Movie Review

(In theaters, January 2003) The most impressive thing about this film is how it presents a fifties melodrama as a period piece, without once resorting to cheap irony or contemporary arrogance. While the story is simple (a perfect housewife discovers that her husband is gay and then falls in love with a black man), the tone is maintained with a great deal of control. It is possible to be bored and generally unsurprised by the film (which includes all the expected ostracism scenes), but it’s difficult not to respect the care with which it is fashioned. Save from the titling and some editing choices, the film looks and feels as if it could have been made at any time since 1958. Acting is top-notch, but particular attention has to be given to Dennis Haysbert, who finally comes to the forefront after several turns in smaller-scale projects. It’s easy to watch the film and make tongue-in-cheek comments about what’s going on, but writer/director Todd Haynes has something different, and very earnest in mind. One finally realizes that it would just be rude to be ironic in face of such raw sentiment.

(In theaters, January 2003) After The Ring, it’s hard to be generous to run-of-the-mill horror films, but even in normal circumstances, it would be pretty hard to get excited about Darkness Falls. It’s a monster movie like all others, except that it’s too strangely similar to Pitch Black and happens to steal at least one sequence from Requiem For A Dream. Once past the promising prologue, it’s dull, really. A killer tooth fairy? Come on, you can do better than that! A monster that can’t attack in the light? Well don’t give me a film where even pitch darkness is illuminated by what looks like a 40-watts full moon (oh, and with constant lightning). The staging is moronic, the characters are dumb and the dialogues are even dumber. Sure, there are a few oddly affectionate moments of self-aware camp (“Are we going to die?” “Yes.”), but despite the presence of one hot heroine (take note: Emma Caulfield), the rest of the film is completely unremarkable. Maybe it can impress anyone who’s never seen even another horror movie in their life. All the others, however, will yawn rather loudly. A killer tooth fairy. Goodness.

(In theaters, January 2003) Hmm. A real-life game show producer (Chuck Barris) writes “an unauthorised autobiography” in which he invents a shadowy secret life for himself: TV executive by day, CIA hired killer by night. The demands and women of both of his life take their toll on him. Sounds fascinating? It ought to have been, but unfortunately the screenwriter (Charlie Kaufman, yes, of Adaptation and Being John Malkovich fame) and director (George Clooney, yes, the actor) adapt the book in a wholly weird and stylised fashion. It could have worked, but the lead character in the tale (Barris, well-played by Sam Rockwell) turns out to be a highly repulsive protagonist. While it’s difficult to fault anyone (least of all Clooney, who exhibits some competency with the camera), the film itself sorts of falls flat. It feels like a series of vignettes rather than a flowing story. Julia Robert’s character, for instance, turns up in four or five scenes, but is supposed to be an important part of Barris’ life. It doesn’t click, and ultimately, neither does the film. The humour quotient is low and the interest level flags intermittently. I wasn’t asking for another True Lies, but at least True Lies managed to hold together all the elements it was given. Make no mistake: Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind is an interesting experiment… but not a completely successful one.

(Second viewing, On DVD, January 2003) Despite the rather extensive (and damnable) liberties taken with the last third of the source material, this film at least managed to remind me why I still think that this particular Tom Clancy novel is my favourite of his. Unlike the other “Jack Ryan” stories, this one is chiefly concerned with corruption from within, with an unlawful series of action taken by Americans. This, in the realistic context of Ryan’s universe, makes the material far more interesting than simply fighting Russians or Terrorists. It helps immensely that Ryan is here faced with an adversary as capable as he is from an intellectual perspective. Harrison Ford is once again too old for the role, but not by much, as his position here is more senior. Alas, the last third of the film is overlong, makes too much use of Ryan as an action hero and loses itself in a multitude of late subplots rather than focus on the resolution. In short, it really screws up the novel for no good reason whatsoever. At least it’s redeemed by a really good last few scenes, where Ryan must decide how much of a boy-scout he truly is. Plus, the rest of the film does an admirable job at presenting a complex issue is a few simple sequences. Worth a look. The first-generation DVD simply presents the movie, plus the trailer.

(In theaters, January 2003) Brilliant at times, unsatisfying at others, Adaptation is a frustrating film that either mishandles a boffo premise, or exploits it in a way that won’t please everyone. Yes, I get the joke, that a screenwriter struggling with an adaptation wrote a script as if written by two screenwriters about the process of two screenwriters adapting a book. (Whew!) Yes, I know where reality and fiction leave off. Yes, I realize that the third act is written by “Donald” the lovable hack. But somehow, the last third also forgets to have fun and for such an amusing premise, it’s surprising to see how much Adaptation takes itself seriously at times. What could have been full of winks to the audience instead feels sloppy and unfocused. It is a deliberate artistic choice, of course, but is it the most appropriate one? Would this have been a better film if “Donald” had written the first two-third, and Charles the rest? What if the dual-personality sub-theme had been explicitly exploited? As someone with (amateur) screenwriting experience, I like anything about the creative process and love even more “wacky” movies, and yet found myself wishing for more, more, more in the latter third of the film: You’re screwing with the audience, Charlie, but why not push it even further? Was the coda truly necessary in light of the “mess up the audience” manifesto? What about the insufficient exploitation of the alternate meaning of “adaptation”? Couldn’t anything more be done with this? Where’s Robert McKee when you need him?

