Movie Review

(In theaters, February 2003) Did we need yet another Holocaust film? Well, maybe not, but few will complain after seeing Roman Polanski’s latest effort. It’s the based-on-true-events story of a Polish Jew whose adventures in war-torn Warsaw defy common sense. Adrian Brody turns in an Oscar-worthy performance as a protagonist who’s harassed, saved, helped, forced to hide and then to flee in the remnants of a destroyed city. Technical credits are top-notch, and Polanski’s direction is in fact pretty darn good in an understated fashion. The film, maybe inevitably, is stronger in its first half as we witness the casual harassment of the Warsaw Jews; whereas The Pianist never gets close to a concentration camp, this section film shows that plenty of horrible things did happen in the so-called “safe” city. The second half of the film is a touch less urgent and rather more surreal, as the protagonist becomes a rabbit stuck between the armies fighting for Warsaw. You haven’t seen this story before. But you probably should.

(In theaters, February 2003) For a while, I was nearly taken by this film. It starts with an interesting conceit, okay characters and a first third in which it’s possible to discern some intellectual/philosophical depth. Plus, Kevin Spacey is almost always a pleasure to watch even when (like in here) he shamelessly overacts and gives a smarmy edge to whatever role he’s playing. But what becomes more and more obvious as the film progresses is that it will stop at nothing to wring out suspense out of situations that don’t have any. The discovery of the first tape is an example; the second visit to the crime scene is another. Suddenly, you may start asking questions about the plot, and it’s an exercise that’s almost always fatal to such a thinly-plotted story like this. Whether it’s an ominous cowboy or a cell phone that doesn’t work or a car that breaks down, The Life Of David Gale transforms itself from a decent “issues” drama to a cheap thriller. And if you haven’t been paying attention, the wretched conclusion will drive home the point that this film doesn’t make sense. Not from an internal logic viewpoint (the ending nullifies what the “heroes” have tried to accomplish) and not from an external thematic viewpoint either (whatever message the film had, if it had one, got lost in the plot mechanics). Sure, it has a dramatic inertia that keeps it bearable… but this is the type of film that gives “twist ending” a bad name.

(On DVD, February 2003) From the trailer, I was led to expect a weepy drama where a terminally ill character manages to solve everyone else’s problems and does something cool before croaking. Well, that’s what I got, though it was slightly more fun that I expected. For one thing, the first half of the film has a certain edge as none of the character really like each other and aren’t exactly afraid to show it. The “tough love” approach taken by Kevin Kline’s character is fun to watch, and isn’t as sappy as his latter approach. What doesn’t work so well is the finale, precipitated by a few unexplainable acts taken by various characters and a whopper of a coincidence. Then it truly gets sappy and gag-inducing. But for a while, Life As A House nearly works because it doesn’t shamelessly pander to the audience. The DVD contains an interesting making-of featurette in which they describe how they built a neighbourhood specifically for the film. Alas, the good stuff is nearly driven out by the promotional fluff, in what may be an ironic comment on the film itself.

(In theaters, February 2003) Shameless Oscar-bait film that would be wholly unremarkable if it wasn’t for the acting talent and the self-conscious focus on time-tested critic-nip. Throw together a cast of self-destructive characters, edit between multiple storylines, throw in a few soliloquies about the nature of life and you’ve got yourself a nice little package “for your consideration.” Fortunately, the film isn’t as dull or preachy as it may sound, and despite the deliberate nature of the material, it’s not completely dull. In fact, there is a lot to like here, from a shared willingness of the actors to suffer for their part (Oscar lust will do that to you) to a dazzling structure that hops between three eras and a dozen characters. While your sympathy for self-destructive suicidal characters may run low, The Hours offers a bit more than that and may actually be worth a look.

(In theaters, February 2003) I don’t know much about Frida Kahlo, and so I suspect that much of the film’s content was lost on me. On the other hand, I can testify that it does a credible job at telling her story. Salma Hayek hits a career high with this role which takes her from teenhood to old age in a fairly smooth fashion. (Plus, we get to see her naked and nude) The script is all right, but what makes the film come alive is Julie Taymor’s direction, which attempts to give to the film the style of Kahlo’s paintings. Some of the symbolism is a touch too obvious (the butterflies on her full-body cast… awww…) but don’t worry; there’s plenty of story to enjoy too. There are a bunch of familiar faces in small roles, from Antonio Banderas to Edward Norton (both uncredited) and Geoffrey Rush.

