Movie Review

(On DVD, January 2004) Maybe the most plot-heavy instalment of the three and also the silliest as it mixes gangs fighting for a tournament, political assassination, early film technology and a grand villain businessman. Alas, even with all of the above, the China-vs-foreigners theme of the trilogy isn’t as strong here than in the two previous films. Fortunately, it features some of the most memorable moments of the series thus far, with a fight over an oil-slick surface and a colourful finale taking place around a wooden pyramidal structure. Even the character moments have some subtlety, what with the budding romance and the surprising arc of one of the film’s villains. The all-in-one trilogy DVD contains the subbed movie, and that’s pretty much it.

(On DVD, January 2004) The story of Wong Fei-Hung continues, this time in Canton as a popular uprising brews, headed by a charismatic villain. Once again for this series, the stronger-than-usual historical content is often more interesting than the actual fights, though the end duel is not bad at all. At least the characters start to emerge (especially Foon), and there’s a pretty amusing scene in which eastern medicine is demonstrated to westerners. Alas, the film blurs with its prequel and sequel when shown back-to-back, which may actually indicate a pretty consistent level of quality. The all-in-one trilogy DVD contains the subbed movie, and that’s pretty much it.

(On DVD, January 2004) This straight-to-video mob story with a twist is decently entertaining, but not much more. Here, Mira Sorvino does well as an aspiring doctor forced to move to Staten Island to take care of her ailing grandmother. The plot is set in motion as her budding medical abilities serve her well when she stumbles upon dark dealings while working as a waitress at an Italian restaurant. The rest of the story has a familiar air to it: The budding friendship between three waitresses, the growing realization that the restaurant is a front for the Mafia, the impending crisis as cops and criminals collide around the protagonist… It’s, in many ways, cookie-cutter stuff, but it’s decently paced and not terribly done. Plus, Mariah Carey is scorching hot as Raychel, and her good performance can help forget her turn in Glitter. The bare-bones DVD has a few trailers, and that’s it.

(On DVD, January 2004) I’m not a big fan of dramas in which old cultures learn to resist new social conventions, and so that particular aspect of Whale Rider is a bit lost on me. Where it works a little bit better, though, is in depicting a young girl’s fight for acceptance among her family, and the relationship between her and her grandfather. It unfolds pretty much as you’d expect, with appropriate pauses for tears and laughter. I can see why other people could go for this Oscar-nominated film. Good images; impeccable technical aspects. Keisha Castle-Hughes is wonderful as the heroine, but it’s Rawiri Paratene who steals the show as her gruff grandfather.

(On DVD, January 2004) Yikes! What the heck happened to Guy Ritchie? After spectacular success with films like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, here comes this… travesty. Granted, it stars Madonna and she was (at the time of the film’s release, anyway) his wife. But the problems with Swept Away run much, much deeper than her deficient acting skills (she does fine, actually) or the lavish indulgence the film showers over her. The script, in a few words, simply suck. I don’t care about the “comedy” argument: There aren’t many ways a man demanding “you will call me master” to a woman can sound funny these days, as the film devolves into an insipid power trip. It’s unconvincing, not really amusing (save for some sparse gags) and it just takes forever to move. While the Mediterranean cinematography is nice, it’s not a substitute for plot or dialogue, and Swept Away fails when it comes to those. The direction is so flat that it’s virtually impossible to guess that Ritchie is as the helm, which is probably the film’s most damning indictment. To top it off, the so-called “comedy” ends on a complete downer. But don’t worry: You will have stopped caring long before. Maybe even stopped watching long before. The DVD contains a puzzling “making of” interview between Madonna and Ritchie, as well as a commentary track I will watch only after being paid big bucks.

(On DVD, January 2004) On one hand, there’s scarcely anything new or innovative or even remarkable about this film. A subpoena server is stuck between duelling spouses competing for divorce. Romance ensues. Hoo-ha. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to think of the details of this film even mere hours after seeing it. But save for a few distasteful scenes (I never want to see the bull sequence again), the film isn’t terrible, and the zippy put-downs do a lot to make it seem funnier than it actually is. Matthew Perry does the most with a role that allows him to showcase some superficial acting and Elizabeth Hurley is -as usual- quite fetching. Of the rest of the cast, both Cedric the Entertainer and Bruce Campbell are fine, but they seem a bit confined in underwritten roles. The film seems longer than it is, mostly due to some questionable editing choices and some scenes that run a bit too long. Otherwise, well, it’s the kind of film you see because you haven’t yet seen it, not because it’s particularly interesting or commendable. The DVD contains a few mildly interesting featurettes (all self-congratulatory) and a director’s commentary I would have listened to had I had more time to waste.