(In theaters, January 2003) One of Niven’s Laws (From SF writer Larry Niven) states “Think before you make the coward’s choice. Old age is not for sissies.” However glamorous or easy it may appear, being old sucks. Being retired is even worse. That seems to be the message of About Schmidt, a profoundly depressing look at a man who comes to realize he’s a complete failure. OK, OK, it’s not as bad as that, and Writer/Director Alexander Payne makes darn sure there’s a ray of hope somewhere. It still doesn’t make the film more enjoyable. This is the type of story built around a series of humiliation vignettes: situations are set up where the only suspense is in knowing how the protagonist will make a fool of himself. Jack Nicholson is good in one of his least Jack-Nicholsonish roles yet. But few are sympathetic in this story, and that includes one of the most obnoxious daughter role in recent memory. Older viewers will probably get much more out of this film than I did; I just couldn’t care less.

(In theaters, December 2002) It’s trite and shallow, but it deserves to be said: This film succeeds purely on the charm of Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant. I’d like to poo-pooh “star power” as much as any other average nebbish intellectual film buff, but that proves impossible when a so-so romantic comedy is rescued from complete lack of interest by a feisty brunette and a floppy-haired Englishman. It’s not as if the first hour of Two Weeks Notice is completely worthless: Some of the gently antagonistic dialogue plays a lot like the classic romantic comedies of the black-and-white era. Bullock is charming as the long-suffering assistant/counsel/hen-mother to the hedonistic Grant. But the film hits a brick wall at the party sequence, and never fully recovers, as it changes gear from an understated romantic comedy to a more explicit romance. (Tangentially, I wonder if my lack of interest was triggered by Bullock’s character’s progressive transformation into the more standard romantic heroine, away from her feisty liberal persona) Thankfully, the charm of the leads manages to hold everyone in their seats even as the predictable conclusion finally rolls by. There are several things wrong about this film, from the incongruous toilet humor to the lack of dynamism of the supporting characters, but those flaws aren’t as obvious when Grant and Bullock are on-screen. Otherwise (or, if you just happen not to like those two actors), this is a strictly routine film, nothing to see…

(In theaters, December 2002) Dull. Boring. Useless. Those were my reactions watching this tepid tenth instalment of the Trek Series. Not only does it break the even/odd rule, but it presents a strong argument for scrapping the series altogether. I mean: Dune-buggy racing? Yet another Data clone? Worf reduced to a drunken idiot? The lamest firefights ever shown on the silver screen? Put the franchise out of its misery, already. Not only did they rip off the plot from The Wrath Of Khan, but they did it in such a way that they sucked all the energy out of it. “The crew of the USS Enterprise confronts its most dangerous threat so far: A surly teenager!” Even Patrick Stewart can’t save the flat dialogue. Even the great special effects (Ooh! Two ships collide!) can’t save a script that is bound to the traditions of the low-budget series. Heck, even plenty of cleavage can’t excuse a script so stupid that it features a matter-of-fact psychic violation (“…and if you can tolerate another, that would be helpful. Thanks for your support.”) that leads to… wait for it… psychic weapon targeting! Gaah! Star Trek: Nemesis doesn’t work for casual audiences, who will find it pretty dumb, doesn’t work for non-obsessive fans, who will also find it pretty dumb, and sure as heck won’t work for die-hard fans given the truly wretched ways the characters are wasted. (The unaffecting death of a major character brought back all sort of unwanted memories of Generations. Such a waste…) This horse is dead, Jim. Shoot it.

(On DVD, December 2002) Fans of the CBC show probably know what to expect, but even if they’re really indulgent, chances are that they’ll be disappointed by this feature-film adaptation of Steve Smith’s comedy genius. For one thing, the TV show depends on a very rigid formula that is impossible to translate in a movie. For another, the film relies on a very classical structure that will be instantly familiar to anyone who’s seen a film where underdogs win a contest. There aren’t nearly enough displays of mechanic cleverness that made the reputation of the show. Some moments are pretty dumb. The conclusion grates. And yet, fans of the show will get to see their favorite characters act outside the TV box for a while, against a moving camera and a three-dimensional environment. As far as Canadian comedies of 2002 go, Men With Brooms still rule, but Duct Tape Forever is okay. If you want. I guess.

