultery. From the movie-of-the-week credit sequence onward, IT RUNS IN THE FAMILY feels like a film made by numbers. Through all the adventures that afflict the protagonists, dramatic tension runs low and the ending isn't as much a climax than a conclusion. There are a few noteworthy things about IT RUNS IN THE FAMILY, and they all pretty much relate to the Douglas family; Kirk impresses with his patriarch performance, while Michael is as much fun as he usually is and Cameron doesn't embarrass himself in presence of his acclaimed elders. (On the other hand, Bernadette Peters has a bigger speech impediment than Kirk) Still, this is an amusing and, to its credit, it didn't bore me as much as I thought it would. But the perfunctory ending (Hey, how about the girl?) mirrors the film as a whole, which is worthwhile if you like family dramas, but not deserving of any particular sacrifice. The Douglasses had their fun. (In Theatres, April 2003)

JOHNNY ENGLISH (2003, Comedy): It's too bad that Rowan Atkinson has become famous for his character of "Mr. Bean" rather than for "Edmund Blackadder". This film is sort of a rehash of Bean's bumbling physical antics along with a feeble attempt at replicating the Bond films. Neither portion works; Atkinson's pratfalls quickly become tiresome, and he does scarcely little to make us cheer for him. (Only when he does slip on the Blackadder poise and becomes a devastatingly efficient agent -in his dreams or delusions- does he truly come alive and charming.) Confronted with the accumulating evidence of his incompetence, the heroine's infatuation with English becomes less than a cypher and more of a screenwriter's conceit. (On the other hand, Natalie Imbruglia does a good job at looking cute and saying her lines properly.) It's not as if the film is worthless: the car chase stands out as an inspired bit of comedy, Atkinson has his moments, it's fun to contemplate the very British horror of being ruled by a Frenchman and the film's all-too-brief depiction of "Canadians" is hilarious. But as a Bond parody, it never gets running. As a comedy, it's definitely low on laughs. And as an amusing character piece, it never earns our sympathy. (In theaters, July 2003)

KILL BILL VOLUME 1 (2003, Thriller/Crime): Given that this is the first part of a single work, it's probably best to wait until VOLUME 2 to comment on the whole work. But for those Tarantino mega-fans, there's no doubt that Quentin is back doing what he knows best. Tons of references, oodles of cool, plenty of unusual thrills and a love for flashy cinematography makes even this first volume a breath of fresh air in a mainstream landscape dominated by hack directors and by-the-numbers movies. It speaks volumes, I think, that the imagined reality of the film feels completely comfortable. I'm a film geek and this half of KILL BILL makes me happy because I'm a film geek. I'm still not convinced that splitting the film in half was a good decision, but the measured pace at which KILL BILL unfolds makes the anticipation and the suspense of the direction work in its favour. Otherwise, well, there are plenty of nice things to say about the acting, the action, the gore (or black-and-white abstraction of gore), the self-indulgence, the soundtrack and/or the very black humour. But we'll wait until Volume 2 to do that. One thing is sure, though, and it's that I'll be there opening day for the second half of it. (In theaters, October 2003)

THE LAST SAMURAI (2003, War/Drama): There is something very, very curious in this film, in the way it tries to sell us a romantic vision of pre-industrial Japan, complete with a rural fantasy, impeccable honour codes and a shaggy Tom Cruise. It's a beautiful film, no doubt about it: The "Samurais in the mist" sequence is simply astonishing. But eventually, even the lush cinematography fails to hide a growing discomfort with the story as portrayed on screen. There are other annoyances too, such as the plot shortcuts taken as our stalwart warrior-hero is able to learn pretty much all there is to enjoy about the samurai way of life (including the katana) in one short winter. Still, THE LAST SAMURAI ranks highly on the year's list of film through sheer competence. The battle scenes are immersive, Cruise once again makes a likable protagonist, and the Japanese are portrayed honourably. It's a pretty good time-travel film in how it easily wraps up its audience in late-nineteenth century rural Japan. Certainly not a waste of time. (In theaters, December 2003)

THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN (2003, Action/Fantasy): Argh. One can say a lot of nasty things about bad movies, but this is something else; a fantastic premise gone horribly dull, a botched adaptation and a waste of talents. A well-written LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN would have been a movie for the ages, a landmark in a tired field of adventure blockbusters. The original graphic novel is a wonder of literacy; alas, the film was executed by lesser artists. Only the title, character names and basic concepts of the original work has survived: A team of literary superheroes is assembled to battle threats to the Victorian empire. Some initial changes work well (Dorian Gray), some don't (Tom Sawyer) and some are simply useless (Mina Harker, vampire!) But what sounds like a promising start turns sour as soon as the team is assembled and they're off on their first assignment in Venice. This ill-conceived sequence stretches suspension of disbelief and snaps it. (Where to begin? The submarine fitting in the canals, the car chase, the reaction of the crowd, the dumb "firebreak" idea or the snipers standing by just in case?) From then on, all the fancy steampunk designs, cool Sean Connery moments or action sequences can't save this film from a disappointed verdict. It's not bad enough to be ridiculous (the set design alone is worth our attention), but it's not good enough to do justice to the premise. If you're going to set up all of these interesting elements only to ignore their potential, why bother? (In theaters, July 2003)

THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN (2003, Action/SF): A year later, this film is still as frustrating as it was on opening weekend: So much potential wasted! The DVD at least has the decency to offer a making-of that's more interesting than the usual promo stuff found on other blockbusters. The audio commentaries aren't bad either, though it's kind of interesting to hear the producer of the film spend a significant amount of his time answering fan-boy criticism by repeating that it's "just a fantasy". Uh-huh. (On DVD, August 2004)

LEGALLY BLONDE 2 (2003, Comedy): Given my tepid reaction to the original LEGALLY BLONDE, I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of a sequel, especially one that has the supreme hypocrisy to say something about animal testing on cosmetics. Being branded, herded and searched for recording devices at the advance screening did nothing to make me any more favourable to the film. Alas, the movie itself is its own worst enemy: It would have been worth it to be branded, herded and searched not to this this lame attempt at a political comedy. Seldom have I loathed a character as much as Elle Woods, the obnoxious brain-dead pinkish scourge of the Eastern Seaboard. LEGALLY BLONDE 2 sidesteps any political debate between right and left to end up squarely between dumb and stupid. Everything fails in this lifeless so-called comedy: The jokes seldom earn more than a pained smile (with an exception for the perfect delivery of "your dogs are gay"), and one comes out of the film with a renewed appreciation for soft-money campaign contributions. Elle Woods goes to Washington vowing to triumph on the strength of her naive convictions and to avoid the pitfalls of blackmail, networking and insider information... and end up doing exactly that. It would be depressingly hypocritical if we actually had a sense that anyone cared. But aside from the thirty seconds of dumbed-down political content, LEGALLY BLONDE 2 is made for those people who coo at dog outfits... you know who you are. Thank you very much for inflicting this piece of trash on us. (In theatres, June 2003)

THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE (2003, Thriller): For a while, I was nearly taken by this film. It starts with an interesting conceit, okay characters and a first third in which it's possible to discern some intellectual/philosophical depth. Plus, Kevin Spacey is almost always a pleasure to watch even when (like in here) he shamelessly overacts and gives a smarmy edge to whatever role he's playing. But what becomes more and more obvious as the film progresses is that it will stop at nothing to wring out suspense out of situations that don't have any. The discovery of the first tape is an example; the second visit to the crime scene is another. Suddenly, you may start asking questions about the plot, and it's an exercise that's almost always fatal to such a thinly-plotted story like this. Whether it's an ominous cowboy or a cell phone that doesn't work or a car that breaks down, THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE transforms itself from a decent "issues" drama to a cheap thriller. And if you haven't been paying attention, the wretched conclusion will drive home the point that this film doesn't make sense. Not from an internal logic viewpoint (the ending nullifies what the "heroes" have tried to accomplish) and not from an external thematic viewpoint either (whatever message the film had, if it had one, got lost in the plot mechanics). Sure, it has a dramatic inertia that keeps it bearable... but this is the type of film that gives "twist ending" a bad name. (In theaters, February 2003)

LOST IN TRANSLATION (2003, Romance/Drama): It happens once in a whileit once in a while: a low-budget film, helmed by someone somehow known to critics, featuring a veteran actor doing something different. Add to that some "naturalistic" cinematography, almost accidental directing, a paucity of dialogue and an unconventional bittersweet conclusion and you get an instant favourite amongst real critics. Meanwhile, general audiences and wannabe critics like myself are likely to remain unimpressed. There is, to be fair, a lot to like about LOST IN TRANSLATION: Bill Murray's hangdog melancholy is well-exploited, Scarlett Johansson is huggable and the various difficulties they having in coming to term with Japanese culture are a lot of fun to witness. (Heck, the culture shock alone is almost worth a viewing by itself, despite my own reservations about the rest of the film) But as the movie drags on to its conclusion, it's hard to avoid thinking that two hours are a long time in which to tell something that doesn't happen. Many scenes just drag on and on, not exactly helped by the overindulgent editing and Sofia Coppola's approximate directing. The cinematography lacks crispness and the dialogues are in need of some further deliberation, but the languid pacing is by far the film's worst characteristic. Halfway though the film, I had a mini-epiphany about realism versus polish in filmmaking, and the reasons why my vote was firmly on the unnatural side, but it didn't seem as convincing once the credits rolled. Maybe I'll revisit it one day, but one thing is for sure: There's not much of a reason to watch this film again. It's OK, and it's likely to appeal far more to older viewers. Oh, and Academy voters. Go figure. (In theaters, January 2004)

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003, Fantasy/Action): I may not be the biggest fan of THE LORD OF THE RINGS, but the though of "reviewing" part or all of it makes me feel vaguely ashamed, as it sometimes happens when a film leaves the bounds of ordinary criticism to just become "it", a referent about which critical qualifiers are useless. Certainly, THE RETURN OF THE KING has a lot of spectacular visual effects and an overabundance of finales and a place for a really good knock-knock joke ("Who's there?" "Aragorn" "Aragorn who?" "Aragornna KICK YOUR BUTT!") and some killer action scenes and exemplary direction and all that jazz. But really, I couldn't care less about a star rating or the fact that this third volume is better or worse than any of the two others: It concludes a monumental fantasy epic in such a way that I can only gasp at the magnitude of the 11-some hours achievement. This is pretty much the best LORD OF THE RINGS adaptation we could hope for. And that is all that is worth writing down. (In theaters, December 2003)

LOVE ACTUALLY (2003, Romance/Comedy): You don't have to be a screenwriter to appreciate the achievement that is LOVE ACTUALLY, but it helps: It's hard enough to juggle one or two plotlines that anyone with the guts to try to keep seven or eight such stories going at the same time must be congratulated for the effort. Not all subplots are as equally effective, but it doesn't matter very much when they're all wrapped in layers of such sugary holiday sweetness. Writer/Directory Richard Curtis succeeds more than he fails in producing a superior romantic comedy, one that is as funny as it is uplifting. He's helped with a cast of stars (Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson and Colin Firth are as good as always), judicious pacing and a hip sensibility: I'm surely not the only one to find it very interesting that standing up to an "American bully" president would come across as a plot point worth cheering for. Rarely has there been such an effective holiday romantic comedy. One one level, LOVE ACTUALLY is pure manipulation; on the other, it's truly effective. Bring the whole family or snuggle with your loved one, enjoy the minimalist elegance of the script or indulge in the unabashed sentimentality of it all. (In theaters, January 2004)

MAMBO ITALIANO (Canada, 2003, Comedy): It's easy to dismiss this film as just another in the "Canadian ethnic sitcom" category best-represented by MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING, but there's a lot to like about MAMBO ITALIANO, from its hip cinematic beginning to the unconventional ending. A leading contender for the title of "most innocuous gay-themed movie ever made", MAMBO ITALIANO leaves no comedic stone unturned at the intersection of Italian-Canadians, gay men, dysfunctional families and neurotic siblings. (Claudia Ferri steals every scene she's in as a typical sister with problems) It's all quite charming, even though the rhythm of the film's first thirty minutes isn't sustained and slowly steers in more dramatic territory. The third quarter of the film is markedly slower, but it picks up for a spirited finale. No, it's no classic for the ages, but it's more than able to hold its own against non-Quebec productions. There are plenty of good performances, plenty of good jokes and plenty of good fun. The language may be a touch too crude at times for this to be a film for the whole family, but it's certainly charming enough to be of interest to a large public. (In theaters, September 2003)

A MAN APART (2003, Crime/Thriller): Yes, I think Vin Diesel is The Man, the most credible action hero on the market right now. But even he can't save this tepid attempt at a "thriller", packed with stuff we've seen elsewhere before. It's not as if the "crazed vigilante cop" shtick hadn't been done before, but to do it with such a lack of energy is almost fatal. The film never plays to Diesel's strength, except for two scenes (a shakedown in front of a hairdresser, and an undercover transaction that goes horribly wrong) that seem out of place. Replace Diesel with some other no-name actor, and A MAN APART would have gone straight to video. Everything else is average and scarcely worth paying attention to. (In Theatres, April 2003)

MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD (2003, War/Adventure): Yarr, matey! Step aboard this grandiose nautical adventure! Come alongside our twelve-year-old sailors as they learn to be men while battling certain death at sea! You say that you've already seen a nautical adventure this year in PIRATES OF THE CARRIBBEAN? Well hold your tongue, young lass! For MASTER AND COMMANDER is no barrel of laughter, and Russell Crowe can musket-whip Johnny Depp any day of the week! 'Tis amusing, but not quite fitting that the park-ride movie would be the story-heavy champ of the two even as the literary adaptation would end up feeling like a series of adventures, but don't let that drive you away, landlubber! There's a lot to see here, from a corker of storm to a stop on the Galapagos Islands, along with enough sea combat to wet your whistle! No, I don't know whence you're from, but don't worry; you'll fit right in our indistinguishable cast. Of course, our ship is the co-star of the film! With today's digital technology, we can simply board and pillage any previous film and present it all in glorious surround-sound! Granted, our good director Peter Weir can't be bothered to cut a long sweeping take, but we still put up a pretty good fight in two quick cuts! Come in! Come in! We offer all of the advantages of safe cinematic time-travel without the drudgery of TIMELINE! (In theaters, November 2003)

MATCHSTICK MEN (2003, Drama/Crime): Yet another con man film at a time where we've seen a number of them in recent months. But even though, yes, there is a con both on the characters and on the audience, the heart of the film is more of a character study, starring Nicholas Cage in another deeply neurotic performance. MATCHSTICK MEN is a story of how conning is affecting the protagonist, and how he's able to come to a point where he's able to kick the habit (sort of) and become a better person. Director Ridley Scott once again throws just about everything he's got on the screen in the hope that some of it will stick and the result, as may be expected, is very uneven. Some of Cage's antics are annoying, but as usual he's never as good as when he's foaming with rage. (Just wait until late in the film). It's not a particularly deep film, but there's a twist, a few good scenes, and high-grade production values that are seldom uninteresting. It's not flashy, but it does the job. Some will have a problem with the happy ending (which reportedly wasn't to be found in Eric Garcia's original novel), but it fits with the overall thrust of the movie, which is the story of a man who happens to be a criminal and not the story of a criminal per se. (In theaters, September 2003)

THE MATRIX RELOADED (2003, Science-Fiction/Action): Yes, this film has flaws. Deep, serious flaws that show the self-indulgence in which the Wachowski Brothers were allowed to wallow. Falsely profound dialogue, pretentious pontificating, overlong fights, flaccid editing, ordinary writing and lopsided structural beats. Those would be enough to give pause to anyone not already plugged into the Matrix. But that's my case, and as a fan boy, I'm pleased as punch with this second volume. THE MATRIX was an accident: A nerd-triumphant story that touched a mainstream nerve thanks to a few conceptual kicks and an impeccable sense of style. MATRIX RELOADED is all geek no mainstream: I would be bold as to suggest that if you don't understand why there's a Giant Robot scene in this film, you don't deserve to watch it: The Wachowskis now have all the means in the world to put on-screen every single little geeky obsession they've dreamt about for years, and they're going to do it. While the result can be exasperating (some oh-so-profound dialogues are really meaningless --or worse, trite!) they are as often exhilarating: The "gratuitous" Seraph-Neo fight is straight out of kung-fu clichés, the equally-motivated Neo/Smith fight is an anthology sequence and that fourteen-minute car chase scene, well, it redefines the standard for action goodness. The conceptual punch of THE MATRIX RELOADED is equally as strong, though unfortunately back-loaded in the last five minutes, leading to a badly-paced film that could have used some tightening. Ditto with the editing, though fortunately the Wachowskis still have an impressive flair for fantastic camera work. (Best example: the gorgeous rave scene, which runs too long, diluting the strong images into something approaching self-parody.) But enough with the unkind comparisons to the original, or to our own long-idealized sequel: THE MATRIX RELOADED is a heady SF/action blockbuster, a perfect blend of geeky stuff I'm actually content to pay to see. MATRIX REVOLUTIONS can't come soon enough. (In Theatres, May 2003)

THE MATRIX RELOADED (2003, Science-fiction/Action): Yikes; I was afraid that a second viewing might lead me to this unpleasant conclusion: No, THE MATRIX RELOADED isn't as good as its prequel. The editing is loose, the dialogues are average, the pacing is slow, especially when you measure it against the ideal set by the Wachowski Brothers in their previous effort. Oh, I don't regret paying to see it again; even on a second viewing, the film still holds up better than most other first-run viewings. The action sequences are deeply impressive, especially considering the flawless integration of most CGI. (Unlike the first film, there are only two obvious "bullet time" moments, and they flow a lot better than previously) The images are strong, and so is the direction. A lot of the plot doesn't make much sense (and threatens to make even less less sense the more I think about it), but I'd like to maintain reservations on that topic until I see the sequel. At this point, five months away from the concluding chapter of the trilogy, it's difficult to get a proper grip on THE MATRIX RELOADED. Well, except for one thing: It could have been much better. Closer to what we wanted to see, that is. (In theatres, June 2003)

THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS (2003, Science-Fiction/Action): Sometimes, it's best to take one's inner fanboy and temporarily lock it in a cage. Otherwise, said fanboy would rant on and on about how, even with its problems, THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS is one of the year's most enjoyable film just because it so happens to be one of the very few hard-core SF films of 2003. Well, stuff the fanboy and let slip the vitriol of betrayed expectations. By far the most infuriating thing about this third MATRIX is how it doesn't even answer the dozens of questions raised by the second film. It lets all the balls drop, one by one, until the juggler is left saying "sucker!" But the film's flaws certainly don't stop there: The elegant focus of the first film was diminished in the second and finds itself crudely forgotten here: all is chaos and confusion, whether you're talking about the dialogue, the themes, the visuals or the direction. In the process, all of what made the first volume so worthwhile has been ignored. The characters are emotionless parodies of themselves. The dialogues are painfully predictable. The special effects aren't half as spectacular as Tharini Mudaliar in her all-too-brief appearance. Then the conclusion sinks into the woo-woo morass that has afflicted so much anime in the past; a pointless fight which only concludes when the screenwriter simply decides so, and in which the viewer has to perform all of the intellectual justifying work. Ay, yay-yay, what an ignominious end for a trilogy that had started so well. The Wachowski brothers pretty much blew up all accumulated credentials with this misguided effort, and effortlessly proved the law of diminishing returns: However much money and chaos you put on screen, sometimes it's just not worth the effort. It's fitting, in so many ways, that even the Rage Against The Machine-less soundtrack is the lesser of all three films. (In theaters, November 2003)

THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS (2003, Science Fiction/Action): Nope, still haven't changed my mind about the film: It's a lousy end to a trilogy that had started so well, but there's still enough pure Science Fiction content and images to make me happy. This initial DVD edition, however, has a lot of good stuff in reserve: Plenty of special-effects supplements (you won't believe some of the stuff they had to use for the final fight!), some useless background material (including a badly-designed collection of stills and "historical" information) and an intriguing look at a MMORPG that will probably look quite silly in two or three years. Die-hard MATRIX fans ought to get this, if only for the sake of completing the series. (Second Viewing, On DVD, April 2004)

THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS (2003, Science-Fiction): I suppose that only the most ardent fans of the film will have the patience to watch both sets of commentary tracks on THE MATRIX ULTIMATE EDITION trilogy. Those brave few who do, however, will get much out of "The Philosophers" commentary: Ken Wilbur and Cornell West each bring a perspective on the meaning of THE MATRIX trilogy that does much to add depth to the second and especially third segments. Don't get me wrong: I still thing that this third volume is over-indulgent, long and falsely profound, but Wilbur's idea about the trilogy being the story of the re-unification of disparate realms (body, mind and soul; blue green and gold; Zion, Matrix and Source) in a new trinity (a Neo/Trinity, one might say) brings a different light to it. Not bad, but still not recommended to anyone who's not already a freakishly obsessive fan. (Third viewing) (On DVD, May 2005)

THE MEDALLION (2003, Action/Comedy): Can you say "cookie cutter"? I knew you could. Now, can you say "defective cookie cutter"? The problem with this Jackie Chan film is not that it's essentially a rehash of many other films of his, but that its lack of originality is not compensated by anything else. For a putative "comedy", it's not quite funny (and it's even worse when it does try to be funny: Yes, Lee Evans, I'm talking about you), it doesn't develop its characters and it stumbles on amusing moments more than it creates them. (The least said about the "extra" sound effects, the better) THE MEDALLION is frustrating in that even though the direction has some inspired moments, they're undermined by the uncomfortable staging, by-the-numbers plot and overall lack of spirit. What about the wife with the secret identity? We want a pay-off! Action-wise, the influence of wire-fu is obvious, but even that can't really raise the level of action above a certain hum-drum adequacy. Battles between super-powerful immortals should be more exciting, damnit! Jackie is getting old, and he has certain reached the age when pairing him with a nubile twenty-something (Here: the wonderful Claire Forlani) is getting yucky rather than romantic. Stop it before it reaches Woody-Allen levels of ickiness! Other aspects of the usual Chan personae are also failing: his goofy antics are increasingly out of sync with his age. Maybe it's time for a career re-alignment, as far away from Hollywood as possible given the American industry's tendency to produce clunker (RUSH HOUR 2) after clunker (THE TUXEDO) for him. We love ya, Jackie; we just wish you were in better movies. (In Theatres, August 2003)

MYSTIC RIVER (2003, Drama/Crime): This is a film that, yes, revolves around a murder investigation. Cops discover the body, accumulate clues, interrogate suspects and eventually catch the killer. But where MYSTIC RIVER leaves more conventional crime thrillers behind is in how it doesn't limit itself to just a genre story: By focusing on the victim and the impact of her death on friends and family, writer Brian Helgeland gives all the necessary material to director Clint Eastwood to craft a film with more ambitious goals. The result may not be perfect (the pacing is a bit too slow, and the ending is intentionally frustrating) but it's still a good film. The cast is impressive (it's hard to pick a favourite performance when you've got Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins and Lawrence Fishburne to choose from) and the investigation moves at a delicious pace. What's not so compelling is the drama side of the equation, which beats up viewers over the head over and over again with the same points, symbolism and torpid pacing. Ironically enough, much of the same story could have been told without the childhood abuse tale that frames the film. The ending takes a quick turn toward tragedy as not all the guilty are punished and not all the innocents are given justice. But it's a film with a lot of content, and some of it is bound to hit even as some manages to miss the target. Not bad. (In theaters, January 2004)

NATIONAL SECURITY (2003, Action/Comedy): It's no secret that I consider Martin Lawrence to be one of the most useless actors working today. While he certainly doesn't help NATIONAL SECURITY (an early candidate for "worst-of-year" status), he's far from being the only thing wrong with this project. Almost always feeling like the result of high-speed crash between two very different projects, NATIONAL SECURITY doesn't take a long time to suck. From the first scene onward, the uneasy mix of police drama (complete with a gunned-down partner) and urban comedy (complete with an unending stream of oh-so-witty police brutality jokes) grates more than it amuses. Lawrence's limitations are more painful than ever: His character is repulsive (Yet irresistible to women? Give me a break: he's a toad!), never sympathetic, unbearable when attempting to be sensitive and simply loathsome. Not a good foundation for a buddy comedy, especially when buddy Steve Zahn is wasted in a role that seems to belong in another film. The script is variously clichéd, unconvincing, senseless and drawn-out. Yes, the girls are hot and the action has its moments, but the climax is generally unimpressive, and there is a limit to the number of times we can see a car crash through a plate window without becoming jaded. There's no really gentle way to say it: NATIONAL SECURITY is a big dumb failure, a trash movie even by the standards of Martin Lawrence films. (In theaters, January 2003)

ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO (2003, Action): Yes, señor! El Mariachi is back in the biggest instalment of the trilogy. This film may not be a purely operatic as DESPERADO, but it's certainly a lot more epic, what with criminals, policemen, soldiers, mercenaries, the FBI, the CIA and the DEA all gunning around during a coup to take control of Mexico on the Day of the Dead. Fans of Robert Rodriguez don't need to be told why they should rush to see this film. Once again, Mexican/western imagery is married with Hong-Kong style to produce an action film that runs on pure atmospheric adrenalin. Antonio Banderas is cooler than ever as the iconic "El", but Johnny Depp owns the film as an unhinged American agent. (Few other people would be able to get away with such classic lines as "Are you a Mexican or a Mexican't?") Salma Hayek makes the best of her limited screen-time (the trailers lie to you), whereas nearly all of the other players (including the sultry Eva Mendes and the wonderfully rough Danny Trejo) also turn in very good performances. Only Willem Defoe looks out of place in a role that doesn't give him much to do. The rest of the film is all sick black humour and unlikely stunts, with terrific cinematography and quick pacing. It's not for everyone, obviously, but it's a lot of fun for those who like that style of film. (In theaters, September 2003)

ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO (2003, Action): Robert Rodriguez fans already know that the man can't make an uninteresting film and that the supplemental material on his "special edition" DVDs are often more interesting than most movies. So it is that the DVD of this third segment in the "EL MARIACHI" trilogy is jam-packed with fascinating extras and plenty of information on the wonders of digital filmmaking. The film itself is still a lot of fun, in an operatic vein that seems so fresh after countless average action films. But the early 2001 (!)guerilla-style making of the film, using unproven digital technology, proves to be as fascinating as the end results. "Film is dead" is the title of a fascinating featurette included on the DVD, and it's hard to remain unconvinced after seeing the excellent results. Other featurettes complete the package, along with an excellent audio commentary by the director. Extra fun is included in the form of a hilarious "ten minute cooking school" and an excellent tour through Rodriguez's Troublemaker Studios, located (where else?) in his refurbished garage. Once again, cinephiles and budding directors will find their money's worth in this DVD (Second Viewing)(On DVD, March 2004)

