Movie Review

(In French, In theaters, August 2004) There’s no use pretending that this is a classic for the ages, but this darkish thriller not only feels better than the original film, it represents a small step up for Luc Besson’s screenplays. Oh, it’s still rife with silly stuff, coincidences and frustrating developments, but at least it’s not as broadly silly as some of his more recent material such as Taxi 3 and Yamakasi. Even his dumb ideas have a certain panache: It’s hard not to smile at a film mixing apocalyptic imagery, monk ninjas and Nazi revivalists. (Whew!) Sure, the characters are wafer-thin and the conclusion is lame… but when the entire film is so drenched in atmosphere, there’s reason enough to be interested. Olivier Dahan does a fine job at the helm, showing what he’s capable of in a series of spooky scenes that borrow much from other films but still manage to create an appropriate atmosphere. (Ooh, crucifixes) Jean Reno is as good as usual in his reprise of “Commissaire Neimans” while newcomer Benoît Magimel is a good-enough replacement for Vincent Cassel’s character in the original. It all adds up to a pleasant-enough film, perhaps a bit tired about the 1999 wave of “Christian apocalypse” horror films (Bless The Child, Stigmata, End Of Days, etc.) but nonetheless not too shabby.

(In theaters, August 2004) There is definitely something to be said about the purity of this film’s premise: What if you found yourself stuck in the middle of the ocean in a scuba suit? There’s an innate terror there as the situation is so far removed from the daily reality of us land-lubbers. For more fun, add in some jellyfishes, wounds, dehydration, exposure and the usual sharks. Visually, the director cleverly lets the camera hang only a touch above the stranded divers’ heads as they bob up and down in the ever-changing ocean landscape. Yup, some good stuff here –and I’m not even talking about Blanchard Ryan’s completely gratuitous nude scene. But what could have been a one-note premise turns out to be exactly that and even at a mere 72 minutes, this film still feels overlong. Granted, the pedestrian screenplay doesn’t do much to heighten our involvement: The two leads are basically yuppie scum, and while their everyman quality gives a this-could-be-you quality to their plight, it doesn’t go beyond that. Visually, it’s both a shame and a achievement to see that the film was shot in muddy digital video. Sure, it means that a film that otherwise wouldn’t have existed was shown on thousands of cinema screens across America. On the other hand, well, it looks like digital video on a two-storey silver screen: There is no arguing that this is a bottom-basement budget film. So; a mixed bag? Well, yes, but I suspect that the clincher will be the cheap ending, which makes the whole thing feel quite irrelevant. Eh: I call it low-budget film syndrome.

(On DVD, August 2004) Hey, that wasn’t terrible. Oh, it’s no great art: crazy people, an insane asylum, a murder or two, possession by vengeful ghosts, yadda-yadda. The best thing about this film is Mathieu Kassovitz’s direction, trashy in a B-genre fashion with enough CGI stuff to keep things interesting. Otherwise, well, it moves relatively quickly and seldom wastes any time in setting up its scares. As long as you enjoy Halle Berry in a shower; what else do you need? Well, a plot maybe, and one that doesn’t solely bring back memories of What Lies Beneath. But then again it’s “just” a horror movie, and a decidedly non-scary one at that despite the desperate spring-loaded cats at regular intervals. The audio commentary on the DVD shows both director and cinematographer struggling to make this something more significant than an average horror film, only to hear Kassovitz cave in at the end and ruefully recognize that this is, after all, just a silly genre film. (Oh, don’t get me started on the last scene…) Still, not bad. Could have been worse.

(On DVD, August 2004) Yes, James Cameron still hasn’t directed any feature-length fiction film since 1997’s Titanic. But if this is the kind of stuff he’s doing on his “holidays”, well, it’s just as good. In this documentary, we follow Cameron and his crew (including stalwart actor Bill Paxton) as they revisit the wreck of the Titanic in late 2001. Paxton makes a useful everyday character as he’s (justifiably) impressed by the whole proceeding: his doofus act as they take him to the wreck is a useful proxy for everyone in the audience. The technology used for this round of exploration is quite impressive, bringing movie-making savvy to underwater exploration, along with a full underwater lighting rig, 3D cameras (whose footage is sadly converted to 2D on the DVD) and remote-controlled ROVs. The exploration of the Titanic itself is cleverly augmented by CGI, overlays of live-action footage and interviews with experts. Hard-SF fans will squeal in glee at the appearance of Charles Pellegrino, author of several books on the Titanic, archaeology and other nifty stuff. It’s engrossing material, but becomes even more so when the tale evolves into a techno-thriller mode as one of the robots has to be rescued after technical difficulties. Fascinating stuff, though some knowledge and passion for the subject of the film is almost essential. Well worth tracking down.

