Month: November 2001

(On TV, November 2001) At first, it’s hard to see why any heartless chump would dislike this romantic comedy. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are free to look their cutest, the direction is suitable and New York shines through. Heck, even the story is interesting, what with a big-bookstore / independent-bookstore fight and an internet-age update of a pen-pal romance. It works… but then the film doesn’t end when it should, drags on for far too long and becomes more and more unpleasant from a moral point of view. The quasi-stalking behavior of Hank’s character is borderline creepy. The final helping of sugar helps to soften the blow, but the overall impact of the film is considerably lessened by its final 30 minutes. Still, there’s no denying that it’s a bit more interesting than originally anticipated.

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

(On DVD, November 2001) Some movies hit you at very particular time in your life, and so I ended up seeing When Harry Met Sally at a critical juncture in mine, maybe the point where it did the most good. Don’t think that I haven’t loved it… but do wonder if it would have been as effective if I would have seen it even two months before. I ended up saying “ouch” and moaning a lot: mmmm…mmmmm…mmmm… In any case, it’s easy to see, objectively, why the film is so great: Crackling dialogue, excellent lead actors, unusual yet “real” plotting and a careful direction make this film an all-around winner. (The split-screen phone conversation alone are worth the rental) Meg Ryan has never looked more gorgeous before or since, and Billy Crystal makes the role uniquely his. A wonderful film, except for the annoying “how we met” vignettes. Hasn’t aged a bit in twelve years. The DVD features a pretty darn good making-of documentary with the added benefit of more than a decade of hindsight and cultural impact.

(On VHS, November 2001) Many people are prompt to call this Adam Sandler’s best movie. While it’s certainly not the funniest (somehow, Billy Madison works better), it’s certainly the least offensive and the least annoying. As far as the story’s concerned, though, there isn’t much to see here, with yet another pathetic Sandler character somehow getting the girl (though you might argue that they deserve each other) and winning everyone on pure “charm”. It’s not all bad, mind you; unlike other Sandler films, this one is not displeasing to watch, and the last segment end on a triumphant note, with a wonderful cameo by Billy Idol. The rest of the does preciously little to allay my dislike of Sandler’s entire oeuvre, though.

(On VHS, November 2001) Now here’s an exemplary chick flick: Not only are almost all protagonists of the female gender, but the antagonist is a violent male, and the eventual male love interest does zilch to resolve the problem. Whatever plot revolves on a family of witches whose lives are cursed whenever true love enters the picture. Dig deeper, and -oh- here are womyn majik undertones and definite feminist overtones. Not that there’s anything wrong with that… and hey, no matter: It’s all so sympathetic that it won’t matter. Sandra Bullock is unspeakably cute and so -to a lesser degree- is Nicole Kidman. It’s a slight but fun film, pleasant despite its silliness. I liked it, can’t figure why. Must have been bewitched.

(On DVD, November 2001) This movie is famous in SF circles for representing everything that’s wrong with Hollywood Science-Fiction, most notably the tendency to use SF visuals and gadgets to tell a story that isn’t specifically SF. In this case, the charges have merit, as Outland was originally pitched to studios as “High Noon in outer space”. It sure feels every bit like a western, as a rogue sheriff (Sean Connery) has to fight corruption in his company town… er… mining station. Stupid science errors abound, from exploding bodies in vacuum to wonky “artificial gravity” babble. But guess what? It works well as an adventure film and it work pretty darn well as a futuristic thriller. It’s not a classic, but it deserves to be remembered twenty years later. The set design by itself is worth a look, embodying a full “Space 1999”/Alien techno-industrial slate-gray feel. It’s all good fun.

(In theaters, November 2001) The Theorem of Convergent Movie Premises goes like this: however original and fresh any film premise is, by the time the film is over, Hollywood will find a way to make it fit in one of the few depressingly similar templates at its disposition. That’s how, for instance, Alien and The Hollow Man eventually end up with the same kill-the-monster third act, or any number of romantic comedies with seemingly disparate protagonists all end up playing pretty much the same dramatic scene. Despite an intriguing promise and the capable Jet Li, The One also ends up feeling like yet another formulaic action film with scarcely any excitement past the first few minutes. Okay, so some of the special effects are fun (the first action scene even manages to do something interesting with bullet-time effects), but pretty soon your believability sensors will start protesting at the inconsistent usage of the superpowers. Don’t be surprised if you starts picking holes in the premise even as the film is doing its best to ignore them. (My favorite is; how come don’t we have more super-powered elderly people, as their other-universes avatars die one after the other?) It’s a shame to see Jet Li once again (see Romeo Must Die, Kiss Of The Dragon, etc.) suffer at the hands of a director who doesn’t know how to film a martial art sequence. Not that the screenwriter is necessarily more competent. Once again -see Ghosts Of Mars, or better yet don’t-, I felt sorry for Jason Statham. Granted, there are nice images, from sparks-fighting to motorcycle-swatting, but the rest of the film is instantly forgettable.

