Movie Review

(On VHS, October 2000) Take away the last fifteen minutes, and you’ve got an average Jackie Chan film, with the expected stunning stunts, hilarious humor and stilted eastern style of acting. But add the end mall fight sequence, and you end up with one of his best films. Unlike American action sequences, this one ends up looking both dangerous and painful, as dozen of people crash through enough glass to keep janitors busy until well past closing time. (The opening cars-smashing-through-shantitown sequence is no slouch either.) Featuring Maggie Cheung as the girlfriend character.

(In theaters, October 2000) Acceptable “revenge” B-movie; not too ambitious, but rather entertaining. Sylvester Stallone turns in a good performance (one of his best) in a role that seems custom-tailored for him. Rachel Leigh Cook continues a string of good roles in otherwise average films. The direction is showy, at times needlessly so. (The grainy film grain is intended to bring back memories of the seventies, but it’s more annoying than anything else.) The script is by the numbers. Strong similarities with the 1999 film The Limey (as with other “revenge” films), though Get Carter is more tightly plotted once you’re unkinked The Limey‘s nonlinear narrative. Not bad, not good: to be seen on TV.

(In theaters, October 2000) Few people can resist films about gambling, and so Croupier has a built-in fascination enhanced by its insider’s view of casinos and the thrill of playing with high stakes. The story of a ex-gambling writer who finds himself drawn back in the world of casinos as a dealer, Croupier isn’t showy, explosive or particularly funny, but I guarantee that it’ll hold your attention, and not only because you’ll be trying to figure out the English accent. Pay attention to lead actor Clive Owen; he’ll be back. It’s a story filled with betrayals, small and big, a twist ending that doesn’t entirely make sense and characters stuck in the choices they’ve made. But it’s the little details that count, such as the casino lore and the strangely compelling half-world the characters inhabit. Not bad.

(On TV, October 2000) Oh yawn; another film starring a devious serial killer. We’re seen so much of those by now that the best a new one could hope to do is to maintain our attention for its duration, which -fortunately- is what Copycat manages to do, despite problems here and there. Though Sigourney Weaver gets top billing, the real star here is Holly Hunter, who somehow manages to look sexy and smart (unlike in, say, Crash) as the lead investigator on a series of murders. The film proceeds with a certain effectiveness and rarely a dull moment. There are disputable choices (such as to take out a major character halfway through) and silly computer stuff (self-erasing files! Super video-editing programs! Ultra-high-speed lines!), not to mention a rather predictable ending, but it’s not all that bad.

(In theaters, October 2000) This surprised me, and it should surprise you as well. It is obviously much, much slicker (and formulaic) than the controversial original film. It also can’t escape the obvious giggle-factor reflex of thinking about the sheerly lucrative intent of a sequel to a film that already stands as being one of the most profitable in history. The surprising thing is how well it stands up to the original’s originality. Blair Witch 2 assumes the the first one did exist as a film, and features “fans” of the first film, further blurring the reality/fiction line that the first one muddied so well. But this is only a pretext to an exploration of reality, denial and objective truth that works quite well if you’re paying attention. Book Of Shadows (okay, where’s the book?) doesn’t emerges without serious flaws (the caricatural sheriff is a terrible character, and there are several moments where you’ll laugh at the film, not because of it) but it does earn a certain hard-won respect. It’s not a classic, and even calling it good would be dicey, but it’s much better than what you might expect. Many, many people will prefer it to the gimmicky (shakycam) original. It’s fascinating because and despite its relation to the first film, by the sheer distance between the two and by the common bonds that unite them: Sequel, satire, apology, rip-off, homage; it’s all of that. Viewers with an encyclopedic knowledge of horror film and a love for the genre will have a lot of fun dissecting this one. If nothing else, the audaciousness of Book Of Shadows‘s writer/director Joe Berlinger is enough to make it interesting. Oh, and the Wiccan redhead gets naked too.

(In theaters, October 2000) Some type of movies are virtually critic proof as long as they’re made competently. Bedazzled is the type of high-concept film that never attains even a fraction of its impressive potential, but won’t disappoint most viewers anyway. The reasons are numerous: Good likable performances from leads Brendan Fraser and Elizabeth (wowsa) Hurley, simplistic but not entirely stupid script, numerous set-pieces and a feel-good finale that redeems almost everything. Granted, there are only a few chuckles and not that many laughs, but it doesn’t matter as long as it’s wrapped in an entertaining package. Add a star if you’re a Hurley fan, because she shows up in almost every possible outfit. Average, but fun.