(In theaters, August 2004) Michael Mann films are rightfully regarded as minor film-making events, and even this admittedly average effort shows why: In this case, an average script is delivered by above-average talent, making it seem a great deal fresher than it is. Just take a look at the first few minutes, as Mann’s camera suggests Los Angeles as a vast uncaring monster, thinly linked by endless roads on which it’s easy for a man to be reduced to the simple role of a carrier. Hey, I know this is reading too much in a film, but that’s exactly the beauty of Mann’s direction: Make things appear deeper than they are. Because frankly, once you start picking at the details of this kidnapping/assassination thriller, it falls apart quickly: Jamie Foxx may play a sympathetic cab driver taken hostage, but the moron repeatedly manages to miss even the most obvious ways to get out, call the police and get away. The point isn’t that he should have done so (otherwise; short movie!) but that the screenwriter should have worked a little harder polishing the script. Otherwise, you end up with the kind of amazing coincidence that is likely to make any audience shake their head. (Come on: Don’t tell me you didn’t know, ten minutes in, who the fifth target was going to be.) Silly script, with a sub-par third act that crumples into a whimper of a conclusion. But -aha- boy does it look good and profound with Mann at the helm. (Tom Cruise also helps, with an icy look that does much to bring some much-needed oomph to the story) Wow, philosophical discussions in a taxi cab! It almost makes Collateral feel like it’s supposed to be a fable about estrangement and not a run-of-the-mill thriller. But don’t take a second look: You may be disappointed.

(On DVD, August 2004) “From Mamoru Oshii, the director of Ghost In The Shell” sounds like a pretty good sales pitch… until you realize that this means a live-action film that emulates all the most annoying characteristics of bad anime: Soporific pacing; re-use of the same shots; a threadbare plot barely deserving of being called a “story”; characters mostly defined by their cool nickname; inexpressive acting; obvious twists stolen from slush fiction; and so on and so forth. If this film had been paced like the usual American films, it might have lasted a good fifteen or twenty minutes. As it is, we’re forced to slog through 90 minutes of sepia-tinted melancholy to get to where we know it’s going to end. Beyond the weirdly stylized (and yet curiously dull) first sequence, don’t expect much in terms of action: This is one anime film where long static shots are meant to induce roughly the same catatonia that affects the lead character. Some interesting cinematography, but is it all worth it? So many clichés and overused elements, yet still all wasted. It all ends, as you would expect it, with the usual metaphysical ending that truly doesn’t mean much and concludes even less. Real or not? A better question: Do I care or not? Welcome to Avalon.

(In theaters, August 2004) Admit it: what did you expect with a title like that? The good news is that the film delivers more or less what’s promised by the title: A B-grade movie that doesn’t try too hard in trying to please the fan-boys. Some winks and nods are cute (Lance Henrickson’s role, for instance), but as the movie progresses, it becomes more and more obvious that Alien vs Predator is, faithfully enough, fan fiction brought to the screen. And fairly dumb fan-fiction at that: On paper, it’s scarcely distinguishable from the tons of truly wretched fan-fiction to be found everywhere on the Internet: flat characters; clichés repeated with gravitas (“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, “I’d rather have it and not need it than…”), scenes and beats stolen from the previous films in the franchise; as well as numerous errors of physics, continuity and logic. What’s worse is that the direction is scarcely better than average: While there are one or two good shots (I’m thinking of the “Pyramid Swarm” or the ironic “bullet-time face-hugger”), Paul Anderson (Resident Evil, Event Horizon) has done much better in the past. Worse; he’s the one who wrote the script, and you only need to read one or two interviews with the guy to understand that whatever talents he has are solely in the area of Special Effects-heavy direction. Oh well; dumb as it is, Alien vs Predator at least has the decency to move at a good clip and seldom wastes any time. As a result, it feels a lot more satisfactory than it really deserves. And that’s what I mean when I talk about a decent B-grade movie.

