Year: 1999

  • Rushmore (1998)

    Rushmore (1998)

    (In theaters, March 1999) It’s unfortunate that Rushmore‘s biggest claim to excellence are the things it doesn’t do rather than what is actually shown on-screen. Granted, it takes genius nowadays to make an original coming-of-age film, but doing so doesn’t ensure success. The star of Rushmore is its protagonist Max, a brilliant (?) student who can’t be categorized with easy clichés but doesn’t necessarily deserve unqualified sympathy from the audience. (Why does he keep on pursuing the teacher when the Asian girl is so much hotter?) The script itself is fairly good, but oscillates between the absurd and the realistic in a way that tantalizes audiences with the promise of a far funnier film.

  • The Parallax View (1974)

    The Parallax View (1974)

    (On TV, March 1999) This conspiracy thriller has a good reputation among film buffs, but it doesn’t really deserve it. The problem is not so much the typically-dark seventies ending, but the lack of satisfaction given by the film. We never adequately find out what’s the matter with the Parallax corporation, or get explanations for some of the most outlandish events. If you add the slooow pacing and the inconsistent directing, the result isn’t really impressive.

  • The Matrix (1999)

    The Matrix (1999)

    (In theaters, March 1999) Oh! That’s probably one of the few things left to say right after seeing this film. Oh cool; a mixture of Hong Kong-style action, far-out existentialist Science-Fiction, straight-out over-the-top theatrics and pure imagination. Oh sharp; the direction is simply wonderful, bringing stylistic excess to mesh with the carefree hyperkinetic action. Oh yeah; this is the best action movie since Face/Off, the best SF film since Dark City and the best comic book visualization since The Fifth Element. Whatever your “Oh!” means, The Matrix is one heck of a ride. Despite the numerous logical flaws in the script (don’t get me started on that…), some juvenile pop-philosophy and uneven pacing (not to mention the criminal underusage of Carrie-Anne Moss), The Matrix gets top marks as a superlatively put-together blockbuster. See it on the biggest screen you can.

    (Second viewing, In theaters, April 1999) I very seldom go twice to the same movie, but The Matrix is definitely cool enough to make me do so. (Okay, granted, I was going with someone else, but still…) Though I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s as good the second time around, it’s still so technically well-done that even another viewing is worthwhile. The Wachowski brother’s direction is very visually exciting and makes even the slow moments (of which there are quite a few, all things reconsidered) interesting. The stoopid science, plot holes and juvenile philosophy are still sore spots, though. Now a surefire choice for my top-ten list of 1999, The Matrix almost compensate for all the other awful SF movies released by Hollywood lately. Almost.

    (Third viewing, On DVD, September 1999) At a time where most SF films tend to be brief flash-in-the-pan visual delights, it’s a relief to see that The Matrix still holds up pretty well to a third viewing. The special effects are still as good, the pop philosophy is still as unsubtle and the bad science still as grating, but the direction, art design and acting each do a lot to maintain interest. The DVD is exceedingly well-done, packed with a “Making of…” feature, two short special effects documentaries and a rather tepid commentary track by Carrie-Anne “Trinity” Moss, Special Effects supervisor John Geta and Editor Zach Straenberg. (Unfortunately, the commentary is badly edited, often redundant and with lengthy pauses.) The DVD-ROM content is promising, but will have to wait until I get an adequate player.

    (Fourth viewing, On DVD, May 2003) Four years later, I’m still jazzed up about this film, which holds up admirably well to yet another repeat viewing. The direction is still as good as ever and shores up a film that suffers a lot from structural problems both in the first half (where all is explained and nothing happens) and the second (where a lot of stuff blows up but nothing is explained). It’s a shame, in retrospect, that the heavy noir influence of the first five minutes is seldom seen afterwards. Well worth another look in light of the last two volumes of the trilogy, as the meanly focused nature of the story expands into something much bigger later on, and given that two or three throw-away images of this original film end up taking quite another significance after even only The Matrix Reloaded

  • The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996)

    The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996)

    (On TV, March 1999) The biggest problem of this film is that it’s a quasi-parody of action movie clichés (including the infamous outrun-the-explosion idiocy) that takes itself seriously. I hesitate to place the blame on Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson (though Davis plays it so that “Charlie” is actually less interesting/attractive than “Samantha”) so scriptwriter Shane (Lethal Weapon) Black deserves all complaints. Still, there are a few good action sequences… but don’t be surprised to find yourself wishing for a more focused film from the rather good basic premise.

