Movie Review

(In theaters, May 2001) An early contender for the Toy Story award for kid-flick-that-ends-up-being-one-of- year’s-best-films, Shrek is a full parody of classic fairy tales, handled with such wit and aplomb that kids and adults alike will love it. Most films are lucky to count one or two good scenes; Shrek has at least four, from action scenes parodies (not only The Matrix, but a screamingly-funny slow-motion escape-the-fireball shot.) to musical gags (from the exploding bird to a Jerry Lewis wink in the end “I Believe” singalong.) Good fun, and surprisingly smart too. Think of it as the film for those who grew up on the Disney animated films of the nineties, and are now ready to laugh about it. (And I haven’t talked about the great CGI yet.) And, as a bonus, there are enough unpleasant sub-themes to provide any undergraduate philosophy student with an ideal paper subject.

(On VHS, May 2001) A portrait of an English family between the wars isn’t a terribly compelling subject, and the film more or less delivers what we expect. Oh, it’s watchable; the script is well-written, the pacing moves with efficiency and the performances are fine. (Colin Firth is as good as usual.) But it slowly never moves beyond that, and neither will this review.

(In theaters, May 2001) Wheee! I’ve always been a fan of roller-coaster movies, and that certainly accounts for my irrational praise of the 1999 “original” The Mummy film, a great unpretentious blend of comedy, action and adventure. The sequel is, believe it or not, nearly as good. While not as comic as the first film, The Mummy Returns is a wonderful action/adventure thrill-ride, a good-natured spectacle that might not be in any way smart, but is certainly so well-done that you’ll ask for more. Sure, the film rips-off almost every previous films of the genre (including stealing the most memorable “domino comedy” and the “face in particle storm” images from the prequel), but as long as we’re having fun -and we are!-, it’s hard to be left unmoved. Oodles of action -so much that it might numb you, but not as repetitive as, say, the last hour of Armageddon-, a sympathetic kid, a gorgeous (and butt-kicking) Rachel Weisz, square-jawed action hero Brendan Fraser… c’mon, grab your pop-corn, already! The story is surprisingly well-tied with the first film. The special effects are nearly omnipresent, but the level of quality differs wildly, going from amateurish to flawless. A great self-knowing grand-scale B-film. A perfect summer blockbuster.

(Second viewing, On DVD, April 2002) There is both good and bad in this sequel, but it maintains most of the charm of the original film. Rachel Weisz and Brendan Fraser are once again wonderful as the lead couple, and their matrimonial relationship is one of the film’s highlight. I was once again impressed by the film’s integration with the events of the first segment, even despite the clunky appearance of past-lives mumbo-jumbo. Some special effects are good; some other effects are surprisingly bad. The DVD features quite a few extra bonus goodies, the best of which is a fun commentary track that spends a long time pointing out flaws—though maybe not as much as the film’s detractors might like. But don’t worry; it’s still good entertainment for the whole family.

(In theaters, May 2001) The epitome of a gimmick film: Not only does the character suffers from short-term amnesia, but the entire film is told in segments that run backward, from chronological end to chronological beginning, interspaced with black-and-white exposition segments that might or might not be true. It doesn’t take much more than that to create interest, but fortunately, Memento is able to deliver a solid film wrapped around that gorgeous premise. It’s the type of film that keeps on throwing unexpected delights at you, so much that it would be ill-advised to step out for popcorn or bathroom relief lest you miss something important (and you would). Wonderful black humor, snappy screenwriting, provocative conclusion… Chances are that you’ll still be talking about the film a good ten, fifteen minutes after it’s all over. Films like this remind you, even if only momentarily, that cinema -even accessible genre cinema!- can be something more than just formulaic entertainment. The film features an exceptional performance by Guy Pearce, and good turns by The Matrix alumni Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss. Definitely worth a rental.

(In theaters, May 2001) It’s hard enough to find “serious” teen horror films nowadays that it’s almost a shame to give a bad report about Ginger Snaps, a Canadian effort that at least tries to do something interesting with the genre. Like most classical horror stories of the past, Ginger Snaps weaves in social issues with the gore, in this case a statement about female teen alienation mixed with werewolf lore. It holds up decently through most of the film, in large part due to the performance of the two lead actresses. It begins falling apart near the end, where characters are quickly forgotten (mom last seen at a rave) or dispatched for no good reason. You may thing that a gratuitously happy ending is frustrating, but it’s not nearly as annoying as a gratuitously tragic ending, again proving that killing off the whole cast does not necessarily lead to artistic merit. Worth a look if only for the good old-fashioned social commentary, but not a fun ride. At least it’s better than most movies of its genre.