(In theaters, July 2004) Granted, I’m not the target audience for this film. It’s still not much of an excuse when the result is so uneven. Comedies aimed at 10-to-12-year olds can be simplistic if they wish, but that’s not an excuse for them to be stupid. Here, the writing oscillates between decency and eye-rolling awfulness. There’s a faintly creepy atmosphere in how it blatantly aims, through innuendo, sexual situations at pre-teen girls… but what do I know about that age group, right? I was, truthfully, a bit more disturbed by the way the characters lived in upper-middle-class paradise (complete with private security forces) as if it was normalcy. There’s no attempt at teaching any kind of deeper message here beyond “cool is good and happiness can be found only through a boyfriend”. Gaaah; it’s the revenge of superficial status-seeking for a new generation. If you’re going to feed stupid teen comedies to you kids, at least make sure they have the right message. At least, acting-wise, there are a few rewards: Alex Vega shows that there is a career for her after the Spy Kids trilogy and she’s ably helped by Mika Boorem in a strong supporting role. Laugh-wise, most of the good stuff is focused on Sam Huntington’s quasi-stoner big brother, with some additional laugh going to the skateboarder trio. A early-teen comedy barely worth remembering if it wasn’t for its surprisingly creepy undertones.

(In theaters, July 2004) Now that’s a teen comedy worth watching even if you’re older than 15. Scripted with great skill by Tina Fey, from Rosalind Wiseman’s non-fiction book Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence (!), Mean Girls even feels like a teen comedy written by adults. It’s not quite Heathers, but it’s almost up to Clueless‘ level in sheer sustained viewing pleasure. (It’s also jam-packed with good quotes). Lindsay Lohan is cute and believable as Cady Heron, a home-schooled girl abruptly thrown in the cesspool of high school at age 16. Fortunately, she’s not the only highlight in this film, which features a strong supporting cast of characters, with even the most minor ones getting a chance to shine (props to Rajiv Surendra and the Mathletes!). I especially liked the “rediscover your inner nerd-ness” message implicit in the finale, and the biting social commentary on schools. This film is a blessing after so many cookie-cutter teen comedies without any kind of social conscience (yes, Sleepover, I mean you.) A fine film that is probably going to find its own adult audience.

(Second viewing, On DVD, December 2004) Months later, this film still retains a tremendous amount of wit and charm –enough it leave it squarely in the running as one of the most enjoyable releases of the year. Written by an adult for brainy teenagers, Mean Girls could have coasted a long time on the innate charm of Lindsey Lohan and her assorted co-stars, but there’s a lot of depth to the screenplay, and the direction is suitably efficient. More than worth a look, and the extra material on the DVD will do much to satisfy all fans of the film.

(In theaters, July 2004) While the idea of remaking the classic 1962 film was completely unnecessary, the actual finished film captures the paranoid essence of 2004 like few other have the guts to do: By replacing the anti-Communist material with an anti-corporate message, The Manchurian Candidate knows where to go for paranoid thrills. Throw in some science-fiction gadgets, the Gulf War, War-on-Terror rhetoric and the result is a film that may very well come to represent the unique feel of the Bush II administration. Meryl Streep, Liev Shreiber and -especially- Denzel Washington all deliver when comes to time to portray intense characters. Director Jonathan Demme is ideally suited to give life to this paranoid nightmare, what with his propensity for flat close-ups (even in conversations) and the off-beat way he films even simple scenes. Granted, the plot is often silly, unconvincing and packed with implausible events. But that goes with the territory of a nightmare. Even the eerie sound landscape of the film contributes to the uneasiness. Not an easy film to love nor enjoy, but nevertheless one that sticks in mind.

(In theaters, July 2004) While I’m partial to the concept of presenting “the real story” behind the myths, that kind of stuff isn’t in itself sufficient to sustain my interest in a film. The first half of King Arthur passes in a drowsy daze, as director Antoine Fuqua seems content in simply showing how much mud existed at the time. Fortunately, things pick up (from a pacing standpoint) as soon as Guenevere (Kiera Knightly, an average casting choice at best) is rescued from a damp dungeon. While “realistic”, the film doesn’t do much to acknowledge real science given how hand injuries are easily forgotten, unlikely arrow shots find their targets a mile away and heroism takes precedence over simple physics. Oh well; at least it’s easy to warm to the title character (a fantastic Clive Owen) and his merry band of knights. Some low-level flirtation, along with a gruff Merlin and a shot of a round table, and we’ve got the making of myth. But it’s the action scenes that work better than anything else, from a great little frozen-lake sequence to a rather good final clash between two (or three) armies. Nifty, but they can’t excuse the tepid storytelling nor the bombastic details. It’s a mixed bag, really; better than expected from the lifeless trailers, but still not quite up to the level of quality offered from other recent historical epics.

