Movie Review

(On DVD, June 2003) Surprisingly faithful adaptation of Peter Hoeg’s best-selling thriller, though not without flaws: Julia Osmond is too cute to play Smilla, but the overall plotting is rather similar. Fortunately, the film improves the often languid pacing of the book, through often highlighting important clues in doing so. (Sometimes even using musical cues!) The film is as cold as the setting, but it usually works well given the context. The story may start as a thriller, but elements eventually amplify to make the film evolve towards a more strictly science-fictional climax. (The nature of the resolution works better in the book, but the film can’t take the luxury to smooth the transition. Furthermore, the altered ending of the film is rather more conventionally satisfying than the book’s abrupt end.) Fans of the novel will be pleased, and so will everyone exasperated by the extra verbiage of the original. The Greenland scenery is often spectacular and acting credits are high, with many familiar faces rounding the cast. The DVD whets our appetites with an intriguing featurette on the challenges of filming in Greenland, but stops shy of giving us anything more on the making of the film.

(On DVD, June 2003) Eek. Some movies age decidedly less well than others, and the deficiencies of The Philadelphia Experiment go well beyond the outdated special effects: While this time-travelling tale isn’t particularly affected by its early-eighties setting (the era’s flavour actually seems even more amusing and appropriate today), the cinematic techniques suffer from the low-budget approach of the film: The camera seldom moves, and it’s no accident if the only sequence in which the cinematography suddenly comes alive (a car chase through an orange grove, featuring a few gorgeous helicopter shots) is one of the film’s best. The muddy cinematography isn’t particularly helped by the DVD presentation and the special effects are best regarded as an endearing reminder of what was possible back then. (Said DVD edition is sadly bereft of supplements.) It may come at no surprise, given the film’s origins, that the acting isn’t particularly impressive and that the dialogue is often atrocious. Oh well: I suppose that the central premise is ingenious (if you’ve never read another time-travel tale), but the film’s highlights are few and far in-between. One of the film’s last shot features no-name characters embedded in the steel flanks of a battleship; it’s regrettable that the rest of the film can’t live up to this striking image.

(On DVD, June 2003) Slow-moving, often unpleasant family drama that seems far too contrived for its own good. Set in the southern United States and seemingly dedicated to re-establish all prejudices about the old confederate states, Monster’s Ball stars a bunch of unpleasant characters whose sole purpose seems to be highly obnoxious before being removed from the film. We Sauvé siblings were not impressed: the ferocity of our wisecracks approached that of far worse movies. It’s not as if the film doesn’t attain a certain level of affection (the ending is touching, and the last characters left standing do deserve the best they can manage) but it takes a long long while to get there. The danger is in considering Monster’s Ball as somehow emblematic of any social issue like racism, poverty or the death penalty; the level of manipulation required to plot the story makes it patently ridiculous as an instrument of social commentary. Fans of Halle Berry will be both pleased at the intense nudity and embarrassed at a few showy scenes. (She looks good naked, but she’s not convincing when hysterical or drunk, which seems to be her character’s two dominant modes. Otherwise, her character seems solely conceived as a personality-free victim) Was the Oscar deserved? Hey, don’t get me started on that! The DVD contains a few behind-the-scenes sequences that could be best characterized as a humour reel. There was also a director’s commentary, but we could muster enough interest to go through the movie again.

(In theaters, June 2003) Given my tepid reaction to the original Legally Blonde, I wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of a sequel, especially one that has the supreme hypocrisy to say something about animal testing on cosmetics. Being branded, herded and searched for recording devices at the advance screening did nothing to make me any more favourable to the film. Alas, the movie itself is its own worst enemy: It would have been worth it to be branded, herded and searched not to this this lame attempt at a political comedy. Seldom have I loathed a character as much as Elle Woods, the obnoxious brain-dead pinkish scourge of the Eastern Seaboard. Legally Blonde 2 sidesteps any political debate between right and left to end up squarely between dumb and stupid. Everything fails in this lifeless so-called comedy: The jokes seldom earn more than a pained smile (with an exception for the perfect delivery of “your dogs are gay”), and one comes out of the film with a renewed appreciation for soft-money campaign contributions. Elle Woods goes to Washington vowing to triumph on the strength of her naive convictions and to avoid the pitfalls of blackmail, networking and insider information… and end up doing exactly that. It would be depressingly hypocritical if we actually had a sense that anyone cared. But aside from the thirty seconds of dumbed-down political content, Legally Blonde 2 is made for those people who coo at dog outfits… you know who you are. Thank you very much for inflicting this piece of trash on us.

