Movie Review

(In theaters, May 2000) Everything you have heard about this film is true. It is one of the worst films ever. It is a massive monument to the bloated self-esteem of John Travolta. It is unimaginably stupid. It is one of the cheapest-looking big-budget film in recent memory. It is not worth your money. It is not bad enough to be good, but it is bad enough to be unpleasant. It is incompetently directed. It deserved to flop even more badly than it actually did. It is also, hopefully, a well-deserved slap in the face to the “memory” of one of the most gifted con artist of the twentieth century, L. Ron Hubbard. Stay away. Stay far, far away.

(On VHS, May 2000) Take your usual James Bond template. Insert surrealism. Mix Well. Insert more surrealism. Mix even harder. Never mind if crucial pieces fly outside the bowl as you stir. That’s The Avengers for you; a film that will drive you crazy if you’re not ready for its weirdness and still expect something coherent. Essential parts of the plot were cut in the editing room, leading to big Huh?s such as “how now, brown cow” and a choppy narrative. But amusing images pop up here and there -the teddy bear meeting!-, raising the overall level of the film to something akin to guilty enjoyment. It doesn’t help, after the oddball nature of the rest of the film, if the conclusion is completely ordinary in spy-adventure terms. Still, The Avengers is worth a look, if not a thought.

(On VHS, May 2000) A cheap sequel of the original David Twohy film, minus everyone in the original film. (Special effects artists reportedly had to work from videotapes of the first film.) It looks cheap and feels even cheaper, explicitly taking place in Canada and featuring very few visual goodies. Despite all of the above, the film does an adequate job at preserving the themes of the first volume. Still, I would have rather see them resolve the issue here rather than letting the door open wide for further sequels.

(In theaters, May 2000) A writer is sent to a rehab clinic. Now that’s a premise that can either be milked for maximum pathos or maximum mirth. 28 Days ends up trying both and ending up with neither. Granted, the first tip-off that this is going to be safely middle-of-the-road tripe comes right before the title, when you see that Sandra Bullock is headlining the film. After that, you can expect all the usual clichés: The hunky love interest. The escape attempt. The suicidal roommate. The wacky gay guy. Granted, this is all far more entertaining that I was expecting, but it still doesn’t make of this film anything worth remembering. And what’s up with the final horse thing? Couldn’t that be any more convenient?

(In theaters, April 2000) A fresh return to the rah-rah-rah school of war movies, a gleeful throwback to a time where cinematographic war wasn’t hell, and surely wasn’t complicated by abstract concepts of moral ambiguity. Here, our heroes are red-blooded Americans and our enemies are civilian-shooting evil Nazis. For once, no confusion and no dithering; just an old-fashioned wartime adventure that will glue you in your seat for a zippy 90 minutes. Director Jonathan Mostow delivers the goods and even though the script is strictly from the cookie-cutter school of screenwriting (the end is abrupt and every non-action scene should be subtitled Foreshadowing), it’s almost guaranteed that you won’t be bored. Good special effects (except for the unfortunate end explosion) mesh with the convincing sets to create a good historical feel. This is everything you want in a good (not great) film: Heroes to cheer for, impossible odds, clear action and a thrilling victory. Be sure to buy a new sound system along with the DVD.

(On TV, April 2000) This is a nice little under-rated (when was the last time you heard of it?) SF film that deftly adapts and expands a quasi-classic SF short story in a manner that is both reverential and worthwhile. Jeff Bridges is quite good as the protagonist, a hotel owner who discovers that his clients are even weirder than they seem. The special effects are a bit… er… primitive, but the strength of the story carries the film. An auspicious debut for David Twohy, who would go on to prove his dedication to the genre in at least two other interesting-but-flawed films (The Arrival and Pitch Black). Worth a rental if you’re an SF fan.

(On TV, April 2000) An assassin from the Hong Kong underground is released from prison after a twelve-year term for murder. As soon as he’s out, he is contacted for a political assassination. He refuses, only to find himself framed for the very same job he was asked to do. Now, he’s got to avoid the police, the mob and collaborate with a shadowy group that might or might not want him dead at the end. It’s unusual to see this willingness to talk about political issues in Hong Kong films, but unfortunately, The Suspect‘s “political insider” scenes sound naive and unconvincing. More interesting are the action segments, though pyro fans will be disappointed: Apart from two rather good set-pieces (including a big-budget sequence on a downtown bridge), the film is closer to “thriller” than to straight-out action film. Things pick up somewhat during the last thirty minutes, but not enough. Somewhat long.

(On TV, April 2000) This shows the gonzo attitude of Hong Kong cinema better than any textual description. While the beginning is conventional (terrorists kidnap government scientists, demand ransom), the rest of the film quickly becomes weird (protagonists undergo hypno-training to fight terrorists) and then some (one protagonist turns hyperviolent…) Mixing decent special effects with a few fun action scenes and decidedly unconventional dramatic twists, Hot War‘s dramatic arc is about as classically un-Hollywood as action Hong Kong films can be. Refreshing, if not totally successful from a technical point of view.

