Movie Review

(On DVD, January 2004) Much like Equilibrium, this rather good film received a confidential distribution in the United States, was never shown in Canada and quickly went to video as if it was unworthy of a wide release. Don’t believe the lack of marketing: Below is the kind of little B-movie gem that deserved a much, much bigger audience. A canny blend of WW2 submarine thriller and supernatural horror, Below is another one of director David Twohy’s unassuming but excellent films (see Timescape, The Arrival, Pitch Black, etc.). While you’re unlikely to recognize any of the names in the cast, don’t worry: The film is a slick piece of entertainment, a great crowd-pleaser with a few twists and plenty of extra chills. (Yay for the Lovecraft-reading sailor!) It slowly builds to a pretty intense situation, with just about every single submarine mishap in the way. Some darkly humorous situations (bong-bong-bong went the depth charge) are a highlight. Despite the relatively low budget, the film looks fantastic, with beautiful cinematography and nearly-perfect set design. A treat for anyone looking for those overlooked B-grade gems. Don’t miss it. The DVD contains an ordinary making-of featurette which doesn’t do to much to compensate for the sparse and jokey audio commentary: Director Twohy and the cast members present at the track’s recording don’t take the film very seriously and seem more intent on being sarcastic than informative.

(On DVD, January 2004) Surprisingly enjoyable “black comedy” that will actually end up speaking volumes to just about everyone. The quasi-theatrical nature of the film is undermined by some silly sequences outside the barbershop itself, but the real strength of the film is in its delicious dialogue and the snappy interplay between the characters in the shop. Outrageous discussions spring freely between barbers and clients, resulting in a warm and likable film that works much better than anyone could expect. Ice Cube and Cedric the Entertainer both do excellent jobs in their roles, with particular props to the latter for a performance in which his natural persona is nearly unrecognizable. Eve also does quite well in a first acting role. The special edition DVD contains a wealth of material, including a bunch of truly interesting featurettes on not just the usual film-making process (including the difficulties in matching location shooting in freezing Chicago with interior footage in a Los Angeles studio), but also a few thoughts on costume design (Yay for Devon Patterson!) and a fun documentary on the recent evolution of male hairstyles. Truly a film worth seeing if you haven’t already done so.

(In theaters, January 2004) Tired of the cloying psychological manipulation so pervasive during the holidays? Counter-program it with the meanest Christmas film since Le Pere Noel Est Une Ordure. Here, Billy Bob Thornton plays a foul-mouthed, unkempt thief whose annual modus operandi involves playing along as a mall Santa while he and his diminutive accomplice scout the location for security weaknesses. So far so good, but it’s the utter disregard for any holiday sweetness that makes this film so enjoyable. “Rated R for pervasive language, strong sexual content and some violence”, indeed. Thornton’s performance is admirably foul, with Tony Cox and Bernie Mac all ably supporting (Meanwhile, Lauren Graham is adorable as a bartender with a Santa fetish). Heck, even the kid (Brett Kelly) is more creepy than he’s sympathetic, and that takes some guts nowadays. Suffice to say that for the longest time, the film refuses to bow to any kind of sentimental softening, faltering only at the end, at a point where even the most misanthropic viewer may be tempted to say that it’s about time. It is, in other words, a Christmas movie for those who are sick and tired of Christmas. Good fun, good jokes, a few uncomfortable moments redeemed by a few great lines and an overall sense of delightful nastiness. Strongly recommended for everyone likely to end up on Santa’s naughty list.

(In theaters, December 2003) Very depressing as it leaves little doubt in John Woo’s declining skills since Face/Off. The director has been quoted as being bored with action films, and the boredom is all there on the screen, in a directing job that is so unremarkable that it doesn’t even feel like Woo. The weak script doesn’t help, but when even the action scenes are downright pedestrian, it doesn’t leave much to watch. Oh, Ben Affleck is adequate in the type of young-professional role he does best, but Uma Thurman simply shows up in a bad haircut and goes through the motions like the rest of the cast. (Only Colm Feore is great as the heavy.) The screenplay is packed with annoying clichés and doubtful contrivances that stand out even in a story predicated on the ability to preview the future. Ironically enough, viewers will also feel uncomfortably prescient in knowing what is about to happen. (Among other weak spots, the film doesn’t “flash-forward” three years later as the protagonist enters the process, delivering a useless scene in between) Oh, there are a few nice touches (the bookstore fight visibly takes place in the Science-Fiction section, Einstein can “see” the future, etc.) but the whole thing just feels lazy, what with armed guards standing guard in front of a lab and protagonists escaping fireballs with a predictable ease. Blah. To be fair, Paycheck probably represents a decent time-waster, but it’s hard to accept such ordinary fare from John Woo.