(On VHS, September 2000) Little-seen low-budget Canadian film starring Newsradio‘s David Foley as a man who thinks himself falsely suspected of his boss’ murder. Clever premise for a take-off on Hitchcock’s thrillers (the credit sequence will hammer this home), but unfortunately, Foley’s character is written as too much of a doofus to be as sympathetic to the audience as Gary Cooper, James Stewart et al. It doesn’t help that the film deviates from its Hitchcockian mold and loses itself in sort of a travelogue across America. Jennifer Tilly disappoints with a short haircut. It’s not that the film is bad; there are a lot of laughs, David Foley is as good as usual and the film doesn’t feel like it’s low-budget. But it’s a disappointment that it can’t do more with what it starts out with.

(On TV, September 2000) Even those who can’t stand Kevin Costner should be able to enjoy his turn in this sports (golf) comedy. That Renee Russo is there, looking hotter than ever, should placate the last holdovers. Not a great film by any measure, nor much of a comedy, but it lets itself be watched easily, and the film boasts a few interesting set-pieces. (Most memorable are the two bets between protagonist and antagonist, as well as the protagonist’s fascination for one very specific club.) The ending is interesting, simultaneously damning and following the usual sport conventions by turning victory into defeat and definite defeat into victory. Too imperfect to be all-fun (there are two painful scenes) but worth a look, if not dollars.

(On TV, September 2000) Okay, so I’m cheating: I only watched the first ten and last five minutes of this TV movie. Why the heck do I feel able to comment on it, then? Because I can interpolate the rest of this strictly-routine Antarctic-base monster film from what I’ve seen. No surprises, no difficulty to follow despite having missed 90% of the film. Draw whatever conclusion you want from that simple observation… They might have simply called it The Thing: The Cheap Version and be done with it.

(On VHS, September 2000) Funny how this film can appear to be many things to many people: Romance, Drama, Philosophical Exploration, Fantasy, Science-Fiction or plain old Experiment. In any case, the film follows the adventures of a young woman (Gwyneth Paltrow, in a good turn) whose life is affected in a tiny way that has dramatic consequences. The narrative alternately follows two different paths from that nexus point. Alternate universes? Plain fantasy concept? Whatever the justification, the script is well-written, and if there aren’t as many inter-linking between the two universes as one might have hoped, the dialogue is sharp enough to keep us absorbed in the storylines. The banter between “good-guy” and “bad-hair heroine” is particularly interesting. The conclusion is a downer, though it’s hard to say how else the film might have ended in order to wrap everything up. The French video version of the film has English captioning, which allows to see how the translation loses a lot of the subtle humor of the original script. In any case, an interesting film, and one that should please many very different audiences.

(On VHS, September 2000) Dennis Rodman as the star of a new spy-movie franchise? Computer-expert monks? A gorgeous female assassin? A prissy Englishman villain? A Romeo-and-Juliet subplot? Wisecracks by an inept sidekick? Yellow motorcycles, big weapons and a gliding gadget-car? Yes, it’s bad, but not as bad as you might think for what basically amount to a vanity project for Rodman. The impressive cinematography helps a lot (can you go wrong by filming in Mediterranean France?) and if the script does no wonders, it seems to have at least a hint of self-derision to it. Granted, there are plenty of cringe-inducing moments, like two really bad CGI shots and the awful line “let’s work out”, but as a whole, it’s a surprisingly diverting film that should fit the bill for an otherwise-unoccupied Saturday evening… and long as you don’t expect anything.

(On VHS, September 2000) At first glance, this would appear to be a gambling film, but pay closer attention and you’ll find the structure of a typical sports film here, with the only difference being that the sport here is poker. (“If it’s such a game of luck, why is it that the same players end up finalist at the national tournament?” asks the film) The details of the game and the associated culture are fascinating, and the film does a great job at presenting the inherent drama of the sport. Great actors abound, from Matt Damon and Ed Norton to John Malkovich as a ridiculously accented Russian player. Maybe not as strong as it could have been, but more interesting than not.

(On VHS, September 2000) This goes straight in the “quirky indie film” category at first glance, what with is starkly supersaturated black-and-white cinematography, its abuse of repetitive sequences, self-supported cameras, flashy direction and pretentious narration. Nevertheless, there’s some depth to the film, and it takes chances. As a first-time feature, it show promise for its director Darren Aronofsky. Viewers with some scientific and technical literacy will quickly see through the film’s techno-babble. The ending is somewhat disappointing, but fits the overall film quite well. Worth a look if you’re in that type of experimental film, but definitely not a crowd-pleaser.

(On VHS, September 2000) This film makes good use of David Schwimmer’s (TV’s “Friends”) puppy-dog charm, but that’s the extent of the film’s strength. The rest is just ordinary romantic comedy material, based upon a mistaken-identity premise that borders on the uncomfortable. Gwyneth Paltrow is bland in the lead female role, and the other characters are ill-defined. It’s hard to dislike a competently made romantic comedy, but it’s much easier to be unimpressed, and that’s pretty much what The Pallbearer leaves with us.