(In theaters, June 2003) It seems unusual to praise a movie for its editing, but Hulk‘s most memorable feature is the way some scenes are cut, with fancy wipes, angles-as-boxes, overlapping moving pictures and other fancy stuff like that. It’s the closest thing yet to re-interpreting the comic book grammar on-screen. It sure makes some dull scenes interesting, which is fortunate given the number of boring moments in Hulk, a comic book adaptation by way of Oedipal tragedy. Director Ang Lee ends up directing a very Ang Lee movie indeed: Male rage symbolism is mixed with deep family trauma to end up with something that’s not far from the dismissive “The Ice Storm starring Shrek” rumour heard just before the film’s release. There are a few nice moments in the second hour (it’s pretty cool to see F-22s and Comanche helicopters properly presented on-screen) but the film is still marred by a structure that takes to much time to deliver, and a superfluous ending that feels more like an afterthought than a climax. Too bad that the film chose to resolve a family drama through an overuse of special effects… Otherwise, well, Jennifer Connelly is too thin, Eric Bana will be a star soon enough, Nick Nolte is his usual gruff self and some of the special effects are iffy. Have I forgotten something? Probably the same thing that the filmmakers forgot: Even though this is a comic superhero movie, it’s just not a lot of fun. Maybe we’ll have to wait for the sequel for that, now that the pesky family/origin story is out of the way.

(In theaters, June 2003) If you wanted a mixed bag of this and that, here’s the film for you. Let us run it down: The good stuff include more animated performances than usual by Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett (admittedly, that’s not saying much!), a fascinating premise mixing police work with side interests, a whirlwind tour of Hollywood’s entertainment businesses, plenty of sun and fun, some inspired comic sequences and a cool chase that uses just about every terrestrial transportation device. The bad points, alas, include an inconsistent tone, an overly complicated plot, unbelievable situations, many scenes that just don’t work and an overall feeling of production laziness. It all adds up to a curiously detached viewing experience, as if every time we wanted to like the movie, it did something stupid to avoid too much attachment. The gratuitous demise of the villain leaves a sour impression that remains.

(On DVD, June 2003) Surprisingly engaging teen horror film with a deep affection for classic B-grade horror that makes its comedic take even more effective. Sure, there’s been other vampire comedies before. Yes, there are other “hero discovers that neighbours are evil” films out there. (The Burbs, The Burbs!) But Fright Night is directed with flair and paced with skill. It holds up quite well fifteen years later through savvy use of sympathetic characters (with a particular nod to Roddy MacDowall’s “Peter Vincent” -Hello Mr. Lorre and Mr. Price) and amusing sight gags. In this current post-Scream slasher revival, it’s easy to forget that once upon a time, supernatural creatures of the night were the rightful owners of trash horror. Fortunately, Fright Night is a fitting tribute to the time, not out of place with films such as Matinee and the afore-mentioned Scream. Worth a look!

(In theaters, June 2003) Pixar seldom misses its target, and they succeed once again with Finding Nemo, an irreproachable animated feature aimed at kids but appropriate for adults. Once again, everything is top-notch: The animation is spectacular, the script is pure gold, the characters are sharply defined (Who doesn’t love surfer-turtle Crush? “We were like ‘Woah!’ and you were like ‘Woah!’ and I was like ‘Woah.’”) and the direction takes advantage of the possibilities of CGI while remaining firmly grounded in real-world conventions. You already know you’re going to see it and you already know you’re going to like it; why should I even spend more time discussing it? The only serious complaint I’ve got is that in their quest to please Disney, Pixar has released their most Disney-like (and their weakest) effort to date. Even the bad old clichés hold true, with the mother of the protagonist dying a horrible death in the prologue (c’mon; this was tired even in Bambi‘s time!) Oh well; it’s still better than most of the other films you’ll see this year.