(In theaters, February 2003) Corrupt cops are a dime a dozen in movies, but we should be so lucky as to have them played by Kurt Russell! His take on a cop whose sense of justice doesn’t stop at legal technicalities is one of the best things he’s done in years. The story isn’t terribly original (the similarities of Training Day may stem from the fact that both scripts were written by the same person), but it carries itself ably up to the third act, which is brought down by a hideous coincidence, a gratuitous “big speech” ending and a lack of resonance with 1992’s L.A. riots. Dark Blue isn’t a film that’s going to be remembered a few years from now, but it’s decent enough entertainment; the type of thing you see on late-night TV and watch with a vaguely satisfying impression. There’s real fun in seeing an unorthodox police investigation produce some results and, as mentioned, seeing Kurt Russell in a meaty role for once.

(In theaters, February 2003) Marvel Comics’ recent run of decent movie adaptations continues, though Daredevil isn’t much more than decent. The problem isn’t to be found in the built-by-numbers story or the lead cast: While Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner and Michael Clarke Duncan are a touch bland but okay, Colin Farrell steals the show with one of the most delightfully over-the-top villains in recent history. Nope, the problems are concentrated in the choppy editing, the nervous direction and the lack of oomph. Resemblances are easy to see with Spider-Man, up to a point where it’s possible to worry that comic superheroes movies will all pretty much have the same trauma/story setup. Still, this is darker than usual, though the film chickens out near the end when comes the time to seal some characters’ fate. I was very disappointed at some of the so-called action sequences, which were often over-edited in a choppy mess. (The bar fight is a prime example of this). Some of the operational details of Daredevil’s lifestyle are also sadly unexamined, though some of it may be left in the rumoured 25 minutes of cut footage. What can’t be fixed though more footage, though, is the soundtrack which is already dated “Summer 2002” by its overuse of RIAA-approved rock bands cloned from Creed genes. Still, I’m not complaining too much; as comic book movies go, this is still one of the good ones, and even if it’s lacking, it’s not completely awful. It’ll do.

(In theaters, February 2003) Well, that was fun. Some will argue that the best part of the film is the opening heist sequence. I’ll disagree in a moment, but said lightning-fast sequence certainly sets the breakneck rhythm of the film. The result may be moronic beyond measure, but at least it moves quickly enough that you won’t have time to reflect on the problems until after the film is over. (Thanks to a funny sequence that plays over the credits, that means that the moment of reckoning takes place after all is done.) The biggest strength of Cradle 2 The Grave (don’t look for a relation between this title and the film) is how it doesn’t solely depends on Jet Li and DMX as the protagonists, but assigns a lot of time to a bunch of highly amusing sidekicks. There are a few good action sequences, the best of which involves a chase between police cars and an All-Terrain Vehicle: it’s a lot more fun than you’d think it would be. Alas, this chase is better than the scattered ending, which gracelessly cuts between three or four underwhelming action sequences. Overall, Cradle 2 The Grave is a fun little action film, probably the best American film Jet Li has been in (it is not, however, Jet Li’s best performance in a stateside movie given the lack of material he’s got to work with here.) Gabrielle Union fans will be pleased to note that she not only turns in a fine performance here, but she also does a strip-tease. As if you needed any other reason to see the film…

(In theaters, February 2003) Spike Lee detractors might be pleasantly surprised with this film, a low-key drama that feels like his least militant, yet most mature work to date. Actor demi-god Edward Norton stars as a convicted drug dealer spending one last day of freedom before heading to prison for seven years. Naturally, several plot lines come together during that last day as he says good-bye to family, friends and, er, “business acquaintances”. The rhythm is tepid, but handled nicely; there’s seldom a dull moment. It all builds to a strong conclusion, but a few set-pieces overshadow the narrative arc: an uninterrupted conversation over the wreckage of Ground Zero; a joyfully incorrect sequence in which Norton swears at New York’s population; a last-minute fantasy that threatens to cheapen the whole film. But it all holds together in an intriguing drama. Part of it we’ve seen before (Philip Seymour Hoffman’s arc is duller than his character), but most of it is intriguingly new; how do you say goodbye for seven years, maybe forever? The cast is up to the subtlety of the material, with particular kudos to Barry Pepper as a friend whose tough-love rhetoric hides profound guilt. (Also, Rosario Dawson has seldom looked better.) This is the first film to confront the post-World Trade Center New York City, and if some shots feel gratuitous, at least it hasn’t shirked away from the challenge. All and all, it’s a solid film, worth a look without being spectacular.