  • aol.com, Kara Swisher

    Random House Times Business, 1998, 333 pages, C$35.00 hc, ISBN 0-8129-2896-2

    As an experienced computer user (I started in 1983 with the Commodore 64, graduated to the IBM PC five years later, went on the Internet in 1993, got a Comp.Sci. degree and never looked back), I’m the type of person who finds inner peace and contentment in poking around the Machine itself rather than to be simply contented with using it for other purposes. My computers are open more than half the time, my Operating Systems are customized, my head is full of intricate procedures to coax the last possible unit of performance from my system… I must face the blight of being a nerd, someone as interested in How It Works than What It Does.

    I’m not the type of user that America Online wants.

    This online service has made its fame and fortune by grasping what most technically-oriented companies were slow in understanding: The average users don’t care about technology. They want the benefits without the hassles. They want everything to be as simple as possible. And, by most standards, AOL has delivered what users wanted, opening the Internet to hordes of users without the kind of hard-won civility that comes from accessing something after a considerable amount of effort.

    For all of these reasons, I don’t like America Online. They could disappear tomorrow with nary a qualm from me. But it’s not essential to like AOL to like aol.com.

    This “biography” of America Online begins at the very beginning, with the foundation of a company in the early eighties by an entrepreneur with too many ideas and too little common sense: Bill Von Meister. After an extended limbo where the company repeatedly changed names and incarnations, AOL finally hit it big in 1993, with more than 500,000 users. But the drama wasn’t over: The following five years would find AOL struggling with growing pains, the arrival of the Internet, a more techno-savvy audience, a massive nineteen-hour shutdown and a huge commercial battle with Microsoft. Every year, another crisis seemed to engulf the online service, which has already been declared dead more time than it can recall. But AOL has always survived-for better or worse.

    Wall Street Journal reporter Kara Swisher brings this whole story to life in aol.com, meticulously chronicling the history of AOL up to the beginning of 1998. Despite Swisher’s collaboration with American Online for research -she was reportedly granted unprecedented access to the company for more than a year-, the result is sharply critical of some of AOL’s biggest blunders. She does know her material, even if the spin she puts on a few elements (like James Exon) tends to be grating to seasoned online veterans.

    Though the book tends to concentrate on anecdotes rather than analysis, the writing is easy to follow and fun to read. The incessant crises that rocked AOL during most of its existence make for good drama and Swisher doesn’t have to dig deep to find fertile material for her book.

    The organization of the book is also irreproachable, at the exception of two chapters at the end, both detailing AOL’s battles with the American government’s efforts to censor the Internet. These two chapters are unexplainably split and offer repeated information, though their payoff is sweet: The diskette used to relay the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the government’s Communication Decency Act from the judges to the Internet was one of the ubiquitous AOL diskettes distributed across the country!

    Despite all its virtues, aol.com couldn’t manage to make me like America Online, but certainly convinced me to respect it. The Little Online Service That Could should, by all rational standards, be dead now. But it endured and the story of its success is well-told in aol.com.

  • Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels (1998)

    Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels (1998)

    (In theaters, March 1999) This film not only has one of the best titles of the year, but will probably also stand out on my year’s end list as having one of the most convoluted plot I’ve seen recently. It starts out with a rigged poker game and ends up as one riotously funny crime comedy. Bodies pile up like cordwood, but the audience never stops laughing. It’s unfortunate that the thick English accents often distract from the plot (though it’s far worse at the beginning), so the rumors of a Tom-Cruise-produced American remake don’t disturb me as much as they should. While it is true that the characters might have been fleshed-out a bit more -probably beginning by reducing their numbers from the start-, Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels is directed with great flair and benefits from a good soundtrack. (The inclusion of “Payback” is appropriate, given that it shares at least an attitude with the Mel Gibson vehicle.) Aptly described as a meeting between Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction, this film is worth your time.

    (Second viewing, On DVD, October 2001) Revisiting this film after two years and director Guy Richie’s second feature –Snatch– is a lot like a short visit to a few rowdy friends. Yes, the film holds up quite well to another viewing. Granted, Snatch is a more polished film and a cooler piece of cinema, but you won’t feel cheated by Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. The directing, editing and complex storyline will manage to astonish you again. The DVD adds the essential subtitles, hurrah! A great crime comedy. You know you want to see it another time.

  • Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)

    Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)

    (On TV, March 1999) What happens when you adapt an original, but murderously slow seventies gothic romance/horror novel to the cinema of the nineties? Something really enjoyable, actually. The comatic prose of the novel is gone, so we’re free to enjoy the relatively fun story of Anne Rice’s vampires. Good production values (influenced by fire fetishism), a high giggle factor and a better-than-average script make this a relatively worthwhile moment to spend. Far more so than reading the novel.

  • EdTV (1999)

    EdTV (1999)

    (In theaters, March 1999) Much better than its source material, the French-Canadian film Louis 19. Professional direction (by Ron Howard), competent actors (McConaughey! Landau! Harrelson! Hurley! Hopper!) and a sharp script (until the third act, that is…) make this a pretty slick, kind of enjoyable comedy. Obvious parallels exist between EdTV and The Truman Show, but I believe that if The Truman Show had both the merits and handicaps of brilliance, EdTV might be the most enjoyable of both films. (In any case, the show/audience relationship is best presented in EdTV.) It’s worth a look. If anyone in HollywoodLand wants an idea for EdTV 2, here’s one: Why not replace Ed with someone who’s really smart who really understands from the start the position he’s in?

  • Cruel Intentions (1999)

    Cruel Intentions (1999)

    (In theaters, March 1999) This film isn’t very good, but it’s much more entertaining than what one might expect. A hilariously “modern” adaptation of French 18th century novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Cruel Intentions benefits from the strength of the original material to stand heads and shoulders above the other rather insipid “teen romance” movies. The film isn’t believable as itself, but acquires an extra dimension when you consider the various tweaks and changes they’ve made to take an old novel and present it to modern audiences. (Eg; Sebastian’s money-driven charm is implausible in itself, but entirely believable when considering the original aristocratic character.) Surprisingly tame for its raunchy potential, it manages a few good moments—like the “Bittersweet Symphony” ending. While Cruel Intentions was hailed as “not a good date movie”, I must report that my two straight-laced female companions did like the film.

  • Murder in the Solid State, Wil McCarthy

    Tor, 1996 (1998 reprint), 277 pages, C$7.99 mmpb, ISBN 0-812-55392-6

    Good examples of Science-Fiction crossed with Crime Fiction are nearly as numerous as crossovers between SF and Thrillers. Many SF authors have written a few mystery novels (Isaac Asimov, Stephen R. Donaldson, etc…) and for some reason, (solidarity among the ghettoes?) readers of SF are often fans of crime fiction. The basic plotline of thrillers, (One man confronting powerful forces conspiring against him!) on the other hand, has always been a natural way to develop the bigger-than nature plots of most grandiose SF. Murder in the Solid State will suck you in with a murder mystery, but ultimately evolves in your basic near-future conspiracy thriller.

    It all begins, appropriately enough, at a nanotechnology scientific conference. David Sanger is a young physicist with things to prove to the world. Shortly after the beginning of the conference, he finds himself arguing against a rather unpleasant older scientist widely despised by his peers. Heated words eventually lead to sharp weapons and before long David is sword-fighting (!) against his nemesis. His martial arts training takes over and he wins the fight, but finds himself in custody the following morning as the older scientist is murdered during the night… A hundred pages in the novel, David’s most trusted friends turn against him and he finds himself tangled in something much bigger than just a murder.

    In time, the “Solid State” of the title assumes its full political importance and it’s a bit of a surprise to find us cleverly slipped a message about the dangerous implications of comfortable safety. Like many pure-SF writers, McCarthy espouses libertarian (or at least vaguely anti-government) tendencies but exhibits them more carefully than most of his peers.

    One of the cover blurbs is James Patrick Kelly saying “Think ‘Hitchcock meets Heinlein’” and the comparison is apt. The narrative is lean and rarely pauses for its breath. The future technology is described plausibly, with some attention for the social impact of said technology. The protagonist is suitably sympathetic, with the result that we keep on rooting for him even as he is forced to commit unpleasant acts. The narration is suitably paced and the reader’s interest rarely flags.

    But if Murder in the Solid State is a perfectly competent thriller with the added interest of being peppered with solid nanotechnological details, it’s also obvious that it’s a bit pedestrian, a bit… well… ordinary. After the whirlwind first hundred pages, the novels comfortably settles down in a classical thriller structure, and it doesn’t take a lot of perspicacity to intuit that the protagonist is eventually going to confront the Bad Guy.