(In theaters, April 2000) It so happens that Science-Fiction cinema is often best represented by modest low-key efforts rather than by big flashy blockbusters. Twelve Monkeys, 12:01 and Gattaca are three examples of SF films with minimal effects that nevertheless ranked as their respective year’s best SF films. Now Frequency joins their rank with distinction, popping up on SF fans’s radar screens with minimal fanfare but maximal effect. Time-travel tales are common, but they’re rarely as heartfelt as Frequency, which is -really- an ode to fatherhood disguised in SF trappings. A rather good script (despite more than a few causality problems) directed with tight efficiency supported by good acting; you can’t really go wrong with this film. Frequency works remarkably well and seems poised for a good enduring reputation.

(In theaters, April 2000) As a childhood fan of The Flintstones (practically a French-Canadian institution), I was prepared to be very indulgent toward this rather unexpected sequel. And, really, the best I can say about the film is that it’s not bad. No one will ever mistake it for a good film, but it’s rather enjoyable if you don’t come in with high expectations. The set design really fits in the overall Flintstones atmosphere, and the actors mostly adapt to the characters (only Kristen Johnson’s Wilma doesn’t quite match, but that doesn’t really matter seeing how Mark Addy’s Fred and Jeanne Krakowski’s Betty really act like their cartoon counterparts.) The pacing of the film flags down noticeably in the second half and the film can never make up its own mind as to whether it’s supposed to be for adults or for kids, but it can be watched with some pleasure. Sometime, that’s all you want.

(On TV, April 2000) This “police school” story has numerous problems. One would be the relative lack of action. Two: the setup is implausible, given that you’d expect elite force recruits to be already at a high level of police skills, not the raw-recruit level we see in the film. Another problem is the clichéd episodic nature of the film, what with the usual bonding scenes occurring more or less in the order you’d expect. The ending is also problematic, with our protagonists putting down an insurrection of interned Vietnamese foreign nationals –any Hollywood film trying to do something similar would be crucified by interest groups. There are enough good scenes to warrant a look, but not much more.

(In theaters, April 2000) Sit in your overpriced seats, my gullible friends! Watch in amazement as a plucky single mom takes on an evil money-grubbing corporate giant! Cheer as our spunky heroine sticks it to The Man! Laugh as she gets a two-million-dollar check for her efforts! Be entertained by this well-made, completely straightforward film by director Stephen Soderberg! Vote for Julia Roberts at next year’s Oscars ceremony! Do not ponder the repulsive subtext of the film! Do not question the film’s adherence to the “true story” of the events! Don’t be angered at the film’s gleeful representation of 40% lawyer fees! Don’t be annoyed at the glib glorification of the private arbitrage process! Above all, never pause to consider that this film shamelessly presents social justice as a form of lottery, where everyone who’s sick can be all right after winning a few million dollars! No, simply enjoy the film as it is, and conform to popular entertainment!

(On TV, March 2000) Now that’s the reason why I watch Hong Kong films. Released one year before Sliding Doors and Run Lola Run, this film presents the story of two alternate universes offered to a young Hong Kong mobster. Go to Taiwan or go to the Mainland. First we see one story, then the other. But beyond the cute premise, the true fun of the film is in the sheer inventiveness of the cinematography, from a fight filmed upside-down to another in pitch darkness, only illuminated by gun flashes. The camera becomes almost a character in its own right, with some very unusual movements. The rest of the film is a black crime comedy reminiscent of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, though skewed to Hong Kong tendencies. Worth a look, if you can find it.

(In theaters, March 2000) American filmmakers won’t manage to produce good martial arts film unless they understand that the attractiveness of these films’ fight sequences lies in the fight choreography. It is far more impressive to see thirty uninterrupted, uncut seconds of hand-to-hand fighting than to see thirty second’s worth of one-seconds cuts. One is easy and falsely exciting; the other is damnably hard to do, but awe-inspiring. That, in a nutshell is one of this action aficionado’s main problem with Romeo Must Die; it’s not up to Jet Li’s talent. The other problem lies in the mortally slow pacing, which sucks the energy out of the film. Fortunately, Jet Li rocks when he’s allowed to, and Aaliyah is a true-and-true dreamgirl. (Plus, Françoise Yip has a good cameo) At least the film is wonderfully pleasant in its matter-of-fact multicultural attitude. Worth your time if you’re an Hong Kong action film fan, but otherwise… this ain’t Romeo And Juliet.

(In theaters, March 2000) Horror is a curious genre, as it’s very dependent on its conclusion to successfully contextualize its initial eeriness. Explain too much, or produce a boring explanation (oh no, another vampire!) and the audience feels ripped off. Explain too little, or don’t explain at all, and the audience also feels ripped off. The Ninth Gate manages a superb first two hours, but then negates most of its impact with a gratuitously ambiguous ending that might or might not explain the past two hours. Too bad, really, because the first 5/6^th of the film are directed with skill (though the focus seems slightly off most of the time), written with some verve and carried by Johnny Depp’s character. Plus, the glimpse into rare-book collecting is fascinating, and makes us forget that the pace of the film is glacial and that not much happens for a horror story. But the finale, the finale… ow… It’s no coincidence if half the theatre audience groaned when the credits came up.