Movie Review

(On VHS, September 2001) While fans of the TV Show will undoubtedly enjoy the film more than brand-new viewers, it’s far from being a total waste of time for the latter group. A good opening sequence efficiently introduces all the characters you need to know, and incidentally demonstrates a competent level of writing. Adults need not fear to be bored by the story; while this obviously remains a kid’s show, the various allusions, winks and general storytelling competency will hold your interest. Chances are that if nothing else, the “sixties flashback” sequence is designed specifically for the parents watching the film with their kids. (the latter Pink Floyd reference is guaranteed to have you howling) There’s also a more serious, and as effective, moment where the characters have to contemplate the passing of time and effect thereof on friendship. Some characters get unfortunately short thrift (more Spinelli!!) and the animation level -save for some computer-generated sequences- remains strictly Saturday-morning level. But don’t let that stop you; Recess: School’s Out is good fun. Stay for part of the end credits, as a hypnotically compelling version of “Green Tambourine” is sung by Robert Goulet.

(In theaters, September 2001) In this age of stupid big special effects, it’s easy to be seduced by a quiet little effects-free ghost story. Director Alejandro Amenábar here repeats many of the elements that made his previous film, Abre Los Ojos, such a success: A low-key approach steadily building up to a twisty conclusion, with our protagonists struggling with the acceptance of key facts. It’s not quite enough to be fully satisfying, though: Most of The Others‘ length is of such plodding, maddening pace that you’ll long once again for the snappy storytelling of Rod Serling’s “The Twilight Zone”. For added bonus points, note how the keys motif seems to disappear midway through, and ponder how and why the film doesn’t make all that much sense once the final twist has been revealed. Oh, and wonder about the utility of the husband. Still, as mentioned previously, it’s so easy to be seduced by the quiet ones, that you never notice they’re not much better than the loud ones…

(In theaters, September 2001) As someone who sees nearly a hundred films per year, it’s often difficult to justify seeing so many when so many of them are just crap. Then comes the odd one-in-a-hundred moment, the one that is so good, so original, so perfect that it fully justifies the rest of the dreck in theaters. That moment is the highlight of Moulin Rouge!, the introduction of the nightclub and of the Satine character, a raucous musical number featuring and blending “Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend”, Madonna “Material Girl”, Nirvana’s “Nevermind”, the latest “Lady Marmalade” remix and a brand-new Fatboy Slim track. You have to see it and hear it to believe it. But don’t be surprised to find yourself stuck with a silly grin during the first half of Moulin Rouge!, even occasionally shaking at how good it is. A triumphant revival of the musical with an initial hyperkinetic approach reminiscent of Fight Club, this is one unique film, a jewel in the rough for everyone who loves movies and pop songs. Gleefully using twenty-five years of pop music like a toolbox to tell his story, writer/director Baz Lurhmann does things with the raw material that will leave you breathless at his audacity. Postmodernism at its best. Top-notch editing, a wonderful screenplay and excellent musical talent will leave you gasping for more. Granted, the second half of the film is more dramatic, less impressive than the first half, but that first half is likely to be the best thing you’ll see in 2001. Even the dependence on raw sentimentalism works to some degree. Don’t miss Moulin Rouge!

(Second viewing, On DVD, August 2002) Wonderful stuff any way you choose to see it. Boffo set designs, exceptional music, enjoyable acting and some dynamite movie moments. It doesn’t stop, and you’ll wish it never did. The DVD is stuffed with an embarrassing amount of extras, commentaries, on-set documentaries and oodles of other fun stuff, such as co-writer Craig Pearce discussing an early draft of the script which contained a character called “Baron von Groovy”. (I want to see that film!). Warning, though: While the audio commentaries are great, the film perceptibly loses a lot of its impact stripped of the music, which makes the completely-muted commentary track a very curious choice from the DVD makers (as opposed to a track where the audio plays at a greatly reduced volume throughout.) I still think it’s a fantastic film.

