Movie Review

(On VHS, December 1999) This is a study of a small borderline Texas town, and it packs in a lot of stuff in its running time: Murder, corruption, racial tension, broken families, illegal immigration, education, drugs, adultery, violence, gambling… and in two time tracks separated by thirty years, no less. And yet, it does so almost effortlessly, in a way that hooks you in and never seems too far-reaching. Good performances all around, even though some stuff could have easily been taken out of the film (eg; Joe Morton’s speech to the positive-testing recruit) without any ill-effect. The film features a who’s who of “gee-I’ve-seen-that-face-somewhere” actors: Elizabeth Peña (Rush Hour), Chris Cooper (October Sky), Kris Kristofferson (Blade), Matthew McConaughey (Ed TV), Frances McDormand (Fargo), etc… Good film, well worth the rental. The final line is kind of a perverse relief.

(On VHS, December 1999) There isn’t much to say about this film. Despite the inherent interest of young lesbian fantasy-writing murderers and director Peter Jackson’s usage of special effects, the whole film feels flat and obvious. Kate Winslet is notable in her screen debut.

(In theaters, December 1999) A rather long sit. You wouldn’t notice it, however, if it wasn’t for the writer’s sadistic fixation on urination. Fortunately, both screenwriter and director keep thing moving at a good (if not rapid) pace, and the film is seldom boring. Tom Hanks turns in his usually good performances, and he’s supported by an able gallery of supporting actors. Despite the unashamedly manipulative nature of the film, the ride is a fun one, and The Green Mile stands as a fairly good, mostly innocuous adult fairy tale.

(On VHS, December 1999) I have it on good authority that most people who watched Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas, then his latter Casino experienced a strong feeling of déjà-vu. For me, it was the reverse: Having first been very impressed by Casino, it seemed like Goodfellas was going over much of the same terrain in pretty much the same fashion. This doesn’t invalidate the worth of the film, which is considerable, but it does diminish its impact. Nonetheless, Goodfellas is a pretty crunchy tale of New York Mafiosos, told in a marvelously enjoyable overlap of narration, quick scenes and sharp vignettes. It meanders after a while, but somehow doesn’t lose interest. A great film, from a great director in great shape.

(In theaters, December 1999) This doesn’t rise much higher than most “stupid comedies” seen lately, but does the job if you’re in the mood for this type of film. Rather sweet-natured despite the constant jabs at almost every “different” group you can think of. Includes the first parodies of The Matrix; two hilarious take-offs on action scenes accompanied by the Propellerheads’ “Spybreak!”. It’s unfortunately easy to see where this comedy could have been improved at the script stage to produce something with a longer video-store shelf-life: Rob Schneider isn’t the best actor for the job (the role would have been ideally suited for the cynical wit of David Spade) and the script is full of missed opportunities and insufficiently defined situations. For instance, Deuce is never clearly established as a genius or and idiot; wouldn’t the movie have been much more fun with a sarcastic, nerdish Deuce Bigalow thrown into the “he-whore” business?

(In theaters, December 1999) A sumptuous, lavishly detailed historical quasi-romance with flashes of comedy, drama and action. Something for everyone, including good performances by Jodie Foster (“an intellectual’s pin-up girl” says one colleague) and Chow Yun-Fat (who here broadens his appeal beyond the tough-guy action roles that have been his trademark for American audiences up to now.) The film does loses its focus midway through and meanders a lot during its final hour. Audiences still get an adequate entertainment and some very pretty scenery.

(On VHS, December 1999) This film never flinches in its treatment of racism. But don’t think that this is another preachy morality tale where all sins are easily redeemed; American History X is far more unsettling. Perhaps its biggest strength is that it doesn’t represent racists as easily dismissed kooks; in the context of the film and the character’s situation, the racist arguments sort of make sense. That’s where the film’s true power lies: In depicting the slow slide, the external factors, the erosion of common sense that can lead anyone into the trap of racial hate. Fortunately, the film is carried through by Edward Norton, who turns in yet another great performance. Though not without flaws (the ending doesn’t make as much sense as it should. Norton’s character’s re-education is sketchy), this is -no mistake about it- an important work. Great, moving film.

(In theaters, November 1999) This sequel easily comes close to its predecessor in terms of humor, action, emotion and enjoyment. It’s amazing to see that, in an age where committee-produced art is sign of blandness, Pixar continues to turn in films that are the epitome of computer-generated production yet manage to have more human emotion than most live-action films. A lot of laugh-out-loud moments, clever parodies, a high-octane opener and a lot of great references to the original film. The movie pulls off an emotional musical sequence near the middle, and manages to insert an unusually powerful message at the same time. The action scenes are better than most “action movies” of this year. A very good choice for adults and kids alike.

(In theaters, November 1999) The kind of film that (almost) doesn’t get made anymore; a reasonable tagline for a remake. Renée Russo and Pierce Brosnan are very convincing as (respectively) a sultry insurance investigator and a gentleman thief. Some sequences seem designed in function of highlighting how good Russo still looks. The heist sequences are great and the seduction scenes are smoldering. A great more-mature-than-usual film.

(On TV, November 1999) This film annoys on three separate fronts. For one thing, as a Canadian weaned on hockey, the glorification of modern basketball simply doesn’t reach me. For another, Space Jam is a film designed for kids, and not much thought has been given to making it palatable for older audiences. Finally, this film reeks of merchandising for basketball and Looney Tunes; even liking both doesn’t wash the awful impression left by this extended commercial. There are a few (very few) good jokes in the Looney Tunes tradition, but even more stupid gags. The romantic interest seems more tacked-on than anything else seen recently. Worthwhile for the special effects… but don’t pay anything.

(In theaters, November 1999) Tim Burton is an expert at delivering atmosphere, and it’s that ability that makes Sleepy Hollow such an entertaining film. This supernatural whodunit/thriller might have unpalatable in the hands of lesser talents, but is so well-done here that it’s almost impossible not to like. The acting is uniformly decent, but the direction and cinematography are top-notch. Maybe a bit disappointing in the finale, but even then a worthwhile film.

(Second viewing, On DVD, September 2001) Whatever one might think of elements of the script, it’s really Tim Burton who takes this film from undistinguished B-grade obscurity all the way to A-list goodness. The visual polish of the film is so successful it’s almost scary; you’ll want to see the pretty pictures over and over again. In retrospect, it’s even difficult to imagine the film directed by anyone else, so perfectly does it all mesh together. In comparison, the plot is creaky, with unexplainable deaths and head-scratching moments. Not too creaky, though: The dialogue works well, the story keeps our attention and if nothing else, it’s much better than what you could have expected. The DVD features a few interesting behind-the-scenes glimpses and a strangely featureless commentary by director Tim Burton. Still; this is a movie you can’t help but to like, if only for how gosh-darn wonderful it looks.

(On TV, November 1999) There really isn’t much to say about this film mostly because it’s such an obvious, average monster movie. There are a few worthwhile moments (Penelope Ann Miller, The SWAT team assault, a few good camera setups) but they’re not worth plowing through the trite dialogue, unconvincing techno-babble, ineffectual jump-scares and limp directing. Structurally, the film is better-constructed that the original novel, but the final result makes so little usage of cinematographic strengths (most egregiously by locating everything in budget-saving darkness) that you’re unlikely to notice.