    But it doesn’t really matter, because even if not every book can be a classic, we can always use another good competent SF adventure. And Murder in the Solid State more than proves that Wil McCarthy is an author worth examining. Who knows what else he’ll come up with next?

  • Crimson Tide (1995)

    Crimson Tide (1995)

    (On TV, March 1999) Regular readers of these reviews already know that I’m always in the market for a good techno-thriller, so it’s no surprise if I liked Crimson Tide as much as I did. A good story (from submarine thriller novelist Richard P. Hendrick) and a fine script, plus the always-excellent Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman make this a tense, solid underwater suspense. Obviously a guy’s type of movie (was there even one female after the first ten minutes?), but a good one. Worth a rental on video.

  • The Corruptor (1999)

    The Corruptor (1999)

    (In theaters, March 1999) Despite the frosty critical consensus, I thought that this was a pretty darn fine B-series action movie. Of course, I’m almost a card-carrying fan of both Chow-Yun Fat and “Marky” Mark Wahlberg -for the music and the acting-, so I’m not exactly objective in the matter. Still, it has a crunchy story, with a few good action scenes (a car chase in which pedestrians get wounded! Imagine that!) and a tone reminiscent to Fat’s previous Hong Kong movies. On the other hand, I must admit that the action scenes aren’t very well directed, the script could be improved and the final battle isn’t very exciting. Still, it’s a good popcorn film if you’re in the mood for some action.

  • 8MM (1999)

    8MM (1999)

    (In theaters, March 1999) I couldn’t make it to the end of this film for uncontrollable reasons (no, I’m not that squeamish: I had a severe headache even before the movie started and my physical condition went downhill after that…), but I did like what I saw. Nicolas Cage is always decent, and the script efficiently goes through the motion. I did miss most of the extended third act, (I left shortly after Cage used a screwdriver on a Machine) so reports of a drawn-out conclusion might or might not be true.

  • Proteus Manifest, Charles Sheffield

    Guild American Books, 1989, 406 pages, C$15.00 hc, ISBN Unavailable

    Ever since the “New Wave” pseudo-revolution of the sixties, a segment of Science-Fiction has been quite content to push the boundaries of literary achievement at the expense of the story. Sometimes is works (Neuromancer), but second-hand bookstores across the nation are packed with the failures of the experiment. Arguably, the final result is a stronger, more mature and better-written Science-Fiction. But ordinary readers can’t be blamed if they get the impression that a lot of the simple storytelling fun has gone out of today’s SF. Even worse; they tend to accept this as a matter of fact, and so the impression that Written SF Can’t Be Fun Any More If It Want To Be Serious subconsciously endures.

    That’s why it’s such a breath of fresh air, from time to time, to re-discover solid works of SF that unashamedly bring back the simple joy of reading. It’s not fancy to be conventional, but most of the time it works.

    Charles Sheffield will never be misidentified as one of the genre’s greatest stylists. A scientist by trade, Sheffield has turned to Science-Fiction late in life, producing works heavily inspired by the hard sciences, with only a perfunctory interest in characters.

    His first novel was Sight of Proteus (1978), a short tale about a future Earth modified by the widespread use of nonsurgical techniques to modify the human body. These can be as innocuous as simple plastic modification or as fundamental as changing sex, etc… The hero of the tale is Behrooz Wulf (ie; Bey Wolf), a top investigator at the agency charged with protecting the Earth from illegal and dangerous modifications. It all begins as they suspect a famous scientist of forbidden experiments…

    Sight of Proteus is, to be frank, a bit silly. Sheffield’s body-shaping technology is a mix between fancy machines and almost wishful biofeedback mechanisms. Given that the real-world has invented nanotechnology since Sheffield’s novel, let’s just say that his techno-babble isn’t as fresh or convincing as it was then even if the end results are more believable. The world-building is also slightly suspicious; one would expect more of scientific progress if, after all, they’re able to shape bodies literally at will.

    But even despite these quibbles, Sight of Proteus is fun. The writing is marvelously limpid, up to a point where one wonders how come most novels aren’t as accessible, imaginative and entertaining as this one.

    Things get less pleasant by the end, as our protagonists go an Nivenesque trip through the solar system and the story doesn’t conclude as much as is dropped almost in mid-flight.