(In theaters, July 2004) I truly hope that die-hard Isaac Asimov fans blow a fuse while watching this film. No, it’s not even near a adaptation of Asimov’s short stories. This is Hollywood, what do you expect? A faithful but dull collection of vignettes? Please; simply think of the film as iRobot, an average sci-fi action film that happens to have a few cool winks and similarities with Asimov’s work, including the Zeroth Law. As such, it works fairly well: The bright futuristic landscape is delicious and the action scenes can be spectacular. (Robot-to-robot bullet-time combat! Roadway rampages! Chi McBride with a shotgun! Rotating cameras! Sweet!) Sure, the film doesn’t make much real-world sense: The mechanics of the NS-5 roll-out are unbelievably dumb by any business standards, physics are routinely humiliated (advanced machinery isn’t a substitute for F=MA) and the variable scope of the story is frustrating. Throw in some silly stuff like fully-furnished houses being scheduled for destruction scant hours after the death of the owner (huh?), plus some obscenely blatant product placement, and it’s hard to take this very seriously. And yet it works. Will Smith turns in an unexpectedly dramatic role as a policeman with cybernetic issues, bringing along his usual considerable charm. Bridget Moynahan is a good-for-Hollywood Susan Calvin (no actress in Southern California is plain enough to play Asimov’s Calvin) with a believable arc from cold scientist to fluffy action heroine. But frankly, the robots are the star performers of the film: Even as we’re supposed to be too jaded for modern special effects, those in I, Robot still manage to impress. All in all, a satisfying film. But don’t expect much fidelity to the original material. And that’s a good thing.

(Second viewing, On DVD, March 2005) I’m in the minority on this one, but if you’re looking for an action SF film, you can do much worse than I, Robot. Sure, there are plot holes big enough to accommodate a robotic house-wrecker. But on the flip side, the film is competently directed, has at least one or two levels of subtlety, can rely on a likable lead (Will Smith, scoring another hit as an action hero) and even includes one or two nods toward the original material. Not bad, and hearing SF geeks scream their betrayal is actually part of the film’s attraction. It holds up well to a second viewing. The DVD is a bit thin on the “making-of” side, especially given the fantastic CGI work. The commentary instills some respect for the complexity of the script. Wait; did I just qualify the I, Robot script as being “complex?

(In theaters, July 2004) No one goes to the movies expecting a cogent treatise of geopolitical power and tips for more efficient warfare. Yet that’s exactly what The Fog Of War is all about; a late-life summation of what ex-Secretary of Defence Robert S. McNamara learnt during his life and his tenure at the top of the Kennedy/Johnston administration. From World War 2 to the Vietnam War, with a scary detour through the October 1962 Cuban Crisis, McNamara reminisces, summarizes, explains and justifies thirty years of American foreign policy. Good stuff, coming from someone who was heavily involved as it was happening. There is probably another film to be made to show the same events from another viewpoint; through The Fog Of War, we get flashes of McNamara’s reputation, but Errol Morris’ film merely presents his subject’s viewpoint without much by way of counterpoint. Still, the film is fascinating, especially given how it features one single talking head for most of its duration. McNamara is a mesmerizing speaker, and what he has to say would be most appropriate within the pages of a scholarly history book than a film. Military buffs and student of post-WW2 world history will learn a lot from it.

(In theaters, July 2004) The real revelation here is not how corporations are amoral entities whose ethical concerns are non-existent in light of shareholder profits; we knew that, and several of the examples used by the filmmakers to demonstrate their thesis are also quite widely known. No, the real pleasure and interest of The Corporation is in how captivating one can weave talking heads, dramatizations, stock footage and editorial cinematography in one captivating package. It’s nearly two and a half hours long, but it’s all good and fascinating from the beginning to the end. Interviews from an impressive variety of guests (from a Fraser institute representative to Michael Moore, Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky) are cleverly integrated in a strong structure. Eerie narration (echoing a “future viewpoint” reminiscent of The Animatrix‘s “Second Renaissance”) and original computer-generated sequences provide the framework of the piece, which -like many recent documentaries- doesn’t even try to provide a balanced viewpoint. This is a thesis, not an attempt at a definitive study. One thing for sure; this is brainy entertainment, the kind of intellectual material that is surprising to see in theatres. No wonder if it’s a film adaptation of Joel Bakan’s eponymous non-fiction book. A few of the stories told here are well-worth pursuing, including the tale of an attempted 1933 coup to overthrow… the American government (Search for “Smedley Butler” for more details). More modern examples of corporate malfeasance are even worse, from attempts to privatize rainwater, to modern-day advertising, to the ruling stating that televised news don’t necessarily have to be truthful. Despite occasional missteps (such as the pretty portrait of anti-globalization forces), it all adds up to a convincing argument, one that is sure to become even more important over the next few years as the divide between civil rights and corporate profits will become even more obvious.