Movie Review

(In theaters, December 2004) By now, director Wes Anderson’s uneasy pairings of silly comedy with awful melodrama is fast approaching cliché, and this film doesn’t do much to correct this impression. On one hand, it’s more technically ambitious than either Rushmore or The Royal Tenenbaums (look at that: CGI! A cutaway set! Action scenes!) and doesn’t leave as bad a taste once it’s over. On the other, well, the death of some characters doesn’t mean much, the quirkiness seems too cultivated to be effective and there’s always the sense that Anderson’s films are a grab-bag because he lacks the ability to focus on a coherent objective. Too bad, also, that the editor of the trailer has a better sense of humour than Anderson himself: by selling this film as an outright comedy, the studio isn’t making itself any friends. Fortunately, acting credits are top-notch: Bill Murray reprises his soulful loser personae in yet another attempt to recapture an Oscar while the rest of the players struggle in his shining magnificence. All well and blah, but maybe it would be time for Anderson to do something else?

(In theaters, December 2004) No, Tim Burton didn’t direct this film… but other thank the annoyingly static camera setups you wouldn’t guess that its relative unknown Brad Silberling is responsible for this delightfully Gothic kid’s film. Not that it’s any kind of conventional film for the young ones: Dark and twisted enough to be the delight of all older moviegoers, this first Lemony Snicket often surprises by oddball plot twists and ghoulishly awful fake-outs. Jude Law’s dead-pan, almost sorrowful narration sets the tone, but the film rests squarely on the shoulders of Emily Browning and Liam Aiken as the two eldest Baudelaire children whose lives are afflicted by this series of unfortunate events. A who’s-who of other actors revolve around them, most annoyingly Jim Carrey, whose ham-fisted delivery is somehow supposed to be in character. No matter; the film thrives without him, revelling in a series of convoluted gags and weird sets. It is, all in all, surprisingly enjoyable for a film that seldom makes anyone laugh.

(In theaters, December 2004) Curse the lack of restraint of modern directors with an AVID editing station in their hands: Flight Of The Phoenix is a perfectly respectable old-school adventure, and it calls for a classic tone. For most of the film’s duration, that’s indeed what we get. But from time to time, the film segues into gratuitously wierd jump-cuts, dream-like sequences and other assorted modern trick that simply don’t work. Those moments don’t do much to compensate for the pedestrian dialogue and the iffy geographical coherency of the location. (My favourite moment is when they walk away from the side of the plane and end up in debris having fallen out of the plane earlier… which would place them behind the plane wreck! And that’s saying nothing about how the plane is at a handy distance away from dunes, nomad camps and natural runways.) Other annoyances abound; the look and development (“That’s my watch!”?) of the nomad camp encounter; the ridiculously extreme drama of some scenes and the jarring inclusion of “Hey Ya!” as a montage song. Still, there’s also enough to like in the film for everyone looking for a little adventure, from a spectacular plane crash that ensures that this will never be an in-flight movie to a refreshing lack of sexual tension between the protagonists and the lone woman in the team. Some of the desert cinematography is a thing of beauty, Randy Quaid delivers a good gruff performance and there’s a remarkable purity in the premise of the film. But it’s easy to see how The Flight Of The Phoenix could have been improved, and it’s a shame that it wasn’t.

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

(In theaters, November 2004) Pixar’s continued good run of excellent films continues unabated with this latest entry, most assuredly one of the best superhero films ever made. Combining sharp satire with a healthy respect for non-sappy family values, The Incredibles does everything it can with the elements it chooses to cover. A far funnier take on Watchmen‘s theme of disgraced superheroes, writer/director Brad Bird’s latest masterpiece (five years after The Iron Giant) is simultaneously one of funniest comedies of the year and one of the most awe-inspiring action film of 2004. Best of all, however, is Pixar’s patented tendency to refine the elements of its films until perfection is attained: Hence the non-stop delight of one of the film’s best sequence, in which an elastic woman is stuck in-between three (or four?) different doors at once. The action sequences are similarly awe-inspiring, with buzzsaw chases across an island paradise and a fantastic set-piece in which superheroes battle a robot in downtown Metropolis. Whew! But even with Pixar’s technical savvy and sophistication, it’s the script that shines brightly, with simple gags and fantastic characters such as Edna E Mode, a costume designer borrowing equally from Doctor Ruth and Christian Dior. Despite some initial lengths, rarely has a film stepped so assuredly on my Year’s best Top-10 list.

(In theaters, November 2004) I would have believed it if I hadn’t had three hours to find out for myself, but it’s true: Oliver Stone has taken one of the most inspiring life in history and made a boring movie out of it. This lavish biography of Alexander the Great frequently fails to deserve any attention at all. Despite the epic scale, the wonderful actors, the convincing re-creations and the sheer bloody length of the picture, Alexander bores and annoys. The trouble is obvious even from the first ten minutes: Lengthy monologues make it obvious that this won’t be a snappy picture even as the quality of the lines falls through the floor. Yikes. It doesn’t really get any better afterwards: The adult Alexander takes too long to be brought on-screen; A massive battle scene that could have been impressive had it been half as long just feels flaccid; narration is used to reinforce the action on-screen rather than provide crucial context; Colin Farrel never plays Alexander as someone worthy of respect. While the film tries to do much in terms of character psychology, the only characters with whom we sympathize are the soldiers who just want to go home after eight years on the road; certainly, Alexander has begun to feel just as long by then. Would I be the generous sort, I’d give a single star to the film on the sole basis of Rosario Dawson’s pendulous assets. But by this point, I fear that I may have imagined her nude scene in-between bouts of somnolence. Oliver Stone. Boring. Who would have thought?

