Movie Review

(In theaters, January 2009) What an odd and fascinating film. Staging a series of conversations as if they were confrontations, Frost/Nixon is quiet without being dull, and relatively demanding in the knowledge is presumes from its audience. A number of the film’s more amusing lines, for instance, come from catching ex-president Richard Nixon saying things at odds with his behavior during the Watergate events: those without a certain knowledge of the time may not fully appreciate those moments. But even for younger viewers, Frost/Nixon spends enough time introducing its subject that most of the dramatic importance of the interviews between Nixon and journalist Frost is obvious early on. It’s also hard to avoid thinking about the parallels between the Nixon and Bush administrations, and to wonder if ever there will be a television interview to replace “the trial that he deserved”. While Frank Langella’s “Richard Nixon” doesn’t really look like the original, his portrayal of the man as a canny opponent is something of a revelation to those raised on thirty years of caricatures. The film is too dramatically enhanced by pseudo-interviews and artificial dramatic moments to be fully credible, and places far too much importance on its original subject, but that’s not really a serious problem for a film that does most the rest right, from good dialogue to lively pacing. Those who were waiting for intelligent adult cinema to come back to cineplexes may want to have a look at this one.

(On DVD, January 2009) It turns out that I had avoided this film for nearly fifteen years for a good reason: It’s really not very good. The first few minutes are the worst, as they show everything that can go wrong in a comedy sequel that believes its own hype without understanding why the first film was a hit. We get the mannerisms, the same catchphrases, the goofy faces, but little of Ventura’s skill or a sense that the quirks are coming from the same core: it’s all surface imitation without any depth, and it’s the difference between spending 90 minutes with a fascinating person, and knowing them for a week and finding out that they constantly recycle the same jokes. Fortunately, things improve a little bit in the film’s second half, what with a too-short early role for Sophie Okonedo, more complex plotting and some original comedy. Still, there isn’t much here to recommend, especially for those who liked the first film.

(Second viewing, On DVD, January 2009) There should be a warning on the DVD: Watching this film may rekindle annoying mannerisms. Like all great comic characters, Jim Carrey’s Ace Ventura is a mesmerizing creation that rises above its own infectious catch-phrases and absurd moments. Don’t be surprised to catch yourself repeating one-liners or mugging for attention with Carrey/Ventura’s facial expressions. Fortunately, there are quite a bit more comedy moments than just Ventura’s character, and a generally solid plot holds it all together. As a result, the film has survived the last fifteen years better than you’d expect. The DVD contains a pretty good commentary track by director Tom Shadyac that spends most of the time discussing how the filmmakers felt their way by trial-and-error to bigger and bigger laughs.

(In theaters, December 2008) The only thing that distinguish this awful film from so many run-of-the-mill C-grade action movies is the unbelievably over-the-top violence that push its R-rating. Exploding heads; clouds of blood; pierced bodies: take your pick, gore-hound, because this film’s all about red pulp. For anyone without a fetish for violent dismemberment, however, this third attempt to create an action franchise out of one of the less likable comic-book superhero comes across as reprehensible. The violence doesn’t serve any artistic purpose and feels even more gratuitous than usual. Charmless, witless, meaningless: no wonder it’s going to be forgotten within moments.

(In theaters, December 2008) I wasn’t a big fan of the original, so the fact that this sequel seems a bit better than the original shouldn’t be interpreted as a particularly strong recommendation. For some reason, the characters are less annoying, the cloying sentimentality is toned-down and there are more penguins than in the original. There are at least one or two genuinely funny moments, from dirty union negotiations to a very determined shark. Otherwise, there’s not much to say: It still falls far below the best-of-category CGI films, but it’s marginally tolerable and that’s already not bad.

(In theaters, December 2008) Hollywood really should know better than to attempt remakes of decent films, because this latest snore-fest is the perfect example of why some things shouldn’t be revived. Cold War parables can’t always be adapted to modern sensibilities, and Hollywood now often seems dumber than ever: taken together, both of those truth hints at why this remake is so unbelievably dull. It’s most obvious with Keanu Reeves (who manages to portray alienness so successfully that he feels more robotic than the actual robot), but the script he’s got to work with is utter trash, with leaps of logic and incoherent plotting. While the film can’t avoid a few nice moments (the nano-cloud effects are good, and so are some of the early scenes of impending doom), it seems determined to annoy the maximum number of people with unsupportable performances by Kathy Bates and Jaden Smith. Again, see the script for the problems with their roles. Muddled morals, tepid pacing and superficial intellectual content are hallmarks of our era. The film ends up being a powerful argument for the extermination of our species. Recommendation for Hollywood: Don’t mess with what’s not broken, because you will make it worse.

