Movie Review

(On DVD, May 2003) Dull horror film whose only saving grace is the set design and a few interesting sequences. Most of the film takes place in a fantastic see-through “house” with walls made out of glass, with eerie-looking Latin engravings. Very cool looking, and even as the plot degenerates in the usual horror movie silliness, the set is still worth looking at. Well, that’s if you can tolerate looking when the editing chops away every half-second: Rather than allow the tension to build, director Steve Beck defuses everything with a barrage of quick cuts that look an awful lot like every other cheap horror movie since the introduction of the AVID editing console. While the script is strictly B-grade and couldn’t be much improved, this ghost story where the supernatural isn’t always visible could have been unsettling had longer shots of not-quite-visible happenings been allowed to run longer. Too bad, because the credit sequence shows what’s possible with longer shots. Sadly enough, there’s a dearth of violent death here (only surpassed with the dearth of nudity from the live characters), with a body count that fails to include the most annoying members of the cast. (Death even seems to improve Matthew Lillard’s coolness. Go figure.) The DVD contains a short making-of documentary that’s more interesting than the usual promotional fluff. Oh well. It’s a cheap Dark Castle rip-off of an old William Castle B-grade horror films. What were you really expecting anyway?

(On DVD, May 2003) Slow-paced, often-unsubtle, ordinary story of human/robot strife, technological arrogance and Really Big Buildings. Two private detective come to Metropolis to investigate the whereabouts of a mad scientist, but it turns out that their investigation ties into a secret project, generational conflicts and class warfare. The quality of the animation in this version of Metropolis (no ties at all to the Fritz Lang version) is emblematic of the rest of the film. Hard-edged, spectacular computer-generated backgrounds clash with hand-drawn, quasi-juvenile characters. The whole film certainly feels like that, dealing with big complex issues such as the fallacy of human progress, but watering down everything with a helping of plotting that wouldn’t be out of place in simplistic Saturday Morning kid’s shows. Admittedly, some scenes are spectacular: The unveiling of the city is suitably impressive, but not more so than it’s inevitable destruction. (With a Strangelovian “I Can’t Stop Loving You” playing in the background) The DVD help to make sense of it all, as the film is revealed to be an adaptation of a 1950s-era manga, which goes a long way to explain the nifty jazz music and the sometimes-naive feel. Interviews with the filmmakers feel remarkably candid as they admit that the creator of the original comic book probably wouldn’t have agreed to their adaptation.

(In theaters, May 2003) Anyone looking for a light summer movie won’t be disappointed in this one. Anyone looking for anything more than that, however, will leave unsatisfied. On most accounts, it’s exactly what it tries to be: a decent heist picture, with some cleverness, a hint of sexiness, a car chase and unambiguous emotional stakes. Why am I being such a sourpuss then? Could be Edward Norton’s worst performance to date, an unremarkable turn as a meek villain with none of Norton’s usual flair. Could be Mark Wahlberg’s charisma-free performance as the bland leader of a bunch of operatives all far more interesting than he is. Could be Jason Statham’s reprise of his role in The Transporter with all of the grins and no further chance to shine. Could be that the only hot chick we’re stuck watching is the bland Charlize Theron. Could be that both the direction and the script simply do the job without any extra qualities. Could be that the action scenes are over almost as quickly as they begin. Could be the lengthy second act. Could be a whole lot of things, but the end result stays the same; a very ordinary picture that does not deviate from mere adequacy. Hey, it’s your time and your money…

(On DVD, May 2003) Easygoing, unpretentious comedy in which two convicts on the run are forced to act as gay pageant specialists in order to remain undetected in a small town in Texas. (!) Steve Zahn is excellent (but then again, he usually is) whereas Jeremy Northam is mile away from his proper English personae and members of the Ileana Douglas Appreciation Society get their money’s worth. It’s not a side-splitting film, but it’s pleasant enough save for a few squirms in the latter half as a criminal element drives the third act around. Not particularly memorable, but likable. Be sure to rent the DVD, as the making-of story of the film’s humble origins might very well be more interesting than the film itself.