(In theaters, November 2001) I happen to believe that there’s a place in every cinephile’s heart for the little B-movie that works, the out-of-left-field video rental that simply proves to be a fun rental on a slow evening. No top-ten material nor DVD-essential, Novocaine nevertheless proves to be a fun black comedy—a light noir film, if you like. This first feature by director David Atkins treads in the same water as 1999’s under-appreciated Goodbye Lover, with a slightly off-kilter send-up of the usual genre conventions. Novocaine is carried by Steve Martin, with Helen Hunt and Helena Bonham Carter in crunchy roles (Voyeur alert 1: Bonham Carter even takes off her clothes. Voyeur alert 2: She’s more beautiful with them on.) and Kevin Bacon’s cameo is simply hilarious. This is not a film that succeeds because of its plot: Due to the small budget, the cast is very small and the whodunit is consequently easy to unravel. But even then, the film’s sense of fun is constant, from the meta-fictional Bacon character to the several small scenes almost parodying the genre conventions. (Think escapes; the easy ones and the hard ones.) While the directing may be a bit flashy for some, special merit should be given to a pair of continuous shots inside the dentist’s cabinet, wonderful examples of cinematic technique. It all adds up to an unassuming, fully satisfying thriller that should do the job next time you don’t know what to rent at the video store.

(On VHS, November 2001) Anyone who grew up in a small town where they “didn’t quite belong” will empathize with the protagonist of this story, whose schemes to get to the big city become increasingly desperate. Don’t be put off by the low budget or what is initially one of the most depressing environment put to film: New Waterford Girl gets better as it goes along, and even ends on a triumphant note of sorts. Liane Balaban makes a sympathetic heroine, and the supporting cast works just as well. The script works well within the confines of the production constraints, with a few fun scenes that will stick with you. At last, a Canadian film that’s not too embarrassing!

(In theaters, November 2001) The advantage of a micro-budget is to provide an easy excuse for whatever technical failings a film might have; “oh, they just didn’t have the money…” And there is a lot to forgive in this movie, from the unpleasantly amateurish directing to the choppy editing. Fortunately, the script is so good -and so self-aware of its own deficiencies- that you’ll pay attention no matter what. (Except, alas, that the best lines have long since become part of pop culture) This being said, there are a few thunderingly dull moments in this 91-minutes film, though the highlights (The credits! The political discussion! The shrubbery! The rabbit!) more than make up for it. Still, the lack of technical polish hurts; though it may be heresy to suggest so, I’d like to see a competent remake someday.

(In theaters, November 2001) Computer-animation studio Pixar maintains their perfect track record with a fourth feature that will no one unsatisfied. Once again, the state-of-the-art in CGI is pushed even further, this time most impressively through a perfectly-animated furry protagonist. But Pixar’s biggest asset is to avoid letting technology become a crutch for a good story, and here too, Monsters, Inc. shines brightly. The premise is cool (a monstrous parallel universe whose energy comes from scaring “our” children), but what really makes the film compelling is the steady exploitation of this premise, seemingly wringing out every conceivable joke and gadget out of it. The voice animation is good (Billy Crystal fails to annoy) and so is directing; as Pixar acquires more experience, it gets more and more audacious in how it tells stories. The comic timing of the synthetic performers is better than most other comedies of the year. Even though aimed at the kids, Monsters, Inc. is a whole lot of fun for adults given the sharp pacing and numerous in-jokes (Harryhausen’s, anyone?) Cool scenes abound, most specially the end chase sequence, a marvel of originality that will leave you breathless. The epilogue contains a touch too much schmaltz, but it won’t matter a lot when you’re been enjoying the whole film this much.