(In theaters, December 2008) Thematic resemblances between Bolt and Pixar movies may not be accidental: With Pixar alumni John Lasseter producing the film, the themes and methods tend to the tried-and-true, what with an animal protagonist living a fantasy, going through a series of action set-pieces to reach an emotional objective. It’s conventional (the ending can be seen coming a mile away), but it works thanks to good characterization, effective direction and considerable artistry. This being said, the film’s never quite as enjoyable as when it’s taking place in fantasy-land: the opening action sequences is so good that the rest of the film pales in comparison. Bolt remains strangely limited in other areas as well. Beyond the thematic richness of a dog forced to confront his own ordinary dogness, there isn’t much here to justify a second viewing. Still, Bolt succeeds at most of what it attempts, including delivering a satisfying film to the whole family. That’s already not too bad considering that the computer-animated-film subgenre is getting crowded, and the level of quality is more uneven than ever.

(In theaters, November 2008) The first film was dumb, the sequel was dumber and this one is the dumbest. But the worst sin of writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen is to saddle returning protagonist Frank Martin with one of the most unlikable love interest in recent memory. Sullen moody marble-mouthed raccoon-faced “Valentina” somehow manages to seduce Martin, but viewers may be forgiven for wondering how much more fun the film would have been with a real sullen moody marble-mouth raccoon in the passenger’s seat. Transporter 3 never recovers from that mistake, and even the chases and gunfights of the film all seem lame given the lack of empathy regarding Martin’s charge. Only Jason Statham does well and saves his honor throughout the film; the rest is eminently forgettable. After a bad second installment, let’s just hope that this franchise is now out of its misery.

(In theaters, November 2008) Criticizing this movie for its melodrama feels a lot like kicking a puppy for its inherent doggyness. But at some point, it’s required to drop the whole “most expensive Canadian movie ever made! About Canadian war heroism! Based on a true story!” thing, step back, and cackle at some of the film’s worst moments, from Paul Gross’ Jesus complex to the lopsided structure, the mawkish scenes and the dramatic shortcuts. That the film is made with the best of intentions doesn’t excuse the hour-long snooze set in Calgary, or the too-short time spent on the front. Best intentions don’t require a ten-second detox scene, clichés from sixty-year-old movies or a final sequence taken from the Stations of the Cross. As much as it’s tough to dislike the film’s impressive historical recreation, the charm of the actors or the intention to tell a typically Canadian piece of history, Passchendaele stumbles when comes the moment to put it all together. The result will go well with those who (for various reasons, many of them politically partisan) really want to “support our troops”. Alas, it will have a much tougher time crossing over to a larger audience that isn’t already sold to the film’s emotional manipulation. Despite the film’s fascination for crucifixion, it has to do more than sing to the choir.

(On DVD, October 2008) There’s nothing amusing about seeing someone die for an hour and a half, but Emma Thompson manages to make the whole experience uplifting during this adaptation of a play about a scholar slowly dying of cancer. Her flights of fancy as death closes in may not rank as uplifting, but they do credibly tackle the formidable waste that death can be, especially when her own experience of the process clashes so dramatically with the doctors who see her as nothing more than another patient on which to perform the experiments that will prove them right. Not bad as far as tearjerkers go, but stay far away if you’re not in the mood to contemplate slow and futile death. The DVD doesn’t contain any other material of note than the film.

(In theaters, October 2008) In theory, it’s entirely possible to mix genre fiction with serious drama. The problem is that such a hybridization can’t be handled lightly, and requires a deft touch to keep everyone happy: The pacing of genre fiction can often be inconsistent with the demands of dramatic depth, and a cross-over can fumble both. This is pretty much what happens here, as the filmmakers try to deliver a drama that cuts deep into the ties of a family of policemen and the larger NYPD around them: The balance between the inner lives of the characters and the police investigation that the perform isn’t satisfying, and feels either dull or rushed. Despite capable performances from the cast (including Ed Norton and Collin Farrell), Pride And Glory doesn’t have the heft or the nimbleness that a genre cop drama should have. It can’t even conclude properly, with a fistfight climax followed by cheap street justice. Most of all, there little moment-to-moment interest as the film moves from one scene to another. Character tangents are taken but not resolved, (such as when a journalist becomes a viewpoint character,) reinforcing the impression of a slap-dashed script shot too quickly. There have been more satisfying films about cop families recently, including We Own The Night, and this one won’t have any staying power.