    Proteus Manifest is one of the Science-Fiction Book Club’s own omnibus editions, thus cleverly combining two book published at ten year’s interval under a same cover. Unfortunately, a universe based on the body-changing premise and a protagonist with the same name are about the only things the two novels have in common: There are few linkages with the events of the first novel, and Sheffield’s prose has evolved significantly in the decade dividing Sight of Proteus with Proteus Unbound (1989).

    Even the plot is bigger, as Behrooz Wulf is asked to solve disquieting form-changing equipment failures in the Outer Solar System. At the same time, he’s plagued with maddening hallucinations and a lost love. Oh, and there’s also a rebel colony hidden inside the asteroid belt. Could all of these things possibly be linked?

    The fun of the first volume carries through the second book, which is more satisfying than the first (though the conclusion is almost as abrupt). Good ideas, sharp writing, nice plotting and an effortless mastery of hard sciences; it’s good enough to compare with Niven and Clarke, as well as make one wonder why they don’t write that kind of SF any more.

    Though Proteus Manifest is at time frustrating and not exactly completely successful, it is so wonderfully imaginative and clearly written that it’s well-worth picking up in used bookstores. Who said that the New Wave had killed old-fashioned Hard SF?

  • The Art of War, Sun Tzu (translated by Ralph D. Sawyer)

    Barnes & Noble Books, 1994, 375 pages, C$10.99 hc, ISBN 1-56619-297-8

    There are times when it’s more appropriate for a reviewer to tell you the best way to enjoy a book rather than if it’s good or not.

    With Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, one can comfortably assume even before cracking the spine of the book that it’s great: Arguably written more than two thousand years ago by one of China’s best tactician, The Art of War has been studied repeatedly in the Western world during the last century, from military academies to corporate boardrooms. Some will argue that The Art of War is a military treatise; others will say that it’s a political/social manual, or even a book of philosophical contemplations. It’s certainly not obvious with statements like “In order await the disordered; in tranquillity await the clamorous. This is the way to control the mind.”

    The Art of War, even in translation, has long passed into the public domain. You can download several translations from the Internet. Why, then, buy a 11$ book about it? To understand it better, probably.

    Ralph D. Sawyer is, putting it mildly, a pretty knowledgeable man. The Art of War itself fits in less than a hundred pages. The remainder of Sawyer’s book is political and military context, commentary, discussion of newly-found versions and more than a hundred pages of notes. (!)

    Perhaps more significantly, Sawyer has taken the time to write a new translation of The Art of War. If we compare it to the classical public-domain “Giles” translation (1910), it certainly has more flavour than the classical version. Boring, artless statements like “The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.” (Giles) suddenly become snappy “Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Way to survival or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed.” (Sawyer).

    But even with the modern, literary translation, The Art of War is by nature not an easy book to read. Or rather, it is easy to read, but not easy to grasp; it is to be read as slowly as possible.

    One thing that might help is to discuss the book with a group. An ex-colleague of mine, Eleanor Glor, holds monthly meetings about Innovation in the Public Sector called “The Innovation Salon”. The subject matter for February 1999 was a discussion of The Art of War, as moderated by David Jones, a enthusiast of Sun Tzu’s book.

    I can’t think of a better way to understand Sun Tzu; the discussion was literate, lively, wide-ranging and thought-provoking. I had prepared by reading The Art of War twice, without looking at the commentary and as a matter of fact, David Jones warned us that one should read Sun Tzu and try to form a good opinion of him well before trying to read any commentary.

    A good example is, I feel, the debate about the military value of Sun Tzu. Some commentators will try to tell you that The Art of War has less to do with warfare than pure philosophy. I happen to disagree (David Jones’s arguments failed to sway me.) but that assumption is crucial for many commentaries, who are sometimes radically oriented on this simple opinion of the text. (Similarly, some translations are skewed toward the militarist of the non-militarist approach; could it be a coincidence that my translation is though the pen of a scholar from the militarist school?)

    Even so, do not get the impression that I’m suddenly a wide-eyed convert to the Ancient Wisdom of the Orient; I think that attempts to reconcile The Art of War with modern life are interesting but misguided. At the same time, a careful reading of Sun Tzu will provide many rather good aphorisms and enough quotable material to impress both colleagues and friends. It’s worth repeating, however, that discussion is almost invariably a far better way to learn to appreciate Sun Tzu; why not try an impromptu reading group?