(On TV, January 2000) Interesting as it starts from a very dangerous premise (male scientist makes himself pregnant) and completely defuses all possibly controversial elements, ending with a final products that’s about as challenging as plain pablum. Arnold Schwarzenegger embarrasses himself as the pregnant scientist, though Emma Thompson makes the best of her role. Lousy gags and juvenile humor pepper the script. Not really recommended.
(In theaters, January 2000) A puzzling film. It has a competent story, numerous good special effects, good laughs and a great concept; what if aliens came to earth and sought the help of our SF actors? (Never mind that this exact premise was the basis of 1998’s Diplomatic Act, by Peter Jurasik and Williams H. Keith Jr.) It’s such a can’t-lose premise that even the lousiest writers couldn’t mess it up. And that’s pretty much what happens here: Despite the inherent comic potential of parodying Star Trek and Trek Fandom with the help of Tim “Buzz Lightyear” Allen and Sigourney “Ellen Ripley” Weaver, Galaxy Quest delivers the goods in a strictly pedestrian fashion, never for an instant getting really wild. But at least it delivers, which is more than one could say for many summer blockbusters. Which leads us to Galaxy Quest‘s biggest mystery; why the heck was it released in the Christmas deluge when it fit so perfectly in a summer lineup? Oh well…
(Second viewing, In French, On TV, May 2001) This holds up rather well to a second viewing, especially given the lowered expectations. When not expecting the ultimate Science Fiction TV-Show parody, it plays like a strong, if formulaic, comedy. Most of the actors do a great job, most notably Tim Allen and Tony Shaloub. Special effects are good, especially the rock monster. Some of the script’s most weepy/expected moments (The “We’re actors” confession, the teen-called-to-help segment) are more annoying. I still wish that it would have been a wittier comedy, but it’s still quite good as it is.
(On TV, January 2000) I can testify that this film works pretty well as a comedy without catching any of its references to the noir genre it’s so obviously parodying. This fabulous cinematic experiment intercuts actual scenes from classic 1930-1950 films into its own B/W footage, and so includes Steve Martin and the gorgeous Rachel Ward interacting with the great Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Vincent Price, Cary Grant, Greta Garbo… and a few others. It presumably blows the mind of the fans of these type of films, but as a total neophyte to this period, I though the film was pretty darn successful without knowing the referents. You’ve got to love the recurring tie gag.
(On TV, January 2000) This film has a rather big problem. It’s basically a rethread of The King And I with a satiric bite, with Fran Drescher as a sarcastic American “teacher” suddenly dropped in an East-European country ruled by a kind-of-dictator. Some of the funny bits work; Drescher does deliver a few fun zingers and the film does exhibit moments of cleverness whenever it tries to make fun of the basic premise. Unfortunately, the film takes itself much too seriously most of the time, and ends on a purely-straight romantic note, which doesn’t jibe with the sarcasm that had been, up to that moment, the best part of the film. Might be best watched as a dubbed translation, as no one can have a more annoying voice than Drescher…
(On TV, January 2000) A charming fairy tale about a farm, its animals and the human farmers. Though quite fun and always interesting to look at, it does lacks some “oomph”. The computer-animated animals are cute, but there are signs that the film doesn’t fully exploit its potential. Still, good fun.
(Second-through-fiftieth viewings, Toddler-watching, On DVD, June 2014) Sometimes, it takes a different perspective to appreciate a film at its true value, and so it is that toddler-watching Babe (that is; over and over again) with a curious two-and-a-half year old only underscores what a magnificent achievement this film is. We usually skip over the dark opening and the sheep death scene, but most of Babe is fit to be watched by very young kids, even if as nothing more than a pleasant montage of scenes with adorable animals. (Tell no one, but the scene in which Babe convinces a sheep to take her medicine proved to be of pedagogical value.) It’s upon the fifth or fifteenth viewing that you begin to realize how perfectly executed Babe is: As a representation of a bucolic family farm, it’s got charm beyond measure. James Cromwell is nothing short of an icon as a laconic farmer, and the near-silent climax is a thing of beauty. Babe him/herself is a hero worth cheering for, and the sheep are almost impossible cute (and I say that as someone who has worked with sheep.) George Miller’s hand in this film is mostly that of a producer/screenwriter (Chris Noonan directed the film), but you can recognize the success of his approach in the rewatchability of the film. Babe is sweet but just as much fun for adults than it is for young kids. Let go of any cynicism and enjoy.
(On VHS, December 1999) Choose this film. Choose visual dynamism. Choose densely textured construction. Choose a cult classic. Choose thick annoying English accents. Choose good acting by Ewan McGregor. Choose a darn funny film with unfortunate scatological vignettes. Choose yet another good English crime dramedy. Choose one of the most harrowing description of heroin addiction ever put to film. Choose life. You know you want to do that.
(On VHS, December 1999) I can’t say I enjoyed this film as much as I should have. The initial misogyny of the film is hard to overcome (even though we’re supposed to see through it) and the protagonist comes off as a whining wuss for most of the story. There are some good scenes (as well as a few really good songs on the soundtrack) and the film eventually pulls itself together for a good finale, but it takes a long while to get there. The tribute shot to Goodfellas (long take of the protagonists entering the bar through the kitchen, etc…) is showy, but fun. Might best be seen in a group.
