Movie Review

(In theaters, August 2002) The surprise hit of summer 2002 is nothing more (or less) than a deliberate attempt at giving a certain audience exactly what it wants. As such, it works really well: Writer/star Nia Vardalos delivers a romance, a family reconciliation tale as well as a duckling-to-swan transformation. The romance might be the film’s least impressive element, especially when compared to the impressive evolution of the protagonist. This isn’t simply a Rachel-Leigh-Cook-with-glasses metamorphosis, mostly because no one pulls any punches in representing the “before” state; baggy clothes, thick glasses, stringy hair, blank stare and makeup-enhanced face lines, Vardalos throws herself in the pre-transformation role with abandon and emerges as an even more adorable woman at the end of the process. That’s when the romance kicks in, but it’s not nearly as interesting as a process by which we discover the eccentricities of this particular Greek family. It’s a welcome glimpse in an ethnic group that’s long been neglected by Hollywood. (Expect a surge of imitators in the next few years.) It ends exactly as we think it will; no surprises, but good warm fuzzy feelings. It’s not a raucous comedy; the pacing is only a-joke-a-minute and the film wouldn’t have felt out of place as a television movie-of-the-week. But it’s worth seeing, especially if you’re stuck in a situation where you have to see a movie with a wide audience; this will do for the whole family.

(On DVD, August 2002) Though Made is billed as a mob comedy, this low-budget film written and directed by Jon Favreau is too often irritating to be consistently amusing. Vince Vaughn’s character is one of the most obnoxious protagonists in recent memory, and a large portion of the film’s suspense is in wondering when someone will finally shut up the loud self-centered idiot. The making-of featurette on the DVD, however, is gracious enough to let us know that this effect is fully intentional, as the filmmakers were self-consciously trying to mix an uncomfortable blend of comedy and tension. They recommend a second viewing. I’m not sure I’m willing to undergo that particular punishment. In any case, there are few bad things to say about the film’s technical polish; despite the low budget and the tight shooting schedule, the film looks great, makes good use of its LA/NYC location shooting and manages to build complete characters, despite how one may feel about them. (Though if someone can explain the sudden appearance of someone near the end…) If you liked Swingers (about which I have similar reservations), please feel free to enjoy Made.

(In theaters, August 2002) I like adaptations of Oscar Wilde’s plays. I just do. Trying to explain why or how I loved The Importance Of Being Earnest would be useless if you don’t share my overall love of such stories. Wilde can be cynical without being dour, romantic without being sappy and this is one of this film’s biggest strengths. Did you like An Ideal Husband? Rush to see The Importance of Being Earnest, then. Good acting, warm finale and ultra-sharp dialogue. Plus great performances from Rupert Everett, Colin Firth, Reese Witherspoon and Frances O’Connor, who should stick to period pieces if we’re to compare this to Mansfield Park and/or Bedazzled or Windtalkers. Wonderful date movie. I guess.

(In theaters, August 2002) Would you willingly see a subtitled period Chinese film describing how a man and a woman decide not to have an affair? Seriously; how much money would it take to make you see this? How about I throw in a fifteen-minutes-long epilogue that doesn’t lead anywhere? What if you have to see two great actors (Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung) do nothing during all that time? Would you mind a bunch of moody shots without whom this would become a short film? Can you feel my pain, now? Good.

(On DVD, August 2002) Innocuous, rather inoffensive gardening comedy starring convicts. Clive Owen is good as the lead protagonist (he’ll be James Bond one day, I swear!) and the rest of the actors hold their own. It’s a low-budget film, but an enjoyable one in The Full Monty tradition of British underdog comedies. There isn’t much here that is memorable or profound, but it’s a good time at the movies. The DVD is a bare-bones edition.

(In theaters, August 2002) There are times when I worry about seeing too many movies. The usual casual moviegoer sees maybe five to ten movies a year and likes most of them because, hey, he doesn’t know better. Big-time cinephiles such as myself easily see five times as many movies and feel their critical judgment consequently affected. Years ago, I would have hated Full Frontal, with its deliberately-muddy cinematography, non-linear structure, very loose narrative coherency and frustrating improvised dialogue. But I was surprised by how willingly I went with Full Frontal. In many ways, it’s another entry in what others have called the “Hollywood Home Movie” genre. But unlike The Anniversary Party, Full Frontal is funny. And unlike Time Code, it’s not quite as much in love with its own cleverness. We can almost feel writer/director Stephen Soderbergh nudging us in the ribs throughout; “Get it? Get it? It’s all a joke!” (Indeed, Soderbergh himself appears in a quirky movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie moment, his face hidden behind a “censored” black box.) Full Frontal is a bunch of very loosely-connected vignettes. Some work; some don’t. I still ended up laughing more here than at Austin Powers 3: Goldmember. But don’t try to link everything together too much; many scenes simply don’t fit together anyway. See Full Frontal for the industry jokes, the tons of cameos or the edgy feel of a film made without studio supervision. Just don’t expect ordinary, safe material.

