Movie Review

(In theaters, November 2000) Ay-yay-yay, how ordinary can you be? I imagine the pitch for this film being roughly “Hey, I’ve got twenty minutes of wild Cocktail-for-chicks bar stuff! Any one of you can dust off one of your rejected romance plot to fluff it up?” Sure, Piper Perabo look cute and the rest of the waitresses at the “Coyote Ugly” (that wiiild bar) are pretty hot even when fully clothed, but the rest of the film is a complete bore, showing us a trite romance that we must have seen countless times already. Shamelessly manipulative, often ridiculously implausible, laughably “edgy” (being a struggling songwriter is never so glamorous as in a Jerry Bruckheimer-produced film) and all-and-all rather forgettable, Coyote Ugly delivers what no one expected from it; utter averageness.

(In theaters, November 2000) Halfway through the film, I leaned over to a friend and whispered “I can’t decide whether this is getting better or worse” and that will stand as a nutshell review. On one level, it’s one of the worst blockbusters of 2000: Hyperactive editing, sexist imagery, thin characters and one of the most incoherent script seen so far. On the other hand, it’s directed with such reckless audaciousness and played with such bouncy abandon that it’s hard not to be swept along with the fun. The film starts in high gear and never lets up. Film students will go bonkers trying to decode the cinematic techniques used by director “McG”, as he throws everything at the screen, often at the same time. Surprisingly or not, Charlie’s Angels pushes back the cinematic techniques at a pace comparable to the more “serious” filmmakers. What helps to swallow the disjointed script (obviously written on-the-fly, as demonstrated by out-of-nowhere sequences like the car chase) is an intermittent self-awareness that winks at the audience. Also notable is the great soundtrack, which often doubles as ironic commentary (the use of The Prodigy’s “Smack my bitch up” during a fight scene between the thin man and the three angels is either a product of complete cluelessness or subversive brilliance) Despite a reportedly difficult shooting, all of the four main players look like they’re having as much fun as we do: Lucy Liu and Cameron Diaz are adorable as always, Bill Murray is his usual dependable self and Drew Barrymore is surprisingly good. (A mention goes to Crispin Glover in a silent, but effective, role) Charlie’s Angels will probably remain as a film that gets no respect, but tons of fans.

(Second viewing, On DVD, July 2001) I’ll admit that this isn’t a movie for everyone. Animated with a hyperkinetic energy that tramples down any attempt at conventional criticism, Charlie’s Angels nevertheless features a basic self-awareness that helps a lot in respecting the film for what it is, and the DVD version of the movie confirms many suspicions in this regard. Surprisingly, the film is almost as much fun on a second viewing, mostly because there’s never a dull moment. The editing is rapid but not chaotic, the directing is much better than initially apparent (watch for those lengthy single shots, a clear indicator that director “McG” is more than your usual music-video director) and the overall sense of fun simply doesn’t let go. Great action sequences, a fabulous soundtrack and oodles of sex-appeal are the icing on the cake. Dig down through the plentiful extra features on the DVD, and you’ll understand why the film works so well: The lively audio commentary makes it clear that everyone involved in the film knew they were doing a comic-book film, and they’re justifiably proud of what they achieved. No social relevance; just fun. Worth not only a look, but a second look.

(In theaters, November 2000) You can evaluate films on artistic merit, or you can just measure how much fun you had while watching it. Well, Bring It On is unquestionably one of 2000’s most enjoyable films, an irresistibly bubbly teen comedy executed with skill and above-average intelligence. A rather complete surprise, considering that you wouldn’t except a teen sport comedy about cheerleading to be anything but fluff. But while Bring It On doesn’t break out of the teen genre as, say, Election did, it remains as one of the best recent entries in the genre. The script very good, filled with good one-liners, properly acknowledging clichés and managing non-boring relationship scenes. The actors all look like they’re having fun, with Kirsten Dunst continuing her good career choices. (In fifty years, I suspect she’ll pop up that film once in a while just to bask in the glory of how good she looked and how well she performed.) Technically, the choreography of the cheerleading scenes is really impressive and the soundtrack is very good (Even somewhat clever, linking 2 Unlimited’s “Are you ready for this” to a trite, unoriginal routine. Ho-ho!) From its incredible first scene (a masterwork of structure, introducing the main characters in a wild-out dream sequence) to its bouncy sing-along credits, Bring It On is one of the year’s surprise delights, a teen film that’s enjoyable well beyond its simple voyeuristic appeal. Though that’s not to be neglected either.