(On DVD, December 2002) Savvy movie buffs have come to dread the expression “erotic thriller” as shorthand for “the story wasn’t interesting without nudity”. In this case, the casting is enough to tempt even the hardened skeptics: Antonio Banderas and Angelina Jolie are among the world’s Beautiful People, so how bad can it be? Well, Original Sin doesn’t turns out to be particularly bad, but it does end up being long and preposterous. This film doesn’t work because it goes everywhere, abandoning dramatic focus until we don’t care either where or how this couple will (or won’t) end up. Improbably plot twists don’t shock as much as they inspire sighs of derision from a bored audience. Few characters are sympathetic here, whether it’s Jolie’s morally ambiguous character or Banderas’ dim-bulb protagonist. Even more shocking is the discovery that Jolie’s nakedness is vastly overrated; she definitely looks better clothed (and padded a la Tomb Raider) than nude. So say goodbye to your last remaining reason to rent Original Sin: download the naked clips from your favorite P2P network tonight, and spend your good money elsewhere.

(On DVD, December 2002) Crossing Sliding Doors with Bridget Jones’s Diary, this gentle British romantic comedy features a woman who gets a glimpse (and then a full-blown part) in her alternate life thanks to a bit of fantasy wish-fulfillment. It’s cute. It’s funny. (Some scenes are humorous in a brutally frank way.) Rachel Griffiths is wonderful in the dual title roles; hot when she has to be, motherly when she must and adorably confused at all other times. The role-switching conceit is original enough, and the treatment works more often than it doesn’t. What doesn’t work as well is the extended second half, which seems a touch too long. (There is also one adultery plot twist too many that remains curiously unsolved whenever normalcy is restored.) The lack of resolution, choice or conclusion is a bit predictable when the point of the film is that you can be happy any way you chose (and yet be very curious about the path not taken.) Worth a look if you’re interested in a slightly offbeat look at single women’s bugaboos once they hit a certain age.

(On DVD, December 2002) Mixed bag that stuffs too many different things in one single container. Let’s run it down: Smart single art restorer with relationship problems: Okay, that works as far as I’m concerned (Monica Potter looks like a cuter Julia Roberts to me). China Chow as her lesbian colleague? More, more, more! The premise that she’s “forced” to take up residence with four supermodel room-mates? Funny stuff, that. Freddie Prinze Jr. as the center of female attention? I can deal with that. The slide from quirky romantic comedy to bathroom humor? Eh… not too sure. The further slide in comedic thriller territory? Eek. Ultimately, the writers throw together too much stuff. Some of it sticks (the supermodel humor) and some of it doesn’t (like the cops-and-gangsters plotline). Some of the humor is just too juvenile to be effective. But I’ve seen worse. This year. Heck, this month.

(On DVD, December 2002) Low-key, but effective supernatural thriller with a bunch of big stars (Cate Blanchett, good as ever, but also a surprising Keanu Reeves, Katie Holmes, Greg Kinnear and Giovanni Ribisi) used to good effect. Sam Raimi’s direction is also understated, yet effective. Interestingly enough, the “gift” isn’t nearly as important as how the characters react to it. I didn’t think a hillbilly drama about a clairvoyant would grab me as much as this one did. The resolution is predictable, but the technique is sufficiently well-handled that it doesn’t matter much. At a time where supernatural thrillers are dumb and plentiful, it’s somewhat of a relief to find one that actually looks as if it cares about the story it’s telling. A small film, but a pleasant surprise.

(In theaters, December 2002) I don’t worship at the altar of Martin Scorsese, but after seeing what he did with this script, I’m now quite willing to attend the occasional get-together. Gangs Of New York is a sumptuous re-creation of a fascinating historical period, when the infamous Boss Tweed’s Tamany Hall reigned over a city that actually deserved its corruption. Immigrants against so-called natives, rich against poor; if America was born in the streets (as the film’s tagline suggests), then it had a difficult gestation. This story is your good old revenge plot, as a son vows to avenge his murdered father. This 1860ish New York is grimy, lively and completely alien to us, as firefighters fight it out for the right to loot a house and gangs can hack at each other in complete impunity. Leonardo DeCaprio fares well in a good bad-boy role, but he pales in comparison to Daniel Day-Lewis, who delivers a great performance as an oddly endearing villain. The film is worth seeing more for the direction and the historical re-creation than for the rather simple story: cinema geeks will love it for the pleasure of seeing a true artist move a camera around, with plenty of budget to realize his vision. The abruptly political ending is initially hard to swallow (it doesn’t help that it cheats us of a dramatic climax after a long buildup), but it does make a point. Who even remembered such events taking place in New York City? Dust those history books…