(On DVD, January 2004) It’s a movie about a horse. Yes, it’s well directed, and it’s got a few interesting moments here and there. But in almost any aspect, it’s old fashioned. A film that your grandparents would love, had your grandparents been Americans. The dialogue, directing, cinematography, values… good, but unremarkable. Even “the future” so triumphantly promised in the film is comfortably in our own past. Yes, the horse is a metaphor for depression-era America. Get over it. Tobey Maguire is indifferent as Seabiscuit’s jockey. Far more interesting are Jeff Bridges as his rich employer and Chris Cooper as a tough horse trainer. Otherwise, well, there isn’t much to say about the film: the making-of featurettes included on the DVD are nearly more interesting than the film itself, as they describe how some of the horse-racing scenes were shots and how the writer/director adapted the original book into a script, and then into a series of shots. The true history of Seabiscuit is also quite interesting, though it ends along with the film and not at the true end of the road for this horse and its humans. (The end of their story was, shall we say, rather darker than a Hollywood movie ending.) This is a completely safe family film experience. No edge… but apparently it was good enough for Oscar nominations.

(On DVD, January 2004) Most Michael Moore fans discovered him with this film and then followed his career through Canadian Bacon and the rest. I had to start with 2002’s Bowling For Columbine and work my way back, but the big surprise is that even fifteen years later, Roger & Me is still as relevant than it was back in 1989. This feature-length opinion piece (not exactly a documentary, mind you) detailing the downfall of Flint, Michigan along with General Motors’ plant closure still resonates in this Bush II era of offshoring and jobless recovery. A colourful cast of real characters makes good fodder for Moore’s omnipresent camera, along with some staggering revelations coming forth unsolicited. Yes, this is a film that practises misdirection: The chronological order of some events is jumbled up and there’s the obvious feeling that Moore is cherry-picking his material. But that, in itself, does nothing to invalidate Moore’s thesis and even less to diminish the emotional impact of the film. Through its numerous tangents (“Pet or Meat: Rabbits for sale”) and sometimes gratuitous grandstanding, Moore manages to produce a mesmerizing piece of cinema that’s as compelling as great fiction. The editing of the film alone is a model in indictment: I especially liked how careful juxtaposition of scenes managed to make four frail old ladies seem the most evil quartet on planet Earth. Also up for props: The self-serving words of a corporate executive, intercut with heart-breaking scenes of a family being evicted on Christmas Eve. Great stuff. Alas, few things have changed since then. The DVD includes a commentary by Moore which, while interesting and informative, also seems half-lacking in substance.

(In theaters, January 2004) This is a film that, yes, revolves around a murder investigation. Cops discover the body, accumulate clues, interrogate suspects and eventually catch the killer. But where Mystic River leaves more conventional crime thrillers behind is in how it doesn’t limit itself to just a genre story: By focusing on the victim and the impact of her death on friends and family, writer Brian Helgeland gives all the necessary material to director Clint Eastwood to craft a film with more ambitious goals. The result may not be perfect (the pacing is a bit too slow, and the ending is intentionally frustrating) but it’s still a good film. The cast is impressive (it’s hard to pick a favourite performance when you’ve got Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins and Lawrence Fishburne to choose from) and the investigation moves at a delicious pace. What’s not so compelling is the drama side of the equation, which beats up viewers over the head over and over again with the same points, symbolism and torpid pacing. Ironically enough, much of the same story could have been told without the childhood abuse tale that frames the film. The ending takes a quick turn toward tragedy as not all the guilty are punished and not all the innocents are given justice. But it’s a film with a lot of content, and some of it is bound to hit even as some manages to miss the target. Not bad.

(In theaters, January 2004) You don’t have to be a screenwriter to appreciate the achievement that is Love Actually, but it helps: It’s hard enough to juggle one or two plotlines that anyone with the guts to try to keep seven or eight such stories going at the same time must be congratulated for the effort. Not all subplots are as equally effective, but it doesn’t matter very much when they’re all wrapped in layers of such sugary holiday sweetness. Writer/Directory Richard Curtis succeeds more than he fails in producing a superior romantic comedy, one that is as funny as it is uplifting. He’s helped with a cast of stars (Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson and Colin Firth are as good as always), judicious pacing and a hip sensibility: I’m surely not the only one to find it very interesting that standing up to an “American bully” president would come across as a plot point worth cheering for. Rarely has there been such an effective holiday romantic comedy. One one level, Love Actually is pure manipulation; on the other, it’s truly effective. Bring the whole family or snuggle with your loved one, enjoy the minimalist elegance of the script or indulge in the unabashed sentimentality of it all.

(In theaters, January 2004) It happens once in a whileit once in a while: a low-budget film, helmed by someone somehow known to critics, featuring a veteran actor doing something different. Add to that some “naturalistic” cinematography, almost accidental directing, a paucity of dialogue and an unconventional bittersweet conclusion and you get an instant favourite amongst real critics. Meanwhile, general audiences and wannabe critics like myself are likely to remain unimpressed. There is, to be fair, a lot to like about Lost In Translation: Bill Murray’s hangdog melancholy is well-exploited, Scarlett Johansson is huggable and the various difficulties they having in coming to term with Japanese culture are a lot of fun to witness. (Heck, the culture shock alone is almost worth a viewing by itself, despite my own reservations about the rest of the film) But as the movie drags on to its conclusion, it’s hard to avoid thinking that two hours are a long time in which to tell something that doesn’t happen. Many scenes just drag on and on, not exactly helped by the overindulgent editing and Sofia Coppola’s approximate directing. The cinematography lacks crispness and the dialogues are in need of some further deliberation, but the languid pacing is by far the film’s worst characteristic. Halfway though the film, I had a mini-epiphany about realism versus polish in filmmaking, and the reasons why my vote was firmly on the unnatural side, but it didn’t seem as convincing once the credits rolled. Maybe I’ll revisit it one day, but one thing is for sure: There’s not much of a reason to watch this film again. It’s OK, and it’s likely to appeal far more to older viewers. Oh, and Academy voters. Go figure.