(Second viewing, On DVD, July 2001) Among the dreck that passes off as teen films, you occasionally get a smart film that either goes beyond the teen genre (Election) or simply works so well that everyone can get into it (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off). Bring It On is another example in that last category, a fun film without any pretensions, but made with considerable cleverness by people with perspective and respect for the audience. The film is a blast even on a second viewing, and the director’s audio commentary is worth another viewing by itself. (Choice quote, which probably explains the appeal of Bring It On to me: “I tried making a cheerleader film with a punk sensibility”.) You might even pick up a few of the subtle messages (No!) vehicled by the film. Impossible not to smile and cheer for a film when everyone involved looks like they’re having that much fun! Be sure to check out the “deleted scenes” section of the DVD, which features great scenes you’ll wish had remained in the finished product. I love the film more than ever, and easily confirm its standing on my 2000 Top-10 list.

(On VHS, November 2000) Not all films are for everyone, but frankly I’d start worrying about anyone with the inner will to sit through Breaking The Waves‘s seemingly interminable duration. If the annoying characters don’t make you run for the exits, the “naturalistic” dialogue and the awful shaky-cam direction will surely make you hurl. If I wanted to be generous, I’d say that the “realistic” style of the film is exceptionally good at representing the unpleasantness of the story, but that’s really faint praise compared to the rest of the film’s flaws. My attention eventually drifted off, only returning occasionally for nude scenes (nothing to see here) or a character’s death. (which was applauded, for it signaled the impending end of the film.) Only hard-core art-film buffs need apply, I guess.

(On VHS, November 2000) Horror film, released on Halloween weekend 1999 and in the “classic” section of your video store barely a year later. Sounds bad? It is. Ridiculous script, unconvincing special effects, adequate acting (at least it’s good to see Lou Diamond Philips and Dina Meyer working again) and familiar plotting make this a rather innocuous film, not worth a bother but with the potential to amuse (perhaps not as intended) if there’s nothing else to do.

(Second viewing, On DVD, November 2000) Unjustly forgotten by audiences and dismissed by critics upon its initial release, James Cameron’s underwater epic was partially redeemed in 1992 is it was re-released on video as a longer “special edition”. But this fantastic two-disc DVD edition really does justice not only to the exceptional film, but also to the stunning technical difficulties encountered during the film’s production. Tons of extras make this edition a must-buy for the film’s fans. (Don’t make the mistake of renting it, or you’ll despair at how little time you’ll have to watch it all.) Technical production values are insanely high, and they hold up amazingly well in this era of computer graphics (which it helped along, really). A great film by any standards. See it again.

(In theaters, October 2000) This exasperates the seasoned moviegoer at the same time than it thrills everyone who seen only one of two films a year. The endless use of jump shots (you know the drill: everything goes quiet when suddenly -WHAM- something appears in the frame.) is not only overused (there are nearly a dozen of them in the film) but they’re so obviously predictable that they’ll cause more groans than shrieks. The plotting plods along, wasting at least forty minutes of everyone’s time (and a few million dollars) with useless subplots and red herrings while, at the same time, the poster, trailers, ad copy and video box cover all jump-start the film by basically telling everything but the last fifteen minutes (which can be easily predicted by, again, the seasoned moviegoer, who’s seen this stuff far too many times already.) The setups are all so obvious that they might as well be underlined with subtitles stating Pay Attention. This Will Come Up Later. Still, not everything is awful; the film is boring until maybe thirty minutes before the end, when we move in true thriller territory and the directing itself seems to break loose from the pedestrian form it had followed this far. (And so we find ourselves peeping through floors and tracking someone from a long shot of a bridge to inside a truck cabin.) The awfully convenient ending (crashing through all this shrub to end up at this exact spot?) is way overboard, but by this time, the audience (seasoned or plain) is just grateful that stuff’s happening and special effects are used that it doesn’t really matter any more. A shameless, big-budget, big-stars film that doesn’t have a clue, but which will most certainly fool every casual viewer that it’s somewhat good.