(On TV, September 2001) So rich-daddy’s girl Reese Witherspoon hooks up with Mark Wahlberg, who turns out to be not a sensitive guy but rather a full-blown psycho. Despite what you may want to think, this actually turns out to be a sociologically relevant teen thriller. Sure, it does start out as your average teen romance film, what with the overworked daddy, the bitchy stepmom, the annoying kid brother and the lonely female protagonist. A chance encounter with a nice boy evolves into something far more dangerous and pretty soon, we’re in every daddy’s best nightmare. Suddenly, the father-figure has been right all along about the creepy boyfriend and must actually physically protect his family. If that’s not wish-fulfillment, I don’t know what is. As a thriller, Fear is only average, with a lengthy start and a progressively sillier finale. But it’s when considered on a more abstract level that it becomes fodder for a master’s thesis on teen alienation and fatherhood representation in pop culture. Squint even more, and you’ll find a fable about the panic of first romance and the inevitable transfer of a young woman’s affection from one male figure to another. Not bad for a teen flick starring Marky Mark, right?

(In theaters, September 2001) My initial reaction at seeing the trailers for this film was to wonder if there was something -*anything*- in there to motivate me to go. There wasn’t. Even after watching the film, I still can’t see any reason to see it. As soon as you define the genre (teen romance between a rich white girl and a poor ethnic kid), you pretty much have a good idea of where and how the film is going. The only particularity is the self-destructive personality of the female lead, which gives rise to the only interesting scene of the film, a sequence where the father of the girl promises to sign the guy’s military academy admission papers only if he stops seeing the girl… for the guy’s own good. The film soon after reverts to true Hollywood form, complete with happy weepy ending. It doesn’t help that in addition to the linear nature of the story, the film is one of the ugliest piece of cinema of the year, with “naturalistic” cinematography that just ends up looking dirty and unpleasant. A good script could have helped matter, but what we’re stuck with is a simplistic clunker that charms no one. (The film’s most vivid audience reaction at my screening was caused by improper framing and errant boom microphones. The biggest laugh happened after the girl says to the guy “My father’s away until midnight. We is all alone!”… and they’re followed by the overhead microphone.) Kirsten Dunst might be in the film for credibility points (she basically plays the antithesis of her cheerleader protagonist from Bring It On) but chances are that no one will remember this film in six months.

(On VHS, September 2001) Exhilarating picture mixing action, fantasy, romance, comedy and seemingly everything else. It’s gonzo filmmaking in the Evil Dead and Dead Alive vein, with hordes of monsters, impossible stunts, out-of-nowhere twists and turns, full-bore fantasy elements and a whole lot of fun. You head will spin, turns and maybe even hurt trying to piece it all together. Try not to; it’s more fun just to be swept away. The technical polish of the film is a bit lacking, but don’t worry: you might never notice. While maybe a bit overhyped (this review isn’t any exception), A Chinese Ghost Story will delight anyone looking for something dynamic yet not from the same boring Hollywood tradition. One question, though: Looking at the release dates of both films, how much -if any- of A Chinese Ghost Story was influenced by The Evil Dead?

(On TV, September 2001) Wow, wow, wow… Everyone has to see this film sooner or later, if only for historical relevance. Directed by Russ Meyer and co-written by Roger Ebert (!), this film purports to be a parody, but unless you already know that, you’ll have a hard time telling given how seriously it’s played out. This only makes it funnier, of course! The story is about an all-girl band off to Hollywood to make it rich, but the real value of the film is in the pure-sixties vibe, the ridiculously oh-so-dangerous representation of excesses, the flamboyant characters (ah, that Z-man!) and overall sense of… fun? There is a dynamic “travel” sequence that feels as if it had been edited just yesterday. There’s kitschy melodrama. There is a hilarious moralistic coda (“Their love wasn’t evil… but it allowed evil to happen!”) There are more fancy hairdos than an entire issue of Vogue. But, above all, you’ll get the impression that for all the debauchery and vice going on, there’s nothing more serious than teenage hijinks to be tut-tutted by some invisible adult. A scream, a laugh and a bunch of other stuff, Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls is worth a look. Keep your ears open for the source of one of Austin Powers‘ best lines.

(In theaters, September 2001) On paper, it’s hard to see where this could go wrong: John Cusack and Julia Roberts as leads, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Billy Crystal as foil with small roles to Seth Green and Christopher Walken… it should have worked perfectly. And yet the film is a train wreck, with limp gags, weak plotting, obvious setups and characters that go nowhere. Anyone who knows anything about the movie industry will roll their eyes at the pseudo-insider’s view of the field. Save from infrequent moments, it just doesn’t work at all. The actors may escape with their dignity intact, but that’s about the only thing to remember about America’s Sweethearts.