ONG-BAK (aka [ONG BAK: THE THAI WARRIOR], Thailand, 2003, Action): Built around the acrobatic skills of Tony Jaa (billed, with good reason, as "the next Jackie Chan"), this movie is best appreciated as a dance exhibition involving plenty of kick-boxing. In the grand tradition of martial arts action films, ONK BAK features a plot just simple enough to lead from one eye-popping action scene to another. The camera work is substandard, the acting is primitive, the dialogue is ordinary and the image quality suffers from the Thailand-France-USA lineage of the film (Luc Besson's efforts are the only reason why this import film made it to American cineplexes; a few French subtitles subsist on the print copy), but that's not the point. The point is in showing Tony Jaa jumping, leaping, kicking, punching and neck-snapping his share of obstacles. Jaa's on-screen personality is still a blank (he doesn't have the goofy charm of Jackie Chan or the good-boy cool of Jet Li), but the physical talent is definitely there. Warning; this is a brutal skull-cracking film, far removed from the gentle ballet of what has recently come to be known as "kung-fu films" in the West. Probably best appreciated at home on a smaller screen, as the Xth-generation copy looks grainy and cheap on a big screen. (In theaters, February 2005)

OPEN WATER (2003, Thriller): There is definitely something to be said about the purity of this film's premise: What if you found yourself stuck in the middle of the ocean in a scuba suit? There's an innate terror there as the situation is so far removed from the daily reality of us land-lubbers. For more fun, add in some jellyfishes, wounds, dehydration, exposure and the usual sharks. Visually, the director cleverly lets the camera hang only a touch above the stranded divers' heads as they bob up and down in the ever-changing ocean landscape. Yup, some good stuff here --and I'm not even talking about Blanchard Ryan's completely gratuitous nude scene. But what could have been a one-note premise turns out to be exactly that and even at a mere 72 minutes, this film still feels overlong. Granted, the pedestrian screenplay doesn't do much to heighten our involvement: The two leads are basically yuppie scum, and while their everyman quality gives a this-could-be-you quality to their plight, it doesn't go beyond that. Visually, it's both a shame and a achievement to see that the film was shot in muddy digital video. Sure, it means that a film that otherwise wouldn't have existed was shown on thousands of cinema screens across America. On the other hand, well, it looks like digital video on a two-storey silver screen: There is no arguing that this is a bottom-basement budget film. So; a mixed bag? Well, yes, but I suspect that the clincher will be the cheap ending, which makes the whole thing feel quite irrelevant. Eh: I call it low-budget film syndrome. (In theaters, August 2004)

THE ORDER (2003, Horror): Weak stuff, very weak stuff. While there's something interesting in the idea of someone who burdens himself with the sins of others (hey, I was raised a good French Canadian Catholic, you know?), it's certainly not a limp effort like THE ORDER that's going to fulfil that potential. Bad pretentious dialogue is actually one of the film's lesser problems: the lack of interest in what's going on is far more damaging. There is little here that we haven't seen anywhere else: even CONSTANTINE was a lot more fun to watch. The actors don't even try to improve things: It's worth noting that once-hot Shannyn Sossamon has slunk back in obscurity since this last big-budget effort, which isn't completely surprising given the lack of screen presence she exhibits here. If there's one thing saving this film from complete collapse, it's the beautiful cinematography and the sometimes-competent camera work: It may be a boring horror film, but it's also a very pretty one, and that's at least something to raise it above the usual scary-Catholic snoozefests. Weak comforts for a weak film. (On DVD, October 2006)

OUT OF TIME (2003, Thriller): There's not a lot that's special about this film, but frankly there is no need to be fancy when you're doing a Florida crime story. In this case, director Carl Franklin simply lets his stars do the work, whether it's the always-dependable Denzel Washington, ladies Eva Mendes and Sanaa Lathan (both scorching hot) or the lush Floridian scenery. The story of an adulterous sheriff manipulated in a very risky situation, OUT OF TIME depends on an ever-increasing pit of lies, a plot device which usually drives me nuts but doesn't actually work out too badly here. The tension increases as a basically decent protagonist allows one mistake to drag him deeper and deeper in trouble. Some of it gets ridiculous (Fax machine thrills! Scanning software-fu! Power cable action! PDA-GPS denouement!) but the film as a whole moves swiftly to its formulaic conclusion with nary a pause. No crime classic, that's for sure, but there's more than enough here for good old-fashioned thrills and entertainment. (In theaters, October 2003)

PAYCHECK (2003, Science-Fiction/Action) is very depressing as it leaves little doubt in John Woo's declining skills since FACE/OFF. The director has been quoted as being bored with action films, and the boredom is all there on the screen, in a directing job that is so unremarkable that it doesn't even feel like Woo. The weak script doesn't help, but when even the action scenes are downright pedestrian, it doesn't leave much to watch. Oh, Ben Affleck is adequate in the type of young-professional role he does best, but Uma Thurman simply shows up in a bad haircut and goes through the motions like the rest of the cast. (Only Colm Feore is great as the heavy.) The screenplay is packed with annoying clichés and doubtful contrivances that stand out even in a story predicated on the ability to preview the future. Ironically enough, viewers will also feel uncomfortably prescient in knowing what is about to happen. (Among other weak spots, the film doesn't "flash-forward" three years later as the protagonist enters the process, delivering a useless scene in between) Oh, there are a few nice touches (the bookstore fight visibly takes place in the Science-Fiction section, Einstein can "see" the future, etc.) but the whole thing just feels lazy, what with armed guards standing guard in front of a lab and protagonists escaping fireballs with a predictable ease. Blah. To be fair, PAYCHECK probably represents a decent time-waster, but it's hard to accept such ordinary fare from John Woo. (In theaters, December 2003)

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN (2003, Adventure): Anyone looking for a good swashbuckling adventure shouldn't look any further: This is this summer's MASK OF ZORRO. Deftly combining romance, adventure, comedy, horror and action, PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN has something for everyone and comes closest to "the total movie experience for everyone" so dearly desired by entire families. As a combination of all these things, it inevitably runs too long (especially in its third quarter, just as things should start to accelerate) and doesn't exactly shines with economy at 141 minutes. But what's on screen is well-worth our attention, starting with Johnny Depp's delightfully oddball interpretation of Jack Sparrow. It's a textbook example of how a good actor can take an ordinary role and transform it into something mesmerizing. Even though it's a supporting role, it ends up being the focus of the movie, even despite Orlando Bloom's serviceable portrait of a romantic protagonist, Geoffrey Rush's compelling villain and Keira Knightley's luminous performance as the lovely blonde lass. The novelty effect of seeing a big-screen pirate adventure after so many years may account for part of PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN's appeal, but there's more to it than that: It's a really good film, with a rather good script, top-notch technical credits and a solid core of actors. Is it summer-2003's definitive movie? I wouldn't be displeased if it was. (In theaters, July 2003)

PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL (2003, Adventure/Fantasy): I revisited this summer spectacular right on time before the release of the sequel, and I'm glad I did: The original film is accessible to just about everyone, but it's also a solid piece of blockbuster screen-writing. Turn on the screen-writers' audio commentary track and you'll find that the film is a lot tighter than you may expect, and that the layers of details eventually add up to a better experience. The film itself, of course, remains a treat and a half even with a few year's worth of hindsight and familiarity. Johnny Depp makes the film work through his odd take on Captain Jake Sparrow, a role that could have been played straight without a shred of distinction... or interest. Coming out of nowhere in 2003, PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN remains one of the better summer blockbusters of the past few years... and it's just about ready to be eclipsed by its sequel. (Second viewing, On DVD, July 2006)

THE RECRUIT (2003, Thriller): Espionage and Al Pacino are similar in that they're both endlessly fascinating, even in strictly routine situations. Here, Pacino plays another one of his brash mentor roles (this time to rising star Colin Farrell) in a film about the CIA training regimen. Sort of an espionage HARRY POTTER, if you prefer. The story is a bit too insistent on the idea that "nothing is what it seems", because ultimately, that's the idea behind the (easily guessable) Big Twist. Even then, though, THE RECRUIT remains steadily entertaining. The training sequences are serviceable, and the plotline can hold anyone's interest for a while even if the element of surprise isn't there. This isn't a terribly spectacular film, and it will probably be in the middle of the pack come year's end, but it works well. Keep your eyes open for a few Kurt Vonnegut references, from Cat's Cradle to (heh-heh!) Breakfast of Champions. Oh, and the "George Bush Center for Intelligence" quick gag. By the end, though, one ethical question still remains unresolved, maybe an indication of the film's headlong rush to a serviceable conclusion. (In theaters, January 2003)

LES RIVIERES POURPRES 2: LES ANGES DE L'APOCALYPSE (THE CRIMSON RIVERS 2: ANGELS OF THE APOCALYPSE, France, 2003, Action/Thriller): There's no use pretending that this is a classic for the ages, but this darkish thriller not only feels better than the original film, it represents a small step up for Luc Besson's screenplays. Oh, it's still rife with silly stuff, coincidences and frustrating developments, but at least it's not as broadly silly as some of his more recent material such as TAXI 3 and YAMAKASI. Even his dumb ideas have a certain panache: It's hard not to smile at a film mixing apocalyptic imagery, monk ninjas and Nazi revivalists. (Whew!) Sure, the characters are wafer-thin and the conclusion is lame... but when the entire film is so drenched in atmosphere, there's reason enough to be interested. Olivier Dahan does a fine job at the helm, showing what he's capable of in a series of spooky scenes that borrow much from other films but still manage to create an appropriate atmosphere. (Ooh, crucifixes) Jean Reno is as good as usual in his reprise of "Commissaire Neimans" while newcomer Benoît Magimel is a good-enough replacement for Vincent Cassel's character in the original. It all adds up to a pleasant-enough film, perhaps a bit tired about the 1999 wave of "Christian apocalypse" horror films (BLESS THE CHILD, STIGMATA, END OF DAYS, etc.) but nonetheless not too shabby. (In French) (In theaters, August 2004)

RUNAWAY JURY (2003, Thriller): It doesn't take much to make me happy at the movies, and this film has it all; a well-told plot, plenty of drama and action, taut pacing, good characters, a superb cast, interesting direction and top-notch editing. It's adapted from John Grisham's good novel, and "adapted" is the word; substantial changes made to the storyline end up delivering a better, more interesting plot. The cast is filled with great actors, from John Cusak to Rachel Weisz (woo!) to Gene Hackman to Dustin Hoffman: All of them have their standout moments. Particular props must go to director Gary Fleder, whose snappy style allows the film to steamroll any objection through sheer momentum. It's rare enough to see a legal thriller so confidently helmed that it's an extra-pleasing surprise to find out that RUNAWAY JURY is actually quite good indeed. Only the ending sort of peters out, with a rather obvious revelation being dropped with the sound of a splat and a too-touching moment that distract from an otherwise quite cynical film. It's not a masterpiece, but it's a rare example of slick escapist entertainment, a completely successful attempt at suspense with none-too-obvious elements. (In theaters, October 2003)

THE RUNDOWN (2003, Comedy/Adventure): Well, that's a surprise. After a less-than-fantastic first starring role in THE SCORPION KING, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson strikes back as a cook/henchman in THE RUNDOWN, and is lucky enough to find himself in one of the best adventure buddy-comedies of the year. That's not meant as overwhelming praise, but then again this is the type of film that works well because it's so surprising. The fun begins in the very first scene, as the protagonist slaps down a football team in order to accomplish his mission ("Can't we do it some other day? I thought they had good chances this year." he first warns) While the quick-cut action direction isn't particularly endearing, it quickly sets up the fun tone of the film and later cedes way to some amazing computer-enhanced shots in which characters get pummelled from multiple angles. Those latter fight scenes (The many-on-one jungle brawl, mostly) are filmed in a manner reminiscent of a hyped-up Jackie Chan film and represent another of the film's happy surprises. Seann William Scott isn't particularly surprising, but he does much better here than in the lukewarm BULLETPROOF MONK. The luscious Rosario Dawson also has a good turn as a bartender/rebel leader, but no one -of course- comes close to the genius of Christopher Walken, who transforms a regular antagonist role into something very special. ("There's been a... complication, a... twist in the plot...") While THE RUNDOWN has its share of silly, stupid or insipid moments (I'll pass on the monkey business, except to say that the use of monkeys is once again confirmed to be an act of creative desperation), it succeeds more often than it fails and the overall result is a lot of fun. (In theaters, September 2003)

SCARY MOVIE 3 (2003, Comedy): The good news are that most of the the overly gross moments of the first two films of the series have been removed; what remains may not be too tasteful (decapitations, paedophilia and dismemberment are featured here and there) but at least it's more palatable than before. Veteran spoof director David Zucker overuses slapstick over more amusing silliness (witness the "seven days" exchange), but SCARY MOVIE 3 still feels a lot more respectable for it. Alas, the bad news are that the comedic highlights of the first two films have also been filed off, with an overall result that is a lot more tepid than it should be. The film floats from one grin to another, with few belly-laughs in between. The visual and cinematographic re-creation of the parodies (SIGNS, THE RING, 8 MILE, etc) is irreproachable, but the film often does next to nothing with the material it's given. Leslie Nielsen, continues to be obnoxious with his usual shtick, though I wonder how many will get the joke of his last appearance in the film. All in all, a rather mixed effort that feels somewhat lazy. Not the bottom of the barrel (and certainly a step up from the past five year's worth of spoof comedies), but still far away from the genre's best efforts. Catch it on TV late at night. (In theaters, October 2003)