(In theaters, December 2003) There is something very, very curious in this film, in the way it tries to sell us a romantic vision of pre-industrial Japan, complete with a rural fantasy, impeccable honour codes and a shaggy Tom Cruise. It’s a beautiful film, no doubt about it: The “Samurais in the mist” sequence is simply astonishing. But eventually, even the lush cinematography fails to hide a growing discomfort with the story as portrayed on screen. There are other annoyances too, such as the plot shortcuts taken as our stalwart warrior-hero is able to learn pretty much all there is to enjoy about the samurai way of life (including the katana) in one short winter. Still, The Last Samurai ranks highly on the year’s list of film through sheer competence. The battle scenes are immersive, Cruise once again makes a likable protagonist, and the Japanese are portrayed honourably. It’s a pretty good time-travel film in how it easily wraps up its audience in late-nineteenth century rural Japan. Certainly not a waste of time.

(On DVD, December 2003) Halfway between the sex farce and the Bollywood derivative (complete with a number of snappy dance numbers), this is a light and unassuming comedy with plenty of sympathetic characters and a number of amusing moments. The sexual content of the film may surprise some, especially after the (mostly) innocuous trailers. (On the other hand, the DVD back cover refers to the film as a “sex-obsessed comedy”, which may not be the most felicitous choice of words, but certainly does a fine job at describing the tone of the film.) It’s such a light movie that it seems almost cruel to criticize parts of it, but here goes: The “idiot plot” shortcuts really bothered me. Jimi Mistry plays a likable protagonist, but his character is written like an idiot, who’s reduced to reading notes verbatim rather than spin stuff on his own from what he’s given. Then there’s his rapid rise through the star system and his “double life”, which he manages to keep hidden from one another. Erg. Sure, most of that is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. But it’s annoying. Just once, I’d like to see a hero who could actually play off those “mistaken identity” situations in a way similar than Real People would. Oh well. If you can get over that (and certainly, the magnificent sight of Marisa Tomei in underwear really does help a lot), the rest of the film is delightful.

(In theaters, November 2003) Yarr, matey! Step aboard this grandiose nautical adventure! Come alongside our twelve-year-old sailors as they learn to be men while battling certain death at sea! You say that you’ve already seen a nautical adventure this year in Pirates Of The Caribbean? Well hold your tongue, young lass! For Master And Commander is no barrel of laughter, and Russell Crowe can musket-whip Johnny Depp any day of the week! ‘Tis amusing, but not quite fitting that the park-ride movie would be the story-heavy champ of the two even as the literary adaptation would end up feeling like a series of adventures, but don’t let that drive you away, landlubber! There’s a lot to see here, from a corker of storm to a stop on the Galapagos Islands, along with enough sea combat to wet your whistle! No, I don’t know whence you’re from, but don’t worry; you’ll fit right in our indistinguishable cast. Of course, our ship is the co-star of the film! With today’s digital technology, we can simply board and pillage any previous film and present it all in glorious surround-sound! Granted, our good director Peter Weir can’t be bothered to cut a long sweeping take, but we still put up a pretty good fight in two quick cuts! Come in! Come in! We offer all of the advantages of safe cinematic time-travel without the drudgery of Timeline!

(In theaters, October 2003) I’m not much of an impartial audience whenever this film is concerned: I know Patrick Senécal, the author of the novel on which this film is based (he also co-wrote the script along with director Éric Tessier and has a small part in the film), I enjoyed the novel when it first came out in 1998 and as a member of the French-Canadian SF&F “milieu”, I closely followed the whole process leading up to the film’s release. This being said, there’s a lot to like about this, the first true full-length horror movie made in Québec. To its credit, it doesn’t go for the jokey tone that seems to have become the standard for horror nowadays, nor does it try to present a quasi-pornographic spectacle of gore. It’s not only true to the original novel, but it’s a decent movie in of itself; handled with skill by good technicians and decently brought to life by a group of good actors. Some are better than others: Michel Côté is the rock around which the film revolves, and people like Patrick Huard, Jean L’Italien and Albert Millaire all do fantastic jobs with the characters they’re given. The rhythm is steadily engrossing, and the story being told is quite original despite a passing (but coincidental) similarity with John Carpenter’s In The Mouth Of Madness. What I didn’t like so much about the film are a few problematic dialogue lines: Either too on-the-nose (“I’m not just a psychologist; I’m also a human being!”) or saddled by inconsistent language registers. That last is probably the film’s most persistent annoyance, especially given how it fades in and out during the film’s duration. I wasn’t much of a fan of the static camera work nor the constant over-saturation of the images, but some of that must be weighed against the ridiculous budget of the film. As for the script, well, non-francophones are unlikely to notice the shifting language registers if they see the film with subtitles. As it is, though, my reaction is one of relief; the film we’ve been waiting so long for is not only here, it’s actually quite good.