(In theaters, November 2004) Let’s see: A caper comedy starring hot actors and taking place in a lush tropical paradise. That stuff can succeed on auto-pilot. Alas, that’s almost what director Brett Ratner does with After The Sunset, a good-enough film that nevertheless never tries for something more ambitious than mere adequacy. Oh, Salma Hayek has seldom been hotter (though there’s also plenty of good things to say about Naomie Harris as a policewoman with a Caribbean accent and pleasing curves) and the whole script moves forward with an impeccable amiability. There is a good rapport between the actors, and the lush cinematography is awe-inspiring. But the film starts falling apart when you look at the details of the script, which is so loose as to be inconsequential. Tons of plot holes are carelessly abandoned here and there, with unexplainable contrivances, inconsistent characters and dubious developments. Despite the suave presence of Pierce Brosnan as a master thief, this is nowhere near The Thomas Crown Affair. The conclusion is all in keeping with the film’s impact: Pleasing but hardly impressive, capping a film that will just do as a light diversion.

(In theaters, October 2004) While this film ranks as one of the year’s most unusual release (an action-movie parody using… puppets?), it also finds its way on the “most disappointing” list. The first half of the film isn’t bad at all, actually, earning at least a marginal recommendation: As a commentary on American foreign policy (kill the enemy; don’t mind the damages and civilian casualties), it’s biting and as a parody of action film, it works well. There’s over-the-top theatrics (“Use… your… acting!”) and the novelty factor of puppets is still high enough to amuse. (Still, it’s telling that Team America wouldn’t work as a live-action film.) Everything has to be read on a second level, and that’s just fine. But then writer/directors Matt Stone and Trey Parker (of South Park fame, of course) try to have it both ways and the film slowly progresses into a parody of itself. Or, rather, as simply a non-parody: By the end, as Team America is portrayed heroically without any second thought, the film has shifted in what had started as its target. It doesn’t help that the use of Hollywood celebrities as opponents just doesn’t work as well as it should, raising as many shrugs as smiles. One gets the impression than in trying to be as non-partisan as possible, Team America sorts of misses its own point… if it had one to begin with. But then again, it may be the case that the film is just too American to succeed as a parody.

(In theaters, October 2004) It’s a zombie movie! It’s a slacker comedy! It’s a romance! And surprisingly enough, it’s actually quite good! These are two-days-in-the-life of Shaun, British lad with relationship problems and no clear goal in life. But that’s all about to pale in significance as the zombie problems goes from background chatter to full-blown problem. Plans are hatched. Sight-gags abound. Wishes are fulfilled. Stuff happens. Through it all, Shaun Of The Dead manages a tight act holding together elements of three different kinds of movie into a cohesive whole that never betrays its characters. Sure, you can point at moments here and there where the characters are unbelievably stupid, or where “it can’t happen like that!” Still, the film feels unusually clever at combining background jokes, zombie-movie lore and everyday British life. Nice, funny and constantly interesting. Most recommended, especially if you found fault with the dreary 28 Days Later.

(Second viewing, On DVD, March 2005) Not quite as surprising upon a second viewing, this horror/comedy/romance hybrid nevertheless survives well to an encore performance. The performances feel natural, the writing is crisp and the direction moves its pieces with admirable efficiency. As a respectful take-off on the notion of zombie films, it’s not bad at all. The DVD contains tons of extras, all of whom are worth watching, sometimes surprisingly so.

(In theaters, October 2004) The diversification of CGI films outside the Pixar tent continues to stretch the envelope. Even if the parallels between Shark Tale and Finding Nemo are a bit fishy, there’s no denying that the end result is still good enough. It’s certainly not a classic (the pop-culture jokes will carbon-date it instantly to 2003-2004) and its emotional depth is nil, but it’s an innocuous comedy that’s simple enough for kids and pop-referential enough for young adults. You have to love Will Smith in order to like the movie, though; even as a fast-talking voice, he takes over the whole film and makes it fit in his usual shtick. Don’t expect much more than an extended sitcom episode in terms of plotting, but keep your eyes open for tons of visual references. I particularly loved the split-second “Before you die, you see… The Hook” movie ad gag. A soundtrack drenched in hip-hop further drives the point home that this is clearly aimed at the younger audiences. But not all is lost for older viewers; there’s a fair amount of visual experimentation going on, though special flashbacks and wild camera moves, extending the cinematographic language of animated films further into the possibilities offered by the medium. As for the rest, well, it’s (usually) fast, it’s effective and it’s funny. No need to go any further than that.