(On VHS, December 1999) This film surprisingly sustains the viewer’s interest, even despite the limits of its small-town melodrama subgenre. Well-acted, decently written and nicely directed, it’s obviously not a subtle film: Every character has a huge problem, and the film is peppered with weepy moments. There are a few scenes that don’t seem to belong in the film. Still, it works well and effectively develops its structure. Not bad.
(On VHS, December 1999) One of the disadvantages of viewing a film on video is that contrarily to a movie seen in theatres, it has to compete with doing the dishes, cleaning up, reading a good book, etc… For most of its duration, Sling Blade fought with all the other household distractions for a share of my mindspace, and usually lost. Only in the final few minutes does the film become interesting. One could blame my usual lack of appreciation for film about mentally-challenged protagonists, or the view that the film is pretty obvious early on, then drags for a full 140 minutes… Whatever the reason, even though it possesses undeniable qualities, Sling Blade just can’t compete with household distractions. That can’t be that good, mhhhm?
(On VHS, December 1999) This film was dangerously over-hyped to me, regularly turning up in “Best-of” list and being endlessly praised by both critics and trusted friends. I already knew that the basic story was solid; I had been very impressed by Stephen King’s original story. As it turns out, the film honoured both King’s story and its own near-classical reputation. You can tell it in many different fashions, but The Shawshank Redemption is a grrreat film, an instant classic (immediately earning a spot on my Top-100 list), a ****/**** film and a must-see. Great stuff, rent it, buy it, etc… You shouldn’t need much more than that to rush to your video store.
(On VHS, December 1999) Pretty much what you’d expect if you’ve seen the original Scream. Out-of-nowhere plot twists, pop-culture references and wildly implausible action. The Whaaaat?-factor is fairly high. Rather more funny -but not that much- than horrific, though two sequences (the open-air cell-phone scene and the crashed car) stand out as being above-average. Many twists can be foreseen. Not as clever as it thinks it is. Moments of silliness, increasingly so toward the ending. Ends up as being more or less of the same quality than the first one.
(On VHS, December 1999) In retrospect, a rather promising debut by a guy named Quentin Tarantino. It’s also surprisingly theatrical, for such an obviously cinematographic film. Steadily -though blackly- amusing throughout, with great performances by Harvey Keitel and Steve Buscemi. A solid rental.
(On DVD, February 2009) This talky crime thriller has aged pretty well, all thing considered. The dialogue gets better, the lack of action isn’t as surprising, and the cut-ear scene seems positively restrained given the excesses that Tarantino and his imitators have committed ever since. The 15-year-anniversary DVD edition is filled with interesting material, from interviews with/about the fascinating personalities involved in the project, a look at the impact of the film on the indie circuit and other assorted tidbits.
(On VHS, December 1999) Is it possible to make an engaging film about a despicable character? Judging from this film, the answer would have to be yes. Despite being reprehensible, Larry Flynt is hailed by the film as being kind of an unusual hero, a living conduct for popular freedom of speech. Who would have though that a pornographer’s biography would make these points? Edward Norton turns in another great performance. (Has he ever been in a bad role?) We don’t get much insight in Flynt’s mind -maybe it’s better this way- but we do get outrageous courtroom antics. It’s worth it.
![Mononoke-hime [Princess Mononoke] (1997)](https://www.christian-sauve.com/wp-content/uploads//princess-mononoke-1997-200x300.jpg)
(In theaters, December 1999) All things considered, a pretty good fantasy film marred both marred and bolstered with the typical qualities of anime. On one hand the visual inventiveness marks the film with stronger quirky individual scenes than the usual film. On the other, the often-jerky animation and other anime “tics” make it so that the film flows less smoothly than the standard Disney. The universe of Princess Mononoke is also presented as is, without any attempt at rationalization or structure. Don’t expect any kind of predictable logic; wacky solutions and features still pop up late in the film. Still, it’s an enjoyable fantasy for more mature viewers, and makes one wish for better material of this type.
(In theaters, December 1999) As someone with zero knowledge of Andy Kaufman, I approached the film as “Kaufman 101”, and I’m not sure I know more about the guy now than before. Okay, so he was a practical joker without an “Off” switch. Okay, so he manipulated people in order to get attention. Okay, so he didn’t care if people laughed or hated him. Well, I’m still waiting to understand why Kaufman deserved his own film. There is no bigger issue here than Kaufman (unlike in Milos Forman’s own The People Versus Larry Flynt, which made valid points about censorship and civil rights) and the result seems like a showcase for Jim Carrey’s mimetic skills (which are actually fairly good) than something we should care about. Kaufman’s “comedy” isn’t always conventionally funny, and even though the film tries to milk laughs out of the audience, there’s a level of discomfort that never totally goes away. The conventional structure of the film is a disappointment after the brilliant opening, and is full of holes that make this film seem like a spliced multimedia supplement to a pretty good (and far more complete) book. The other embarrassing screenwriting problems (several instances of “see now, never hear from again” situations, a useless girlfriend character, etc…) considerably diminish the worth of the film, until it’s hard to commend it as much more than a marginal video rental.