SCHOOL OF ROCK (2003, Musical/Comedy): Who would have thought that a rock musical set in a prep school could end up being one of 2003's most family-friendly film? The beauty of SCHOOL OF ROCK's success is not how well it fits a typical inspirational tale around a rock comedy, but how it takes a rock comedy (about "sticking it to The Man") and sets it in a class of ten-years-old. Jack Black is flawless as the lead in this film, with plenty of bright moments as he struts his stuff (watch for a few long takes in which he manages to do, well, almost everything). But the kids are an integral part of this film's success as it manages to juggle nearly a dozen secondary characters without forgetting any of them. While I wasn't completely taken by the first half of the film (stories of deceptive identities just annoy me), it just keeps building until the very last moment, and by the time the last big concert rolls around, SCHOOL OF ROCK isn't anything less than adorable. (In theaters, October 2003)

SEABISCUIT (2003, Drama): It's a movie about a horse. Yes, it's well directed, and it's got a few interesting moments here and there. But in almost any aspect, it's old fashioned. A film that your grandparents would love, had your grandparents been Americans. The dialogue, directing, cinematography, values... good, but unremarkable. Even "the future" so triumphantly promised in the film is comfortably in our own past. Yes, the horse is a metaphor for depression-era America. Get over it. Tobey Maguire is indifferent as Seabiscuit's jockey. Far more interesting are Jeff Bridges as his rich employer and Chris Cooper as a tough horse trainer. Otherwise, well, there isn't much to say about the film: the making-of featurettes included on the DVD are nearly more interesting than the film itself, as they describe how some of the horse-racing scenes were shots and how the writer/director adapted the original book into a script, and then into a series of shots. The true history of Seabiscuit is also quite interesting, though it ends along with the film and not at the true end of the road for this horse and its humans. (The end of their story was, shall we say, rather darker than a Hollywood movie ending.) This is a completely safe family film experience. No edge... but apparently it was good enough for Oscar nominations. (On DVD, January 2004)

SHANGHAI KNIGHTS (2003, Action/Comedy): This ordinary follow-up to 2000's SHANGHAI NOON takes the Jackie Chan / Owen Wilson duo away from the wild west and drops them in Victorian London. Various hijinks ensue, this time more focused on straight comedy than all-out action: Chan, after all, is getting older. It's all fun and entertaining, but the discomfort comes from seeing an original situation being churned in boring limpness. There are winks and nods to Arthur Conan Doyle, Charlie Chaplin, Jack the Ripper and other period icons... but they're lazy and witless. After dozen of clever steampunk books playing around with the Victorian era, it's hard to be amused by dumb name-dropping. Laziness is indeed the style of comedy as practiced here; most of the gags can be seen coming miles away and aren't very funny anyway. Oh well. SHANGHAI KNIGHTS isn't terrible, mind you; just dull and ordinary. The ending is overlong. Anachronisms abound, but you'd expect that, right? Even the bloopers have a forced air, including a cell-phone bit that surely sounded contrived. At least for Jackie Chan fans, it's a definite step back in the right direction after the horrible THE TUXEDO. (In theaters, February 2003)

SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE (2003, Romance/Comedy): After so many years of increasingly unlikely Hollywood romances between decrepit men and nubile starlets, it was about time that someone did a movie about it. Enters writer/director Nancy Meyers, along with pitch-perfect leads Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson. For the first hour or so, SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE is a whole lot of fun: Diane Keaton is frumpy-sexy, Jack Nicholson does his best-ever impression of Jack Nicholson and there's plenty of amusing material. But then the beach house setting is discarded (breaking unity of setting), everything becomes a lot more complicated and the last act drags on for so long that viewers are likely to shout "Something's gotta give, already!" It's said that audiences will forgive anything as long as you give them a happy ending, but the one in SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE is so unlikely that it feels like a cheat. There is little doubt that the script is about a third too long; some judicious cutting (and a better use of secondary characters played by Jon Favreau and Frances McDormand, both of whom disappear when they're most needed) would have made this a snappier, more believable film. As it currently stands, it's self-indulgent and often dull. But at least it's got something to say about those creepy May-October Hollywood relationships. (In theaters, March 2004)

SPY KIDS 3D (2003, Kids/Science-Fiction): As a confirmed aficionado of Robert Rodriguez's entire oeuvre, you won't catch me saying anything overly negative about this last instalment of the SPY KIDS trilogy. But it's certainly not a betrayal if I simply state that this is the lesser film of the series and that its interest mostly lies in its 3D gimmick. As someone who wasn't around in theatres in the early eighties for the previous revival of red-blue 3D glasses, there's a definite curio factor in seeing such a film. Thanks to modern advances in computer animation technology, Rodriguez can essentially do an ultra-cheap CGI-packed 3D film for the pure fun of it. While the story in interesting enough in its typical Rodriguez hyperactivity, the cool CGI and unbeatable sense of fun are no match for the energy and heart-felt nature of the first two films. Oh, it's good enough, no doubt about it: Ricardo Montalban and Daryl Sabara turn in good performances, we get to see Salma Hayek in 3D (with pigtails! woo!), Sylvester Stallone doesn't embarrass himself, there is a great opening sequence with Juni as a private investigator and just about every SPY KIDS character of note is back for the finale. The fun is infectious; the movie works rather well, but please, Hollywood, don't use this as an excuse to make other 3D movies. One each twenty years is more than enough. As a 3D technology, red-blue glasses have to be the cheapest and the muckiest. Unless you're willing to use shutter-LCD glasses, don't bother. (In theaters, July 2003)

SPY KIDS 3D (2003, Kids/Science Fiction): Definitely the lesser of the SPY KIDS trilogy, but certainly not an uninteresting film. Hailed more for its single-handed revival of 3D in theatres than its actual plot, SPY KIDS 3D is still a great action film in its own right. Sure, the plot (and even the cinematography) is meaningless without the 3D. Or is it? One of the many qualities of the DVD edition is to present a colourful 2D version of the film, and it still holds up as a piece of entertainment without the silly glasses. Aficionados of writer/director/auteur Robert Rodriguez already know that his DVDs contain plenty of supplementary content and this one is no exception, with a consistently interesting audio commentary, plenty of documentaries and yet another amusing "ten-minute film school". Fun, fun, fun. (Second Viewing, On DVD, April 2004)

