Movie Review

(On TV, November 1999) An awfully self-indulgent autobiography by and about Howard Stern. Though its central thesis is that “it’s all an act”, that objective is basically incompatible with the film’s aim to shock and amuse, hence the curiously mixed reaction at the results. Not without amusing moments, but not a laugh-aloud riot either.

(In theaters, November 1999) This begins with a bang, as the techno soundtrack paralyses you and the frantic pacing of the first thirty minutes keeps your eyes glued to the screen. It begins repeating itself -literally- after that, but the result is still a provocative, interesting, dynamic film that’s not SF (maybe?) but still evokes concepts like hypertext, chaos theory and parallel worlds. Several cleverly hilarious moments. Definitely worth a look.

(On TV, November 1999) The high-concept: Arnold Schwarzenegger as a strung-out dad who’ll do anything to get a rare toy for his child. It works (any other actor in the role would have been far less successful) but it would have worked better if the film could have maintained its adult satiric tone throughout, instead of pandering to kiddie audiences like it does so shamelessly at the beginning and the end of the film. Some potential, but the final result doesn’t warrant the bother.

(In theaters, November 1999) A film that, like most Michael Mann film, contains some great sequences but ultimately proves to be too long and not focused enough to be satisfying. Part of the problem is that The Insider is about two stories. The first one is about a whistleblower’s decision to tell what he knows, and this part seriously drags. It’s never fun to see someone’s life go to pieces and given that most of us with sufficient knowledge of movies already suspect where this is going, the first hour is overpadded by at least thirty minutes. (Then there’s the assertion that this part seriously distorts “actual facts”, which doesn’t really help the overall film.) Things get better as we move to the second story, which is a tale of journalism gone corporate. That is, at least, a bit more fast-paced and satisfying. Compounding the problem is Mann’s annoying tendency to go for “epic” films, not well-paced ones. The operatic/eastern score is annoying. A long sit, and not always worthwhile.

(In theaters, November 1999) This gets a lot of points for actually being scary, even if only for a while. The first hour is quite creepy, with enough ominous signs and sights to really make us believe that something baaad is going to happen to these six strangers stuck in an abandoned mental hospital… The sound effects are terrific in a good digital theatre, and the various “instruments” of primitive mental therapy (surgical blades, electroshocks, etc…) lying around cast a decidedly hair-raising spell on the proceedings. With the eerie visuals (vibrating faces and video-ghosts sent a good ol’chill down my spine) and the sudden noises, it’s easy to forget the lousy dialogue and the unconvincing characters. Unfortunately, it’s all downhill from there. Once Price is out of the mad box, sixty minutes into the film, there’s still a worthwhile thirty minutes of “human terror” (solid if not spectacular) but as soon as the CGI creature comes out of the closet, all the suspense disappears. Poof. Bad CGI (Smoke in Dark Shadows? Please!) runs after the too-obvious heroes and frankly, we’ve seen all of this before—usually much better done. You often hear critics lament the advent of digital special effects, but House On Haunted Hill features the purest enters-CGI-exits-tension effect I’ve witnessed. A shame, because the first hour really isn’t all that bad.

(In theaters, November 1999) Though not very well received by critics, this film nevertheless delivers what any thriller could be expected to: Strong lead characters, a good pace, false leads, interesting dialogue and such. James Woods shines in his role; every scene that includes him is a step above the rest of the film. Though not without excess (the rape sequence should have been toned down; its present form is gratuitously exploitative) and occasionally bland, there’s nothing especially wrong about The General’s Daughter. A fine video rental; just don’t expect it to play fair.

(In theaters, November 1999) Watching this film is a lot like watching a festival of missed opportunities, botched execution and amateur moviemaking with occasional flashes of interest. Arnold Schwarzenegger is back in a more vulnerable role (the scene where he throws away his gun was a nice bit) and Gabriel Byrne rises above the material, but everyone else just got their paycheck and left running. The script is awful, with predictable dialogue and contrived plotting (eg; how they figure out the girl’s name) Peter Hyams’ direction is a step backward from his previous efforts, throwing everything haywire in a flurry of MTV editing that barely makes sense. The action scenes are so incoherent that they actually lessen the film’s impact. Robin Tunney looks like a crack addict escaped from the set of Rosemary’s Baby. Not a major disappointment -after all, there are a few good *intentions*- but nothing near even a marginal success either. Best line: “Eastern time?”

(On TV, November 1999) Yet again, Sylvester Stallone plays the role of a supremely competent man with a past trauma suddenly thrown into a dangerous situation. Unfortunately, this is no Cliffhanger and though Daylight is an adequately competent disaster film, it’s nothing special. The traditional cast of diverse characters populate the script, none being especially interesting. (Well, none beyond the millionaire adventurer, who’s killed too early) The initial tunnel disaster is impressive from a visual effects point of view, but the rest of the film is rather more pedestrian. You won’t believe some of the Stupid Mistakes made by the screenwriter.

(In theaters, November 1999) This might be one of the most original film of the year, but that in no way implies that it’s a supremely entertaining one. It’s always a personal wonder that from time to time, film critics will be bowled over by “originality”, as if that excused everything. You’ve got to wonder about frames of reference. I’ve read far too many SF and Fantasy tales that were far weirder that Being John Malkovich, so allow me to be unimpressed at how “startlingly fresh” it seems. I didn’t like the characters, I didn’t like the easy “explanation”, I didn’t like pedestrian direction and I didn’t like the “oh-it’s-a” monkey either. I did like a few sight gags (eg; the 7.5^th floor, Malkovich being Malkovich) and Malkovich’s performance, but beyond that… why don’t you grab a modern fantasy anthology and start reading?

(In theaters, November 1999) An exploration of marriage relatively more successful than Forces Of Nature, but not by much. As a comedy, it has a few scattered chuckles, but nothing much beyond the striking visual gags of a man being chased by a thousand women in bridal outfits. (the production costs, my, the production costs!) As a romance, it’s bland; we never ever doubt that the two leads are going to end together, and the structure of the film does not allow for that down-low moment where everything seems irrevocably lost. Renée Zellweger is cuter than ever and James Cromwell is suitably sympathetic as a pastor.

(On TV, November 1999) As far as pure B-movie adventures go, you really can’t find better than Anaconda. Directed with some skill and scripted according to the most basic standards of the genre, this film knows exactly what it is, and makes no apologies for it. Jennifer Lopez has never looked so good (spending most of her considerable screen time sweaty in a tight shirt) and John Voight redefines over-the-top villainy. Some special effects look fake, making a shocking contrast with the remainder of the CGI-intensive visuel effects. A great unassuming video choice.

(In theaters, November 1999) Where did this movie come from? How is it we didn’t hear more of it? A quasi-hallucinatory mixture of genres finally ending in pure science-fiction, Open Your Eyes is the kind of reality-bending film that Hollywood often aims for but never quite achieves. While longish in the beginning, and not always consistent, this is a film to hunt for at you local video store. To say more would be to spoil the film.