(In theaters, August 2001) My expectations were probably set a touch too high for this film. I should have been happy just to see a recent Hong Kong actioneer on a big theater screen. What I got was fine enough to keep me interested, though not overwhelmingly impressive. It’s as if the movie works extra-hard not to make us care about the pathetic protagonist and the lesbian policewoman (!) he accidentally sleeps with (!) and makes pregnant (!!!). It’s when watching things like that that you really start bitching about the sad state of screenwriting around the globe. The storytelling is so chaotic that you’ll understand what’s going on maybe five minutes later. There are a few action scenes, but nothing truly new or exceptional; just people shooting at each other. Fortunately, we eventually get the exceptional apartment fight (with a wonderful canyon-like urban environment, used to maximum effect), a good airport sequence and an over-the-top scene mixing gunfights and childbirth that relegates Hard-Boiled‘s finale to the rank of amateur in attempted audience manipulation. (Waah! One life begins! Bang! One life ends!) I give it a solidly mixed review.

(In theaters, August 2001) While I didn’t love the first Rush Hour film, I liked it a lot: The mixture of Jackie Chan action, Chris Tucker’s loudmouth antics and general sense of fun (not to mention the racial diversity of the film) made it one the little surprises of 1998. I was looking forward to the sequel; Brett Ratner know how to deliver and it was hard to see where he’d fail. And yet, for a while, it looked as if he would: The Hong Kong section of Rush Hour is, generally, a notable flop: The screenwriter doesn’t do anything interesting with the Tucker-out-of-his-element premise, makes him talk way too much (in dangerous situations where you start to wonder how he ever survived up to this point) and even adopts a slightly patronizing tone. There are a few good action sequences, but that’s it. Then, happily, the film moves back to the United States and improves sharply. (It might or might not be a coincidence if we get a lingerie shot of Latino beauty Roselyn Sanchez at approximately this moment. On a similar register, Ziyi Zhang is menacing and adorable in the henchwoman role.) The film then keeps on getting better and better until the Las Vegas climax, by which time a middling film is rescued by a greatly enjoyable conclusion. But, at times, it was a close thing.

(On VHS, August 2001) Egawd. If you’re going to make a thriller, at least make sure that there are a few thrills in it. If you’re going to make a drama, make sure there’s drama in it. Heck, if you’re going to make a movie, make sure there’s something in it that might interest me. Rules Of Engagement throws a little bit of this (a Vietnam prologue that might seem incredibly important, but really isn’t and might have been taken care of with one of two extra lines of dialogue), a little bit of that (like a big action scene that is not interesting. At all.), some more of this (ooh! Government conspiracy!) and some more of that (Rrrr… Courtorrom drama). That the film withholds crucial information isn’t even a cheat; it becomes only a pale irritant when you don’t care at all about what’s happening. Oh, and the cathartic shot of the little girl holding a gun… got a huge laugh from the three Sauvé siblings, assorted with cries of disbelief at the blatant manipulation. Even if Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson and Guy Pearce all do a good job, they just can’t save this borefest. Checking the credits, it’s no surprise to find that this is an original story by James Webb, author of one of my least favorite military thrillers of the nineties, Something to Die For. Now he strikes again, this time on movies. Gawd, viewers, just go watch something else, okay?

(In French, On TV, August 2001) Well, add another sad case to the group of failed “parody” comedies of the nineties. Apart from the two Hot Shots!, almost nothing came close to the rollicking humor of the classic Airplane!-style movies of the eighties. This one is a little more painful to watch than most, given the low production values, a terribly unfunny Leslie Nielsen (at the beginning of his bad self-parodying phase) and the whorish presence of Linda Blair. Yes, she’s “re-possessed” by the devil. Cue green vomit gag. Hey, a few jokes work, but the average is just so very, very low. Oh, and the awful musical segment… argh. The film runs on far too long, drawing an interminable conclusion at a point where everything should happily work toward a snappy ending. Not worth the bother, unless you’re particularly bored.