SUR LE SEUIL ([ON THE THRESHOLD] aka EVIL WORDS, Canada, 2003, Horror): I'm not much of an impartial audience whenever this film is concerned: I know Patrick Senécal, the author of the novel on which this film is based (he also co-wrote the script along with director Éric Tessier and has a small part in the film), I enjoyed the novel when it first came out in 1998 and as a member of the French-Canadian SF&F "milieu", I closely followed the whole process leading up to the film's release. This being said, there's a lot to like about this, the first true full-length horror movie made in Québec. To its credit, it doesn't go for the jokey tone that seems to have become the standard for horror nowadays, nor does it try to present a quasi-pornographic spectacle of gore. It's not only true to the original novel, but it's a decent movie in of itself; handled with skill by good technicians and decently brought to life by a group of good actors. Some are better than others: Michel Côté is the rock around which the film revolves, and people like Patrick Huard, Jean L'Italien and Albert Millaire all do fantastic jobs with the characters they're given. The rhythm is steadily engrossing, and the story being told is quite original despite a passing (but coincidental) similarity with John Carpenter's IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS. What I didn't like so much about the film are a few problematic dialogue lines: Either too on-the-nose ("I'm not just a psychologist; I'm also a human being!") or saddled by inconsistent language registers. That last is probably the film's most persistent annoyance, especially given how it fades in and out during the film's duration. I wasn't much of a fan of the static camera work nor the constant over-saturation of the images, but some of that must be weighed against the ridiculous budget of the film. As for the script, well, non-francophones are unlikely to notice the shifting language registers if they see the film with subtitles. As it is, though, my reaction is one of relief; the film we've been waiting so long for is not only here, it's actually quite good. (In theaters, October 2003)

S.W.A.T. (2003, Crime/Action): Everything about this film (trailer, poster, cast) screamed "generic action film" and indeed, the end result is almost a prototypical Hollywood product. There isn't much that's overly noteworthy about SWAT, beginning with the actors' performances. LL Cool J, Samuel L. Jackson, Colin Farrell and Michelle Rodriguez all play roles that aren't dissimilar to their typecasting so far. (On the other hand, Rodriguez gets to smile and wear her hair down—once; it's like a gift from the gods) But there's a real pleasure in seeing these actors play their own archetypes, and this pleasure certainly carries over the rest of the film, which hits pretty much all of its objectives. This look at the L.A.P.D.'s elite force may not be particularly strong in the realism department, but it makes the obligatory action sequences feel more far more organic than in other similar films. One of the shining facets of the script (co-written by David Ayer, who's quickly acquiring a reputation as L.A's foremost cop writer after TRAINING DAY and DARK BLUE) is how willing it it to explore the failures, and so we get a botched escape attempt and an unsuccessful recruitment attempt. This interest for the useless and the usual is often taken too far, though, as with pointless romantic scenes and quite a few sequences that drag on for far too long. The end product clocks in at more than two hours, at least fifteen minutes too many. In the hands of a more efficient director, one who truly understand action, this would have been quite a film; right now it's just adequate. Fun, but not particularly memorable: A good-enough moment for just about everyone. (In Theatres, August 2003)

S.W.A.T. (2003, Action): Take a "generic action film" rubber stamp and apply it on this DVD. While SWAT has a generous number of interesting moments and fun set-pieces, it never achieve anything memorable. Fine actors; fine direction; fine effects, cinematography and soundtrack. But is it anything more? Naah. At least the DVD can rely on the film's solid tech credentials to liven things up, from a fascinating feature on sound design to an "anatomy of a shootout." Also fascinating are the two audio commentaries; the first is with the director and most of the actors, with plenty of sarcasm from Michelle Rodriguez and the usual assortment of quick shooting information from the director. Far more interesting is the sparse second commentary, which brings together several of the screenwriters of the film, some of whom had never met through the film's lengthy production history. The result is kind of a round-table discussion about blockbuster screenwriting, with plenty of inside bitching and some supplementary information on TRAINING DAY and AMERICAN HISTORY X. Fascinating stuff, especially for anyone interested in screenwriting. Certainly more unique than the film itself. (Second viewing, On DVD, April 2004)

TAXI 3 (France, 2003, Action/Comedy): If you've seen the first two TAXI films, this third entry is almost an obvious choice. Don't bother if you're not a fan of the series, though; while there are a few good action sequences, the only thing bigger than the self-indulgence of the production is the indulgence they ask of the audience. Dumb comedy, underwhelming villains and lukewarm action scenes; I'm just about ready to say that writer Luc Besson has run out of ideas. Oh, the actors are cool enough (the opening credit sequence hilariously parodies the Bond series, complete with writhing Santa Clauses) but on most other levels, the film relies on stock situations (pregnancies; oh, ah) and overly dramatic scenes that seem out of place in this context. Some gags (the "torture" and drug jokes) are just lame, and this sentiment escapes from the vignettes to contaminate the entire film. Do we need a TAXI 4? I'm not sure we do. (In theatres, June 2003)

TEARS OF THE SUN (2003, War): Though Bruce Willis has been moving toward John Wayne territory for a while, this is the film that will solidify his image as the newest tough elder/actor/warrior. We've seen Willis in other movies, and here it doesn't take much more than a moment to get a full grasp of his character's professional weariness. That, in itself, works wonders to boost the believability of TEARS OF THE SUN, a war drama that may no be all that credible, but with such an earnest message it's hard to pooh-pooh. Released scant weeks before the start of the Iraq War, this is a film that seems to espouse the "New American Century" party line of vigorous military intervention in face of atrocities. Is this reading too much politics in what should be an action movie? Hey, movies do not exist in a vacuum, and this is only truer in these troubled times. In case anyone misses the allusion during the film, it closes with the famous quote "the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Too bad that it's so inconsistent in its execution: There is something wrong in seeing Monica Belluci's carefully-sweaty cleavage featured in a film where mammary mutilation is used as a manipulative element. There is something weird in seeing an experienced military officer throw everything in jeopardy on flimsy motivations. There's something incongruous in ending a dour military film with an orgy of fuel-air explosions. There's something dumb is seeing someone make a phone call from the deck of an aircraft carrier as planes are leaving. There's a lot to like in TEARS OF THE SUN (terrific combat sequences, lush cinematography, Bruce Willis and Monica Bellucci) but also a lot of elements that don't fit in nearly as well. This isn't a pleasant film, but its biggest mistake is that it still tried to be so. (In theaters, March 2003)

TERMINATOR 3 (2003, Science-Fiction/Action): As a big fan of TERMINATOR 2, this sequel seemed like one of the most superfluous projects of all times. If James Cameron wasn't on board, why even bother? It's not as if T2 needed a sequel. If you really wanted one, well, there's plenty of fan-fiction on the Internet and indeed that's what TERMINATOR 3 truly feels like: Without Cameron's vision, we're stuck with recycled imagery, pedestrian dialogues and mere continuations of previously-established elements rather than genuinely new things. It all cul