(In theaters, May 2003) There’s really only one good reason to see this film, and it’s Nick Nolte’s lead performance as he transforms himself from a frumpy tired junkie loser to a high-rolling gambler with the world in his hand. It’s a great role, and one that few other actors than Nolte would have the required presence to achieve. Otherwise, well, the film isn’t nearly as compelling. Tchéky Karyo and the beautiful Cote d’Azure setting are good points, but they do little to compensate for the rest of this pointless film. The beginning is particularly laborious, as its meticulously paints the sordid Euro-trash existence of the lead protagonist. It’s only after he hits rock-bottom and has to plan ahead for One More Score that the film acquires any dramatic inertia. If you can forget about Nutsa Kukhianidze’s horrid performance as the mumbling, somnolent heroine (Hey, I know she’s supposed to be a Russian girl, but she can’t even be bothered to mumble properly!) the middle part of the film very slowly builds to a casino heist caper that promises a good time. But the film loses it in the last third, as three different operations take place at the same time without much relationship to one another, leading to a sentiment of diffuse dissatisfaction. Luck, not plotting, shapes the ending, leading to a supremely ironic finale that doesn’t quite know what to make of itself. See it for Nick Nolte, maybe, but don’t go looking for a good story in there.

(On DVD, May 2003) Cool little historical ghost story that may take a second viewing to fully appreciate. While the pacing may be slower than usual for a horror film, the strength and interest of the characters, coupled with some really good direction and cinematography, is more than than enough to make this a quirky little gem. A ghost story where the ghosts are victims and the real monsters aren’t ghosts, The Devil’s Backbone takes us back to an orphanage during the Spanish Civil War: But don’t worry; this isn’t a lesson in politics, and the relationships between the kids and adults abandoned in the middle of the Spanish desert soon grab our interest. The DVD will do wonders to enhance your enjoyment of the film, as it features a wonderful English-language commentary track with director Guillermo del Toro. His passion for the material clearly shows, and his explanations of the material (whose symbolism and setting may be unfamiliar to contemporary American audiences) are well worth listening to. Good little unpretentious horror film, with plenty of neat touches. Maybe a little slow, but well worth an attentive viewing or two.

(In theaters, May 2003) I’m way too young to recall the carefree naughty comedies of the early sixties, but, heck, I’ve seen Austin Powers and I’m a sucker for crackling dialogue. It only took “from director Peyton Reed” to get me in the theatre (his previous film was the wonderful Bring It On) and he doesn’t disappoint with this charming irony-free (well, mostly) throwback to another era. Ewan MacGregor and David Hyde Pierce are magnificent in their roles (unfortunately, Renée Zellweger is too thin), but it’s the direction which takes centre-stage, with a wonderful blend of inconsistent special effects, outlandish set design and effective camera work. The script is more fun than most other comedies you’ll see this year, with plenty of zingers, fresh dialogues and a mean twist or three at the end. Exceptional date movie. Good stuff; I can’t wait to hear the director’s commentary on the DVD.

(Second viewing, On DVD, March 2004) I’m overly pleased to report that this, my favourite romantic comedy in a long while, remains as fresh and delicious than my memories of my first viewing indicated. Everything clicks in this film, from the performances to the direction, the script to the costumes. What is more apparent on a small screen is how much of a character is Mark Shaiman’s score, as it seamlessly underscores every single twitch, blink and nod on-screen. There hasn’t been a film so delightful in a long while, and it doesn’t play as much as it delivers a constant jolt of fun. I remain convinced that director Peyton Reed is one of the best new directors out there; certainly, the totality of his romantic vision for Down With Love is deeply impressive. The DVD is packed with good stuff, the best of which is a breathlessly interesting audio commentary by Reed himself. Tons of smaller documentaries (plus one useless HBO infomercial) complete the package. It’s a shame that this film couldn’t find much of an audience anywhere; in the meantime, it’ll stay in my DVD collection as a secret weapon to charm unsuspecting guests.

(In theaters, May 2003) It would be a misuse of frustration to blame movies for society’s ills, and especially inappropriate to single out a comedy as an offencive depiction of current problems. And yet, despite the slight gags and so-called comedic moments, watching Bringing Down The House remains a slightly unpleasant experience. So Steve Martin exemplifies the uptight white guy? Queen Latifah (who co-produced this thing, so it’s not as if she’s an innocent bystander) is all black womanhood? Yikes. We’re merely trading intolerant bigotry for stereotypical herding. In this light, the film’s unsubtle scorn of old-school bigotry is a particularly dishonest tactic. Now, if I let go of my cynicism for a moment, I can admit that all actors are relatively pleasant and that Eugene Levy once again steals the show as a jungle-fevered enthusiast of fine ebony flesh. But Bringing Down The House usually plays more like a low-level irritant than a particularly charming comedy. White men can’t jump, black folks have all the mojo and acting like a moron is a straight path to hipness. Yeeeah. Meanwhile, ebonics is seen as something noble and mobster’s bars are exclusively peopled with a darker shade of tan. This is what passes for progressive entertainment. White movie’s burden indeed.

