Movie Review

(On VHS, February 2000) Standards disclaimers apply where reviewing Jackie Chan films: Thin plot, forced humor, mysogynism, choppy pacing, etc… Armour Of God is a bit more indulgent in these flaws than usual, and commits the added sin of boring the viewer for its first hour, but nevertheless maintains the usual Jackie Chan strengths: Amazing action set-pieces, genuinely funny physical comedy and an overall sense of fun that can’t be denied. For fans.

(On VHS, February 2000) Mel Brooks spoofs Alfred Hitchcock. Yawn. Problem being that the spoofs aren’t funny, and that the best bits (the orchestra in a passing bus, the camera crashing in a window) were used in latter, better films.

(On VHS, February 2000) Rather less effective than what I had heard, but still stands as one of the finest teen comedies of the eighties. I’m not sure that such a film would have been commercially viable a decade later, what with its subject matter of students “suiciding” other students, but it’s certainly as interesting now than before. It hasn’t really aged all that much unless you start focusing on how *young* Christian Slater, Winona Ryder and the luscious Shannon Doherty all look. Filled with many subtle sight gags and blink-you’ll-miss-it laugh-aloud quotes (“People may like you, but I *know* you”) that highlight its smart writing. Said writing flags noticeably in the second half, as if neither writer nor director knew what to do with their premise after the initial hour. Would make a great companion to Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and Election.

(On VHS, February 2000) This certainly feels like John Woo’s most personal film, but it’s certainly not a *fun* movie like Hard-Boiled or Face/Off. What it is, instead, is a wrenching, often unbearable Hong Kong view of the Vietnam war, with four protagonists who will be forever changed by the experience. Starts out slowly (it takes nearly an hour before we see the usual Woo shootouts) but then quickly becomes involving at a visceral level. No humour, no relief. Features a POW camp scene that will sear itself in your mind. The film is somewhat of a let-down after that, feeling overlong and forced in its pyrotechnic conclusion. Not a fun pop-corn rental, but nevertheless an essential part of the John Woo collection.

(On VHS, February 2000) Now that’s a pretty good film. I was struck, halfway through, by how well all the subplots seemed to come together, like a good novel. (It *is* an adaptation…) There’s a lot of symbolism too, both of the smack-on-the-head-obvious to the ooh-subtle variety. But beyond that, you get good direction, great performances by Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino (who tears through his role with relish, especially during the last fifteen minutes), a snappy pacing despite the almost-three-hours runtime and a memorable finale. It’s kind of a shame that said finale doesn’t make too much sense in retrospect, or that nothing *more* is done with the central premise, but when it’s so well-done, who can complain? Plus, it would be unfair not to mention the ex-appeal factor of the film, which shows nearly all the female stars in more-or-less complete nudity at one point or another. Not a great film by any means, but quite an enjoyable video treat.

(In theaters, February 2000) It’s not every day that you can be engrossed by a financial thriller mixed with a family drama, but that’s what you get here. Of course, the plot is enough to be interesting: A young ex-illegal-casino-owner gets hired in a stock trading firm where he’s guaranteed to become a millionaire in three years. Of course, it’s a scam, and as far as scams goes, this one is pretty clever yet explained in an understandable fashion. The acting is decent, with standouts being Ben Affleck in a scene-stealing quasi-cameo and Vin Diesel as a near-decent trader. Protagonist Giovanni Ribisi is less impressive, however; this reviewer couldn’t help but imagine Edward Norton in the role and bemoan Ribisi’s casting. The script is sharp, with funny interludes and not-so-funny insightful vignettes. The family drama drags a bit, and the protagonist’s “redemption” isn’t effective, but that shouldn’t keep you from Boiler Room, a darn good film.

(On TV, February 2000) This film from what I’ve heard, a typical Hong Kong action film. Terrorists threaten Hong Kong with nerve gas release unless authorities free an imprisoned cult leader. Two rebel cops are left to deal with the terrorists. Many explosions, one great opening car chase and crunchy gunfights make this film worthwhile. Cleanly shot and competently edited too. What makes more interesting than your usual Hollywood thriller, however, is the typical Hong Kong sense of unpredictability: Children and protagonists die, civilians are mowed down and even though the usual action conventions are preserved, they’re done so is such a slightly different format that things remain interesting.