(In theaters, October 2003) Who would have thought that a rock musical set in a prep school could end up being one of 2003’s most family-friendly film? The beauty of The School Of Rock‘s success is not how well it fits a typical inspirational tale around a rock comedy, but how it takes a rock comedy (about “sticking it to The Man”) and sets it in a class of ten-years-old. Jack Black is flawless as the lead in this film, with plenty of bright moments as he struts his stuff (watch for a few long takes in which he manages to do, well, almost everything). But the kids are an integral part of this film’s success as it manages to juggle nearly a dozen secondary characters without forgetting any of them. While I wasn’t completely taken by the first half of the film (stories of deceptive identities just annoy me), it just keeps building until the very last moment, and by the time the last big concert rolls around, The School Of Rock isn’t anything less than adorable.

(In theaters, October 2003) It doesn’t take much to make me happy at the movies, and this film has it all; a well-told plot, plenty of drama and action, taut pacing, good characters, a superb cast, interesting direction and top-notch editing. It’s adapted from John Grisham’s good novel, and “adapted” is the word; substantial changes made to the storyline end up delivering a better, more interesting plot. The cast is filled with great actors, from John Cusak to Rachel Weisz (woo!) to Gene Hackman to Dustin Hoffman: All of them have their standout moments. Particular props must go to director Gary Fleder, whose snappy style allows the film to steamroll any objection through sheer momentum. It’s rare enough to see a legal thriller so confidently helmed that it’s an extra-pleasing surprise to find out that Runaway Jury is actually quite good indeed. Only the ending sort of peters out, with a rather obvious revelation being dropped with the sound of a splat and a too-touching moment that distract from an otherwise quite cynical film. It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s a rare example of slick escapist entertainment, a completely successful attempt at suspense with none-too-obvious elements.

(In theaters, October 2003) There’s not a lot that’s special about this film, but frankly there is no need to be fancy when you’re doing a Florida crime story. In this case, director Carl Franklin simply lets his stars do the work, whether it’s the always-dependable Denzel Washington, ladies Eva Mendes and Sanaa Lathan (both scorching hot) or the lush Floridian scenery. The story of an adulterous sheriff manipulated in a very risky situation, Out Of Time depends on an ever-increasing pit of lies, a plot device which usually drives me nuts but doesn’t actually work out too badly here. The tension increases as a basically decent protagonist allows one mistake to drag him deeper and deeper in trouble. Some of it gets ridiculous (Fax machine thrills! Scanning software-fu! Power cable action! PDA-GPS denouement!) but the film as a whole moves swiftly to its formulaic conclusion with nary a pause. No crime classic, that’s for sure, but there’s more than enough here for good old-fashioned thrills and entertainment.

(In theaters, October 2003) Given that this is the first part of a single work, it’s probably best to wait until Volume 2 to comment on the whole work. But for those Tarantino mega-fans, there’s no doubt that Quentin is back doing what he knows best. Tons of references, oodles of cool, plenty of unusual thrills and a love for flashy cinematography makes even this first volume a breath of fresh air in a mainstream landscape dominated by hack directors and by-the-numbers movies. It speaks volumes, I think, that the imagined reality of the film feels completely comfortable. I’m a film geek and this half of Kill Bill makes me happy because I’m a film geek. I’m still not convinced that splitting the film in half was a good decision, but the measured pace at which Kill Bill unfolds makes the anticipation and the suspense of the direction work in its favour. Otherwise, well, there are plenty of nice things to say about the acting, the action, the gore (or black-and-white abstraction of gore), the self-indulgence, the soundtrack and/or the very black humour. But we’ll wait until Volume 2 to do that. One thing is sure, though, and it’s that I’ll be there opening day for the second half of it.