Movie Review

(In theaters, June 2007) After the self-indulgent disaster that was Ocean’s Twelve, expectations were low for this third modern Danny Ocean adventure. Fortunately, director Soderbergh is back to his audience-friendly persona this time around, and if the result may not be terrific, it’s good enough to warrant another look at the crew. This time, the plot goes back to Vegas and the action gets more diffuse: rather than rob something, our bunch of criminal protagonists avenges a friend by cracking open a casino for all takers. The multiplicity of schemes doesn’t make for a focused caper plot, but it provides enough choice for everyone: if a particular subplot is dull or vaguely uncomfortable (such as the hotel-from-hell contamination), just wait thirty seconds and something more interesting will come along. This buffet approach makes for an audience-friendly vibe that is reflected elsewhere in the film: the characters are at easy with each other and if the dialogues are still elliptical, they’re quite enjoyable. Even the walk-on roles get their chance to shine: Eddie Izzard gets a particularly good five minutes as an expert who demands exposition. It all amounts to a sweet caper film. While the emotional charge of the film is thin and the speaking female characters can be counted on one hand, Ocean’s Thirteen is a decent way for the trilogy to end –we don’t really need a fourth one.

(In theaters, June 2007) Wait long enough and you’ll see everything. In this case, Mr. Brooks takes the current trend of glorifying serial killers and turns it into a feel-good film about such a protagonist. It’s meant as a black comedy, but the execution often isn’t too sure of the intended effect: The presence of a cackling John Hurt as the imaginary anti-conscience of Kevin Costner’s Mr. Brooks makes for some amusing sequences, but the bloody suspense of the piece doesn’t play nice with the cynical grins. It doesn’t help that the script never knows when to quit: Starting from a mildly intriguing premise about a serial murderer troubled by his conscience, Mr. Brooks spins up more and more subplots until we’re left with almost a half-dozen killers (including potential ones) running around at cross-purposes. It quickly gets ridiculous. Other signs suggests that the script was either badly constructed from the start or damaged in editing: a hideous coincidence during the third act hint at a plot point that is never brought up again. When the false-trick ending comes up, it doesn’t feel as cheap as it could have: why that point in the movie, we’re just wondering how ludicrous this is going to become. At least it remains interesting: for all of its faults, there are enough promising things about Mr. Brooks to keep our interest until the bitter disappointment of its ending. If this film is remembered at all, it will be as a sort of apogee for post-modern serial killer plotting.

(In theaters, June 2007) The worst thing about this film is the knowledge that things won’t end well. The tragic story of Daniel Pearl is well-known to the public most likely to see this film, and so it unfolds like a tragedy in the making: despite the efforts toward a happy ending, we just know that it’s not going to happen, and this sadness permeates any reading of the film from beginning to end. This lends instant respectability to the film, but it also makes it easy to dismiss as Oscar-driven pap. For instance, Angelina Jolie does well with a role that merely requires her to look stunning and speak with a French accent. But even hot Oscar-baiting grandstanding can’t completely drive away the true continuing appeal of the film, which eventually plays like a rough and merciless police procedural in the darkness of the Islamic third-world. The most fascinating character of the piece becomes a Pakistani counter-terrorism captain trying to solve the mystery even as his efforts are stymied by the very environment he lives in. The sights and feel of Karachi are oppressive in their claustrophobia: here the setting makes the action seem that much more fantastic, suggesting intriguing possibilities for future fictional thrills. Even the casual use of high technology seems all that more exotic and uncomfortable in an environment where data cables are loosely tied to outdoor pipes and where even laptops look like intrusions from a Science-Fictional world. Alas, those thrills are quickly tempered by the known futility of the efforts, and the anticipated roar of the heroine’s grief. Remarkably apolitical yet immediately recognizable as a film shaped by today’s world, A Mighty Heart may not be guilt-free fun, but it’s far more fascinating than you would expect from the documented premise.

(In theaters, June 2007) To borrow from The Prestige, all horror films have three phases: The setup, filled with unspoken horrors and the promise of upcoming chills; the turn, in which the supernatural becomes apparent and characters are confronted with mounting madness; and the prestige, in which an explanation is offered and a resolution is attained. 1408 does its setup exceptionally well, gets sillier during its turn and falls apart during its prestige. None of this is the fault of anchor John Cusack, present in almost all scenes as a writer who’s forced to confront his past while trapped in a homicidal hotel room. The beginning of the film is a small gem of foreboding, as the nature of room 1408 is explained by an ice-cold Samuel L. Jackson. Cusack himself is pudgier than ever, but looks comfortably back in the charming screen persona he exemplified in the mid to late nineties. But as the hotel room starts to spin its evil tricks, our minds start grasping at an overarching explanation that never quite gels. The phenomenons in the room are chilling but don’t add up to a coherent set of powers and capabilities: just a series of jolts and impossible events. To be entirely fair, though, 1408 is quite good in its minute-by-minute execution: the direction is slick, the pacing is satisfying and the quality of the images couldn’t be better. Even the script does a fine job at stringing one thing after another, including a cute moment near the end that will make savvier film-goers mutter “I really hope it doesn’t end like that”. The true ending is a bit pat, but at least serves the primary purpose of any conclusion. It’s a shame that the pieces don’t all fit together (something that may be blamed on the adaptation of Stephen King’s thin short story) and that we’re left with a curious sentiment of dissatisfaction: as it plays, 1408 is one of the best horror films in recent memory… and it does so within the creative constraints of a PG-13 rating.