(On VHS, February 2000) A man is trapped in an infinite time loop; every day is the same day, but he remembers. Groundhog Day? Nope! 12:01 came out a year previously, and unlike the Bill Murray comedy, actually wears its SF elements like a badge of honor. Not only does everything makes sense and is played for keeps -this is a thriller rather than a romantic fantasy-, but the character evolution of the protagonists feels real. In fact, the script is an admirable masterpiece of good B-film scripting, what with great dialogue, actions and motivations that make sense, smart characters, plenty of payoffs for all the little setups and some darn good individual moments. Jonathan Silverman makes a great protagonist, and Helen Slater is simply wonderful as the scientist female lead. Video stores are made for this type of wonderful discoveries you wouldn’t see anywhere else.

(In theaters, January 2000) It’s not often that you’re disappointed by a film that’s better than you expected. But there’s an exception to be made for Supernova, yet another cheap January sci-fi release. Already famous for a troubled production history (including directors storming off the project and removing their names from the credits), Supernova had the potential of a modern trash classic, a film so bad that audiences could actually revel in its pure awfulness. Unfortunately, Supernova is actually not-so-bad, with adequate technical values and a plot that sustains interest for the full length of the film. The only really sore spot, for me, is the interior set design, which rivals Star Trek (The Original Series) for sheer illogic and apparent cheapness. (rows of blinking colored lights? Slanted glass corridors? Come on!) Not a good film, but not a truly disgusting one, and that’s too bad.

(On TV, January 2000) A predictable failure; it’s a film inspired by an Saturday Night Live sketch that -for some unfathomable reason- tries to be a family melodrama with a deadly serious earnestness. It features, among other things, a therapy session that plays without a laugh and ends on a note of defeat. Hardly what you’d expect to find, and the rest of the film isn’t necessarily more enjoyable. Protagonist Stuart Smalley is the type of falsely cheerful character you’d love to slap around, and the mixture of faint comedy and high family drama around him simply doesn’t mesh well. It can work if you find the characters interesting and sympathetic… but chances are that you won’t.

(In theaters, January 2000) Remove the cute little computer-generated mouse protagonist, and there’s not much left to this film. A mostly-bland children’s film that truly depends on its special effects, Stuart Little is sufficiently sympathetic to make you smile all throughout, but not funny enough to elicit laughter among viewers above twelve. (There is one notable exception, a blackly hilarious police station scene that seems straight from another film: “Do you want to have it straight?”.) There are two rather good action scenes, competently milked for maximum effect. A good choice when there’s nothing else on TV, but not worth a great bother.

(On TV, January 2000) Not many people know the story of hispanic-american singer Selena, but this film does a creditable job of bringing to a wide public the unfortunate tale of a promising career cut short. Jennifer Lopez is radiant in the title role. (Lopez’s newfound singing career makes the film more interesting now than during its initial theatrical release) While the film doesn’t really break out of the biographical format, it does manage to create a perceptible sense of loss, and that’s more than good enough.

(On TV, January 2000) About as unremarkable a piece of “thriller” cinema as it’s possible to find. Though I’m not familiar with the original TV series, I sure hope it was better than what was presented on-screen, which reeked of gimmicky (past trauma, character trademarks, fake spy tradetalk, etc…) devices. The techno-babble stinks, the romance isn’t special, the action set-pieces are non-existent. Only the interesting musical ambience and the charm of the two lead actors save this one from total memory wipe.

(In theaters, January 2000) As with 1998’s The Thin Red Line, there’s a great quasi-classic film inside Magnolia, but it’s smothered by at least forty-five extra minutes of padding. Clocking at more than three hours, director P.T. Anderson’s third feature is undoubtedly an ambitious film, juggling nine quirky main characters, a coincidence-filled storyline and several high-intensity emotional moments. But it’s also exasperatingly over-indulgent in its writing, editing and pacing: Characters ceaselessly break into repetitive, obscenity-filled monologues of little value. By the time a dying character is confessing a litany of past sins, most viewers will be checking their watches. This isn’t to say, however, that this is a bad film: The first fifteen minutes are a blast, as is the concluding rain scene. Anderson has an awe-inspiring mastery of directing (the film is filled with clever cinematographic tricks) and when Magnolia gets going, it truly is impressive. Expect film enthusiasts to dissect this one for years to come. (Favorite detail: The studio security officer taking away the “Exodus 8:2” sign, as if to protect the audience from spoilers… Favorite shot: Inside the ambulance crash…) But, sheesh, someone shoot the editor responsible for this mess. And beat up the people who didn’t suggest to Anderson that his script was perhaps a tad too long.