(In theaters, January 2003) Espionage and Al Pacino are similar in that they’re both endlessly fascinating, even in strictly routine situations. Here, Pacino plays another one of his brash mentor roles (this time to rising star Colin Farrell) in a film about the CIA training regimen. Sort of an espionage Harry Potter, if you prefer. The story is a bit too insistent on the idea that “nothing is what it seems”, because ultimately, that’s the idea behind the (easily guessable) Big Twist. Even then, though, The Recruit remains steadily entertaining. The training sequences are serviceable, and the plotline can hold anyone’s interest for a while even if the element of surprise isn’t there. This isn’t a terribly spectacular film, and it will probably be in the middle of the pack come year’s end, but it works well. Keep your eyes open for a few Kurt Vonnegut references, from Cat’s Cradle to (heh-heh!) Breakfast of Champions. Oh, and the “George Bush Center for Intelligence” quick gag. By the end, though, one ethical question still remains unresolved, maybe an indication of the film’s headlong rush to a serviceable conclusion.

(Second viewing, On DVD, January 2003) While other adaptation of Tom Clancy’s novels have managed to keep a lot of the original flavour intact, this one steadily evolves into yet another gratuitous rainy-night thriller. The ending alone is enough to make fans of the original novel howl in betrayal, but at least the rest of the film is decent enough. (Though you’ll have to mentally deduct twenty years off Harrison Ford’s character as he play-acts a young father who’s supposed to be in his late thirties.) There is one too many coincidence, though. (Ooh, a flash of red hair…) Some of the political issues surrounding terrorism are explored, and despite the conventional mano-a-mano finale, the adaptation still manages to suggest a veneer of sophistication. Not bad, really. It’s enough to make you wish most thrillers were at least as well-crafted as this one. The first-generation DVD contains the film, the trailer and nothing else.

(In theaters, January 2003) It’s no secret that I consider Martin Lawrence to be one of the most useless actors working today. While he certainly doesn’t help National Security (an early candidate for “worst-of-year” status), he’s far from being the only thing wrong with this project. Almost always feeling like the result of high-speed crash between two very different projects, National Security doesn’t take a long time to suck. From the first scene onward, the uneasy mix of police drama (complete with a gunned-down partner) and urban comedy (complete with an unending stream of oh-so-witty police brutality jokes) grates more than it amuses. Lawrence’s limitations are more painful than ever: His character is repulsive (Yet irresistible to women? Give me a break: he’s a toad!), never sympathetic, unbearable when attempting to be sensitive and simply loathsome. Not a good foundation for a buddy comedy, especially when buddy Steve Zahn is wasted in a role that seems to belong in another film. The script is variously clichéd, unconvincing, senseless and drawn-out. Yes, the girls are hot and the action has its moments, but the climax is generally unimpressive, and there is a limit to the number of times we can see a car crash through a plate window without becoming jaded. There’s no really gentle way to say it: National Security is a big dumb failure, a trash movie even by the standards of Martin Lawrence films.

(In theaters, January 2003) It’s not a complicated cop story, but it’s told with plenty of style. Sometimes that’s all you need. Jason Patric is suitably understated as the flawed protagonist with plenty to prove, but it’s Ray Liotta who steals the show as a brutal policeman with even more to hide. The opening sequence is a visceral piece of extreme shakycam; the rest of the film is slower, but it builds to a crescendo of emotional exchanges that ought to rivet everyone’s attention. Writer/Director Joe Carnahan is a bit too scattered to be completely effective (his segues in dark humour stand out in a film that otherwise struggles for attention), but he knows how to use a camera. The look is raw, Detroit-winter cold (shot in Toronto), unpleasant and very realistic. Ultimately, this is a simple but compelling cop story, a gritty crime drama of the likes we hadn’t seen in a long while. It’s not for everyone, but fans of the sub-genre will bless the stars for sending a good film their way once in a while.

(On DVD, January 2003) Strong adaptation of Tom Clancy’s novel that actually assumes that the viewers will be able to follow along without too much hand-holding. It works rather well. There are a few mistakes and (only) a few liberties taken from the source material, but the on-screen result manages to be one of the only decent decent techno-thrillers even more than a decade later. Credibility seems to be the name of the game, from the military hardware sequences to the acting of the actors. (Despite a few gratuitously “thrilling” sequences and some unconvincing underwater effects.) Alec Baldwin makes a capable Jack Ryan, and the supporting cast is similarly apt at fulfilling the demands of their characters. Almost immediately absorbing, The Hunt For Red October holds its own for nearly all of its duration, with a slight dip it the conventional last few minutes. Still, good show. The first-generation DVD barely contains the film and the trailer, let alone any extras.