(On VHS, October 2000) I didn’t have much hopes for this straight-to-video sequel, mostly because I consider the original Tremors to be one of the best (if not the best) pure B-movies I’ve ever seen. Things aren’t off to a great start as Fred Ward is the only lead actor to return from the original film, but looking like a greasy slacker rather than the cool cowboy of the prequel. Things pick up somewhat as soon as they start blowing up the “Graboids” (there are a few nice references to the event of the first film) and even more so when the Survivalist character of the original movie returns for more mayhem. The film takes what may have been a fatal turn about midway through, as new creatures are introduced. Fortunately, the film treats their new capabilities with the same cleverness that made the success of the first film, and this decision merely proves to be half-misguided rather than catastrophic. I won’t try to kid anyone that Tremors 2 is a must see, or even a good film; but it is an acceptable sequel to the first film, and if it doesn’t even begin to match the original, it delivers enough not to disappoint too much.

(In theaters, October 2000) Maybe not Jackie Chan’s overall best film (uneven pacing, some feeble comedy, unconvincing plotting) but that would be unjustly belittling the exceptional individual sequences that make up the rest of the film. At least four great battle scenes truly showcase Chan at his best and teach the rest of the filmmaking world about action scenes. Jaw-dropping, amazing stunts, fights and choreography should impress even those who don’t particularly care about this particular genre. Maybe not the best martial arts film ever, but definitely in the running.

(Second viewing, On DVD, September 2001) Comedy doesn’t translate language barriers very well and so a first view of Drunken Master II is understandably focused on the action rather than the comedy. A second viewing, though, might ease some flaws (such as the difference between Jackie Chan and Anita Mui’s ages versus those of their characters), make you appreciate some jokes a bit better and still knock you over with the action sequences. Mui’s comic performance is much better the second time around (“Help!”) and the various ginseng antics are, for some reason, much funnier. The Canadian DVD version of the film has a lot of trailers for other martial arts film (great), French and English dub (good), an interview with Jackie Chan (fine), not enough chapter stops (annoying, especially given that they bury the action sequences, which is why you want to have chapter stops) and no original Chinese soundtrack (Atrocious! Eek!)

(On VHS, October 2000) Anyone who seriously maintains that older films are boring should take a good look at this one, which seems to exemplify the modern action blockbuster years before the genre was redefined by Jaws. You’ve got dangerous heroes, exotic locales, a constant peppering of action and an explosive finale. Suspense everywhere and cool scenes of treachery and trickery. Sure, the special effects are now obvious (though they hold better than other films of the time) and the pacing -good as it is- seems leisurely when compared to the latest MTV-inspired material, but it’s good enough to keep you riveted to the screen. Worth a look.

(In theaters, October 2000) A “tale from the ‘hood” crossed with a sports drama with a dollop of romance. (Plus a coming-of-age story. In some ways, it’s kind of a Fight Club for girls.) Though the plot is conventional, it’s hard not to be impressed by newcomer Michelle Rodriguez, who shines brightly as the aggressive protagonist. (“I love you!” THWAP!) The direction is surprisingly assured, with a neat white-flash trick during the fight scenes. Maybe a bit too contrived to be entirely believable. The kind of film that cheats no one and delivers what’s promised.