(On TV, August 2002) Interesting film that transcends its geeky origins to become a triumphant document on a pathetic filmmaker. Though the historical accuracy of the film can be taken apart with some elementary research (the screenplay mostly telescopes longer periods in shorter amounts of time and conveniently forgets a few intervening events.), it’s hard to dislike the sympathetic portrait of an anti-genius like Wood. What separates the film from a simple funny biography is the haunting (Oscar-winning) performance of Martin Landau as the dying Bela Lugosi. Acting credits are excellent throughout the picture, with a bunch of known names here and there. (Particular props to Johnny Depp as Wood, though I was oddly reminded of Steve Buscemi at times) Don’t miss the delightful opening credit sequence. This is an essential film for cheap-SF geeks, and a worthwhile one for everyone else.

(On DVD, August 2002) It doesn’t take much to deliver a fun buddy crime comedy, and that’s exactly what Robert Gallo does, after a laborious start, with Double Take. Granted, the film sank at the box-office, but once you get past the irritating opening, the film settles down as one of the twistiest fun thrillers since Wild Things. (It never attains the earlier film’s trash-thriller brilliance, of course. The lack of sex scenes alone is enough to take it down one notch.) While Eddie Griffin can often grate, you get used to him. Orlando Jones is a star throughout, though, as he switches comfortably from a chic Wall Street businessman to a loudmouth from the projects who just wants some Malt-Liquor. This whole theme of appearance versus reality is Double Take‘s motif, given all the twists and counter-twists in the film. The film’s internal logic eventually comes to make sense after many exasperated gasps from the audience, but the external plausibility (ie; why go through all the trouble?) remains highly doubtful. In any case, the filmmakers on the DVD commentary track take as much time self-congratulating themselves than discussing the film itself. But that’s fine, because the film is a little surprise, a solid buddy comedy that holds up rather well to a commentary-enhanced second viewing. It grows on you. Naturally, it helps that the film stars three luscious black women, with particular nods to Garcelle Beauvais, who appears in full lingerie in one of the film’s most regrettably cut scene, now included on the DVD for your viewing pleasure. Also worth viewing on the DVD: A surprisingly interesting “filmmaker’s diary” making-of feature that gives a real feeling of being on a movie set.

(On DVD, August 2002) Unlike many dour Hong Kong action films, this one doesn’t waste any time pointing out its amusing nature, as it begins with a playful fight scene in which star Tony Leung dispatches a series of opponent in a way which would make James Bond feel ashamed. In fact, the martial art scenes in Tokyo Raiders often feel like riffs on Jackie Chan’s antics, including a male/female fight accompanied with a tango-inspired musical piece. Acting highlights go to Leung for his portrait of a dapper action man, but it’s no secret that the action scenes are the film’s main selling points. The highlight is the middle fight/chase sequence, which involves a golf-club battle, a chase using a motorized skateboard and a deliriously fun sequence aboard a car-freighter truck. The closing boat chase underneath one of Tokyo’s highways is also impressive. It’s a shame, though, that foreigners such s myself won’t properly appreciate the cultural shock of Chinese characters in Japan. (There are a few scenes where characters have to translate for each other, which of course doesn’t come across very well in English!) The DVD includes a fluffy making-of documentary which proves to be eerily similar to its Western counterparts. (Interestingly enough, the subtitles of the documentary don’t exactly match the subtitles of the feature…) Despite some lengths and a touch too much pathos in a film that is otherwise quite lighthearted, Tokyo Raiders is one of the most polished, accessible Hong Kong action films of the year. Don’t miss it!

(In theaters, August 2002) I’m getting too good at this thriller shtick. Barely a few minutes in the film, I pegged the “secret killer” at the character’s oh-so-innocuous first scene. The rest of the film didn’t hold many other surprises; the procedural details are fascinating, but any sagacious viewer will be ahead of the lead protagonist by minutes. Clint Eastwood is always interesting enough to watch, but here he overdoes the “labored breathing” act. (It doesn’t help that his casting destroys most of the story’s initial dynamics. Here, we’re more concerned about him breaking his hip falling down than popping a blood vessel in his transplanted heart.) Some of the supporting actors are fine (Wanda de Jesùs! Fiiine!), but others seem to be there only to overact. Clichés abound, culminating -of course- in the climactic shootout. Plus you have to stomach both a series of awful “deep and meaningful” double-entendres about blood, hearts and such, but also a romantic scene between Eastwood and someone still thirty years away from retirement age. There are enough good things in Blood Work to keep you interested, but too many bad things about it to keep you from seeing it in the first place. You might as well wait until it plays on TV.