(On DVD, January 2004) If nothing else, martial arts fans should watch this film for the incredible pre-opening credit action sequence, a deeply impressive duel involving spears and burning logs waved around like sticks. Great stuff, especially given that it combines the film’s two biggest strengths: a crew that knows what it’s doing when it comes to kung-fu and fantastic images that makes this such a beautiful film to watch. Many of the subsequent scenes are quite good, but few of them attain the impact of the crazy opening sequence. It’s not such a beautiful film when it comes to the dialogue, though: As with many Asian films, the emotional registers of the film keep switching abruptly, the acting is a lot less subtle than Western movies and the dialogue is often of the on-the-nose variety with scarce place for nuances. Jet Li’s performance is dubbed in a fashion that brings to mind the worst William Shatner imper!son!nations!, though it’s unclear as to whether the flaw lies in the performance or the dub. Alas, the bare-bones DVD only features an English dub, not the original audio track. Very disappointing, even though the rest of the transfer is flawless. Of interest to martial arts fans, mostly.

(On DVD, January 2004) While I rather enjoyed this film, I’m not as enthusiastic about it than some of my esteemed fellow critics specializing in SF/Fantasy films. The main reason being that for all of its science-fictional trappings, Donnie Darko remains a work of fantasy, not speculative science fiction. The deliberately weird ending makes sort of a superficial sense, but doesn’t actually end up completing the causal loop suggested by the film’s fascination with time-travel. Still, even with that sour taste in mouth, there’s a lot to recommend here, from the tortured performance of Jake Gyllenhaal as the eponymous protagonist to the delightfully twisted visuals (have you ever seen an uglier rabbit?), darkly funny passages and acerbic dialogues. (Heck, even Drew Barrymore looks positively attractive in her goth intellectual role) It’s almost constantly interesting, even though the interest stems from the mystery and the mystery is simply sidelined at the end to make place for a weepy finale that is supposed to make everything seems all that much more significant. Eh. At least the rest of the film works well. The DVD contains a bunch of extras that were simply too numerous to review before it was time to return it. Don’t you hate it when that happens?

(In theaters, January 2004) Mix in a tragic love story, scenes of war and destruction, plenty of cameos from recognizable actors, lush landscapes, a quirky performance from an established star (Renée Zellweger, playing a character that squints less than usual) and plenty of historical period detail. What do you have? Why, a sign that it’s Oscar-bait season again. Granted, Cold Mountain is more entertaining than what you may imagine for a Civil War love story: There’s a lot more gunplay and nudity than I expected. There are some remarkable visuals (including a nightmarish, but historically accurate “crater of doom”), one big explosion, good performances and an interesting look at civilian life in the Deep South during that period. Jude Law is credible in a role in which every woman he meets wants him in their bed and Nicole Kidman has a good turn as a blonde Southern belle left to her own devices. Story-wise, though, this is a film with significant problems: huge coincidences are shamelessly used as plot drivers and the overall thrust of the story is quite predictable. As if that wasn’t enough, the episodic nature of the screenplay is a disappointment: whole sections could be cut out without any impact on the rest of the film. (Why yes, I’m thinking about the Natalie Portman “Sara” segment) It’s certainly not bad at all, but neither is it a masterpiece. Oscar-bait, like other type of films, can also be overrated.

(In theaters, January 2004) Tim Burton is known for the exuberant quality of his visual imagination, and if Big Fish is more sedate than usual in terms of eye-candy, it’s still certainly not a run-of-the-mill film. Alternating between realistic segments in which a young man faces his dying father and more lurid moments in which fantasies are presented on-screen, Big Fish inevitably comes to fuse both threads together in a moving finale. It’s the complete movie experience: You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll want to throw up (but only if you already have a splitting headache coming into the film). Albert Finney is effective as the narrator of his own life and Ewan MacGregor is a renewed delight as the hero of the tall tales being told. (And yet Helena Bonham Carter steals the show as a reclusive woman who may or may not be a witch) It’s not Burton’s best film: Often plodding along, sometimes not visually effective enough, it can disappoint as much as it pleases. But by being a celebration of the necessity of fantastic stories, Big Fish ends up forming a central part of Burton’s cinematic oeuvre. It will certainly play better to older and less jaded audiences, but it’s certainly hard to dismiss casually. Bits and pieces of it are likely to resonate a long time in viewers’ heads, much like for Burton’s other films.