(In theaters, June 2003) I loved the original film for its sense of go-for-broke energy and its casual disregard for mere conventions such as, oh, physics. The sequel is bigger, louder and even more furious than the original (the opening dam sequence is a perfect Big Dumb Action Sequence; I was left wishing for more, more, more!) but somewhere along the way, the delirious pace starts working against itself. More money and more attention has made director McG a needy and insecure director. The fantastic long shots, the mean focus, the clear palette of the original are gone and replaced with mayhem, chaos and confusion. It doesn’t work quite as well; the composition of the shots lacks confidence and clarity; we’re left with grittier pictures, sequences with few outstanding shots and a sense that someone is just trying too hard to win our approval. Not that I’m a demanding viewer; in this case, the adorable goofiness of Cameron Diaz (plus my unquenchable thirst for more Lucy Liu) is enough to make me giddy with excitement. Some of the stunts are, indeed pretty cool and Charlie’s Angels 2 is a beautiful monument to nonsensical blockbuster-making. But the structure is off (Demi Moore’s true alignment it revealed much too late), the subplots are irrelevant (did we need all of those back-stories?) and even capable players like John Cleese, Crispin Glover and Bernie Mac aren’t particularly well-used. Heck, I shouldn’t complain: There are some very cool moments (Lucy Liu doing the ferret; the use of Edwin Collins’ “A Girl Like You”; Crispin Glover’s backstory; the CSI sequence) but it’s not as purely entertaining as the first one. Darn!

(On DVD, June 2003) Low-key film about a pair of very small-time criminals trying to decide whether they should break into the crime business or stay outside of it. Brothers Owen and Paul Wilson star in this first Wes Anderson film (Owen co-wrote the screenplay) and if you’ve seen his latter Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, you can already expect the sort of awkward comedy and sympathetic losers favoured by Anderson. It’s not a spectacular film nor even a particularly interesting one, but it eventually works its way up to something adequate. There’s a notable lull midway through as Inez is brought in the picture. Both Wilson brothers turn in good performances, though fans of both actors will find it weird that their usual hair styles are here inverted. Anderson and Wilson completists will find plenty to like in Bottle Rocket, though it remains to be seen if others will have the patience to sit through what can be a series of lengthy moments. The bare-bones DVD edition is decidedly lacking in special features; a commentary would have been worthwhile.

(On DVD, June 2003) Despite the rather good cult reputation of this film, I was surprised at how… ordinary it ended up being. Even though Kurt Russell shines as all-American Jack Burton (his charming ineptness is one of the film’s highlight), the film isn’t as endearing nor as memorable as I was led to believed, or half-remembered from TV memories. It’s certainly not a dull film, mind you: The pacing is steady and the action rarely stops. (Plus, there’s a neat hero/sidekick reverse dynamic at play here.) But the dialogues fall flat (always an important factor when dealing with a protagonist with such an attitude) and the effect simply isn’t as electrifying as similar fare such as, say, Evil Dead 2. Part of this tepid reaction, I suspect, is that kung-fu fighting has been done elsewhere since then, with a greater degree of sophistication: The tongue-in-cheek parody of classic Chinese martial arts film may have been loads of fun in 1986, but years after America’s newfound fascination for Jet Li, Jackie Chan and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, there isn’t anything startlingly new left in the movie. Structurally, the film covers the same ground again and again in a succession of underground lairs that end up featuring the same few villains. I do realize that this film wasn’t aiming for high art, but the truth is that it doesn’t completely succeed as a fun camp classic. Fun, sure, but also a disappointment. On the other hand, the film is well-worth seeing again if only for the audio commentary starring Russell and director John Carpenter; maybe half of it directly relates to the film, but all of it is fascinating. A few unmemorable supplemental features round the special edition DVD set.

(On DVD, June 2003) I don’t think anyone will ever claim this to be a great film, but frankly, it doesn’t have to be: As soon as we’re dropped into this lush Miami backdrop, with Ice Cube playing a burly protagonist, the rest takes care of itself. As the title suggests, the story revolves around millions of dollars, to which we can add Cube’s bounty-hunter, a con artist, evil euro-villains, hot girls, sunny locations and enough ebonic profanities to exasperate even a hardened sailor. The rhythm is well sustained, the locations are worth looking at and the chemistry between Mike Epps and Ice Cube works well enough to make us forget that Epps often tries to be as irritating as Martin Lawrence. Certainly the female side of the film’s Miami creds is impressive: Valarie Rae Miller, Eva Mendes and Carmen Chaplin make the most of their limited screen time and if Mendes has looked better in other films, she here displays some good comedic skills. Plot-wise, m’well, the film takes some regrettable shortcuts: the importance of the lottery ticket seems to diminish midway through and there are a few unfortunate coincidences here and there. But is it really worth discussing when the whole package is so charming? Probably not. Throw that film in with the Bad Boys series, 2 Fast 2 Furious and reruns of Miami Vice for plenty of undemanding fun. The DVD contains a pleasing array of short documentaries (including a general piece on music video directors making the leap to the big screen) as well as a mildly engaging audio commentary.