(On DVD, May 2003) I know, I know; this film won a bunch of Oscars, enthralled generations and made a god out of Charlton Heston. But did it have to be so bloody long? Three hours and a half of monotonous, stilted, unrealistic discourse peppered with occasional moments of interest. Wake me up once it’s over. To be fair, two sequences still work really well; the galley sequence and the chariot race still stand out as particularly fine pieces of cinema, mostly because they move at such a good clip. The rest of the film is generally dull and overdone. The lack of realistic camera movement , lighting and staging may have been state-of-the-art back then, but even middling modern sandal epics such as Gladiator can jade today’s audience. There is nothing in this film that a good edit and a few camera moves couldn’t fix, but as it stands now, you’d better settle down comfortably, rest your hand on the bible and pray the phone doesn’t ring in order to go through Ben-Hur again. Goodness know now I’ve done it once, I won’t have to do so again. The DVD contains a rather more interesting making-of, which spends almost half of its time discussing previous incarnation of the “Ben-Hur” story before tackling the impressive making-of of this current version. Hey, maybe it’s time to do a remake…?

(On DVD, May 2003) Well, well, well, isn’t that interesting: An American action thriller financed by a Canadian production company, directed by a French-Canadian, in which an African-American agent, along with a Chinese translator, must save the United Nations from the imperialistic plans of two white Caucasian Americans. Imagine that. The only anomaly is Donald Sutherland in a good-guy role –but then again he’s also a Canadian actor. Premise apart, the film itself is interesting but routine, a competent thriller with some visual flourishes and a few geopolitical twists. Wesley Snipes is rather good as the protagonist, and so it Marie Matiko as the bespectacled heroine all sinophiles will enjoy. Two particularly interesting sequences include a car chase with a nasty finish and a hallway sequence whose “visible bullets” effects seem directly inspired by The Matrix. (It’s a good scene, but its visual style isn’t found anywhere else in the film.) Moves at a decent pace and seems to think on a more global level than usual for an action thriller. Not a bad choice at all.

(In theaters, May 2003) This isn’t the first teen James Bond parody, but it’s a good one… that is, until it forgets to be a parody and simply apes the convention of the Bond formula. Frankie Munez is quite good as a truly sympathetic teen character whobecomes an “agent in training” for the CIA without his parents’ knowledge. The film depends on him and his charm does more for the film than any of the special effects. His struggles to combine teenage life with his covert mission aren’t particularly imaginative, but they’re a lot of fun. (The sequence where the elite CIA operatives help out for the housework is a highlight.) At least the particulars of the Bond formula are followed: Girls, gadgets and even a touch of gambling. Angie Harmon is almost too hot to be in a kid’s movie, but at least it’s something for the older teens to look at while the plot slows down. The film as a while is energetic. Stupid, too, but not much more so than, say, the latest Bond ripoffs for so-called “adults” (hellooo, XXX!) Alas, the charming quality of the first hour wears thin as the third act becomes a thrills-free carbon copy of the typical Bond ending, complete with an exploding fortress and the grotesque death of the villain. The overall effect is a disappointment, especially given the overall high level of quality of the Spy Kids series. Oh well. We’ll be there for the sequel.

(In theaters, April 2003) There is something… pure about this location-locked thriller, and this purity is what director Schumacher (yep; who would have thought?) best achieves. The dynamic camera whips, cuts and twirls around one man, one phone… and one booth. Indeed, once the fantastic opening is over (“this is the story of the last user of this phone booth”), the movie loses interest whenever the camera stops focusing on the lead protagonist. Collin Farrell proves that he possesses a certain movie-star quality by carrying pretty much the whole film on his shoulders. (Though Kiefer Sutherland does excellent voice work) The screenplay is able to wring much out of few elements, and it knows enough to stop whenever the film threatens to become tiresome. There are flaws (an underwhelming justification, a diffusion of tension in the last act, disposable female roles) but none are big enough to derail one of the crunchiest thrillers in recent memory. Delicious from beginning to end through the magic of good writing, directing and acting, Phone Booth isn’t likely to be forgotten anytime soon.