(In theaters, July 2002) The real tragedy of American cinema is how emotionally stunted it usually is, refusing to confront any real problem in favor of overblown drama or inconsequential issues. This is usually most visible with movies aimed at teen audiences, most of whom rely on sexual snickering and unrealistic ideals. This is the Mexican film that bitch-slaps American movies where they belong, a raw -almost painful- look at teenage confusion and the choices we make as we grow up. The technique of the film looks amateurish at first, with a series of unpolished long takes in naturalistic settings. But don’t be fooled; the cinematography and -more specifically- the shot composition is too careful for this to be an accident. The proof that the filmmakers know what they’re doing is evident in the first two sequences, long uninterrupted shots of rutting teenagers that immediately serve to show you that no, this isn’t going to be pleasant or easy. In any case, kudos to the actors, who all exhibit impressive confidence during some very difficult takes. The film alternates moments of hilarity with intense drama and the result is certainly not for every audience, but damn if it doesn’t feel honest and adult compared to the immature technical polish of the usual R-rated American teen movie. Do make an effort and seek out this film. You probably won’t find it at the local Blockbuster (it’s unrated, but if it would be it would certainly be an X), but keep digging. It’s unlike anything you’ve seen before.

(Third viewing, On DVD, July 2002) Hmm. Though this has held up quite well (considering the critical drubbing it got when it was released and the cult following it then earned in video), it’s not as sustained as I remembered it. The problem with UHF isn’t as much in the set-pieces (Aaah, “Gandhi 2” or “Conan the Librarian”) as in the glue holding them up together. The plot of the film is depressingly familiar, as even star/writer “Weird Al” Yankovic himself acknowledges in the commentary track. There’s zany stuff, but it’s sadly relegated to safely obvious places. Still, the film has its shares of funny moments and anyone who hasn’t seen it ought to do so. The DVD finally delivers UHF to the digital realm, along with a bunch of extra such as an enlightening commentary track (with more than a decade’s hindsight, it doesn’t pull any punches) and a hilarious collection of deleted scenes. It’s worth noting that in this case, it’s Yankovik’s commentary on the lame deleted scenes that provides the added entertainment; apparently, a lot of dull expository material got left on the cutting room floor, proof of the writers’ lack of experience in writing for film.

(In theaters, July 2002) Though I had been impressed by the technical wizardry behind the little mouse in its first 1999 incarnation, I hadn’t been taken with the movie itself. This time, despite obviously pandering to the kiddy audience, this sequel feels better-written, more dynamic and generally more enjoyable that the original. The action scenes (yes, there are a few) are certainly more interesting, and the special effects flow better with the story. As with the first one, the harmless picture-perfect family portrait is amusing. (Naturally, as a devotee of Geena Davis I can only say; hoo!) Good use of New York locations, sustained rhythm and a few good lines; you can’t go wrong with this one for the kids.

(In theaters, July 2002) Dour, slick and professional effort that spends a lot of time trying to masquerade a familiar plotline straight out of countless mob dramas. Tom Hanks steps oh-so-far-away from his nice guy persona by playing a hitman… who’s a really nice guy. (All of his murders are, of course, fully justified) This B-movie plot (mob sets up a member… who vows terrible revenge!) is given the full A-list treatment with big stars (Paul Newman!), fantastic cinematography, fatherhood musings, 1930s period details and ponderous direction. It looks great and feels eminently respectable, but its languid pacing can’t hide its pulpish origins. Not bad, but a touch pretentious for what it is.

(In theaters, July 2002) One shouldn’t judge a film by its poster, and that certainly stands double for Reign Of Fire, given that the Apache-helicopter-versus-dragons fight depicted on the one-sheet is an unfilmed part of the back-story. What we’re stuck with is not an exciting techno-thriller against dragons, but yet another post-apocalyptic hunt-the-top-monster film. Once it dawns on the viewer which kind of film this is going to be, Reign Of Fire becomes an unsurprising exercise in filling in the numbers. Numerous plot holes dog the film’s credibility, even accounting for the fact that this is a story about dragons. Interestingly enough, though, the real star of Reign Of Fire isn’t Christian Bale, Izabella Scorupco or any of the dragons, but Matthew McConaughey! His “Zander van Zam” is a cigar-chomping quasi-parody of a gruff military man, and -boy oh boy- does he kick some butt in a role completely different from what he’s done before. Anyone who had dismissed McConaughey based on his innocuous turns in films like Ed TV or The Wedding Planner might be deeply surprised by his screen presence here; he’s one of the few things saving this film from B-movie oblivion. Other standout sequences include a few nice dragon shots and a boffo skydiving sequence. Don’t expect much in terms of cinematography, though: The somber visual tones of the film even manage to turn fire to monochrome (!) and after a while, your eye will thirst for some green. Actually, you mind will thirst for the film you were promised by the poster, but -hey- it did get you in the theater, didn’t it?