(In theaters, May 2007) If this film has any distinctive feature at all, it’s the way it may mark the transition of the Shrek movies into a succession of episodes starring an ever-larger cast of characters. Despite the impressive progress in computer-generated animation and the lessening importance of pop-culture gags, Shrek and the gang are becoming blander and more beholden to the necessities of shareholder interests. While the film is generally harmless, the comic highlights are becoming less memorable. Stretching my memory, I can dimly recall a union of villains and a fairly good life-flashback gag involving Pinocchio, but that’s about it: the rest just blurs into a series of generally pleasant scenes without much bite. Who wants to bet that there will be a Shrek 4, 5, 6…?

(On DVD, May 2007) Every so often, it’s a treat to find out a little-regarded film that actually manages to deliver a better-than-expected performance. Coming from Adam Sandler’s “Happy Madison” production house, no one really expected nothing from Grandma’s Boy, and indeed it doesn’t deliver much. But it manages to be a decently entertaining stoner comedy, and that’s not too bad considering the material it had to work with. (The film’s comic highlight is a vacuuming scene.) Fratboy comedies can be painful to watch, but this one isn’t too bad as long as the concept of stoned elderly women can manage to get a smile out of you. The look inside the universe of video-game designers is good for a giggle or two, and the pacing of the film leaves little room for boredom. There are better choices out there, but this is still a way above the bottom of the barrel.

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

(On DVD, May 2007) Don’t look any further for this month’s straight-to-DVD happy discovery: This is a fun, unpretentious, often corny zombie comedy in which a bunch of young people find themselves in the grip of unspeakable horror. It’s intentionally goofy and all the better for it when on-the-nose musical interludes enliven the film. This isn’t for everyone, but if you laughed at Evil Dead, Dead Alive or Shaun Of The Dead, this is a B-grade film in the same category. The actors do a fine job, there are a few fun twists and turns and the pacing steadily moves forward despite low production values, uncertain direction and a generally muddled plot. (When some deaths catch you by surprise, I’m not sure it’s by design as much as insufficient setup.) A warning, though: I’m a good sport for such kind of films. Your mileage will definitely vary.

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

(In theaters, May 2007) Faster, bigger and more headache-inducing than the first film, 28 Weeks Later struggles from the onset with a wholly unnecessary premise. Though the aspect of repopulating a devastated London (28 weeks after the rage outbreak of the first film) has its original appeal, it’s no big plot twist when the plague starts again, lending a profoundly depressing atmosphere to the entire film. The rest is strictly routine in zombie-movie terms: The outbreak takes over everyone, our cast of characters slowly dwindles down, and the only interest comes from the various ways they’re picked off. The bleaker-than-bleak conclusion tops the film with an extra dose of futility. Looking more closely at the film’s mechanics, it’s a bit sad to see that the rage-cam is back, speeding up and getting less coherent at every action scene. The individual gags work well (I defy anyone not to be awed at the firebombing of London), but it add up to a profoundly grim experience. As a fun-house mirror held up to our own anxieties (something zombie movies have traditionally been very, very good at doing), it reflects back our horrors of a never-ending struggle, of pandemics run wild, of complete depersonalization against uncontrollable forces. Whew. You might as well bash yourself on the head with a TV tuned to CNN and save yourself the $10.

(In theaters, April 2007) There are bad dull movies and there are compulsively watchable bad movies. Perfect Stranger falls squarely in the latter category. A mish-mash of ludicrous plot twists, unlikable protagonists (I like looking at Halle Berry, but her acting is like nails on a blackboard), bad technical details, dull eroticism and clumsy direction, Perfect Stranger is nonetheless captivating: the plot mechanics are unaccountably fascinating, and that’s without adding the attraction of watching a cinematic train wreck and wondering how bad this is going to turn out. The final few minutes are a masterpiece of the “let’s screw with the audience” school of thriller plotting. A chaste thrill-free “erotic thriller”, Perfect Stranger still has a magnetism of its own. It’s a bad movie, but I guarantee you won’t be bored.