(On VHS, May 2001) This hasn’t aged well. Maybe its reputation has exceeded its actual worth, or maybe the line “gonna make you squeal like a pig, boy!” has been milked by too many comedians to still be effective, but my siblings and I giggled a lot during Deliverance. I mean; weren’t those yokels hilarious? Fortunately, some of the film is still worthwhile: The cinematography remains decent, and some set-pieces are effectively directed. The pacing, on the other hand, is lethargic. The film is maybe half-an-hour too long, especially given the paucity of events happening on-screen. Of historical interest.

(In French, On TV, May 2001) Unexplainably hailed as a good film, this typical seventies piece hasn’t aged well at all. Unlikeable characters, torpid pacing, a non-ending, a single simple point made over and over as is it was a brilliant piece of philosophy… it all adds up to a dull pretentious piece of tripe. For Gene Hackman completists and, maybe, the last scene. If only it had been built up by something stronger…

(On VHS, May 2001) This joins the ranks of the teen comedies with crossover appeal through good writing and irresistible acting. (see Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Heathers, Bring It On, etc…) A modern-day retelling of Emma, which already gives it a solid plot structure, Clueless plays like a quasi-demented parody of the upper-class California life we’re shown in other similar films. Great lines pepper the dialogue, and the delicious soundtrack polishes the result to near-perfection. Smarter than it appears. Constantly amusing. May unfortunately represent Alicia Silverstone’s career peak. Definitely worth a rental, preferably with other similar films.

(On VHS, May 2001) It’s hard to see where a romantic comedy could go wrong while featuring Russell Crowe and Salma Hayek on-screen for nearly 95% of its duration. The answer is that romantic comedies are supposed to be funny, and romantic. This one isn’t. Like so many independent films, Breaking Up wants to be different, and its idea of different is to foreshadow a break-up for 90 minutes, and then have it happen. Insert cries of disbelief from the audience. Not only is it unsatisfying in itself (everyone loves a happy ending), but it also pretty much makes the whole film feel useless. Fortunately, two or three things save the film from total collapse: The lead actors are completely adorable as their respective archetypes, the writing is decent and the direction has very good moments. But be prepared for one downer of a conclusion.

(On VHS, May 2001) If you’re going to remake a film, don’t remake Rosemary’s Baby! And if you’re going to remake that dull piece of solid boredom, at least make it more interesting. But no. We’re stuck with a Charlize Theron made ugly Mia-Farrow-style, a somnolent pacing and a completely linear plot. The best (and “best” is still pretty bad) is kept for the end, where we finally get some special effects. The big twist is that the alien wins. There, now you know all. There are a few good camera tricks, but they somehow come across as being more pretentious than interesting. But then again, the pacing will put you to sleep before you have a chance to notice any of it.

(On VHS, May 2001) Irresistible Victorian-era comedy inspired by an Oscar Wilde play. Completely depends on the skill of the actors, who all rise superbly to the challenge. The sex-appeal factor alone (Minnie Driver, Cate Blanchett and Julianne Moore, in elegant period dresses) is worth the rental for guys, but my sister assures me that Jeremy Northam and Rupert Everett have a similar impact on female viewers. The comedy itself is literate, civilized, steadily amusing and appropriate for the whole family. The conclusion may require a moment’s thought. A wonderful film that most would unfortunately be tempted to overlook.

(In theaters, May 2001) The power of the media! The lack of responsibility of current Americans! The failings of the judicial system! The undue respect given to criminal behavior! Big ideas! Bad execution! 15 Minutes has a twist or two that save it from total collapse, but more often than not, it ends up playing like a cartoon with a body count. The caricatural east-European bad guys don’t help, and neither does the oh-so-bad media newsperson. I mean; we’ve seen most of these issues raised as afterthoughts in Die Hard… did we need an entire film dedicated to it? Wit requires subtlety, and 15 Minutes is usually as subtle as a sledgehammer. If anyone escapes from the film with some honor, it’s Ed Burns, turning in a good performance despite a badly-written role that follows the typical cop-turns-psycho arc we’ve come to expect. (It doesn’t make much sense, but then again it rarely does. Other plot threads even disappear in mid-flight.) Good cinematography, and the direction had its moments despite an overuse of “amateur camera” shots. The film’s third quarter is actually quite good, thanks to one hard plot twist and a meanly effective fire action sequence. After that, it just gets sillier, and I don’t think that was the intent of the filmmakers.