Movie Review

(In theaters, September 2005) There are many wrong things with this film, but few of them are so annoying as the film’s false pretencions at being a psychological thriller. The first few minutes give the misleading tone: Dark snowy depressing weather, along with a protagonist on the edge of losing it all. In a reverso-The Sixth Sense counter-twist, the film tries to question the existence of a main character, leading to a too-lengthy sequence where even the viewer doubts what really shouldn’t be doubted (otherwise there wouldn’t be much of a story). Once past this interminable moment cluttered with red herrings, the film shifts in wrong gear as it becomes a straight-up thriller even more ridiculous than anything else you’re likely to see this year (well, at the possible exception of Transporter 2). Bad twists, nonsensical actions, rotten physics and a needless complicated plot kill this film even before it lands, leading to a last five minutes dominated by a growing sense of disbelief. Bad, bad film (I’m not even getting into the whole “shouldn’t she be thrown in prison?” question) which makes the similar Red Eye look like a minor work of genius. At least Red Eye didn’t take itself too seriously, and moved quickly enough that all of its faults became inconsequential. That’s clearly not the case here with this Flightplan not just gone awry, but flawed from the start.

(On DVD, September 2005) Low-budget, but effective hybrid between a horror movie and a military action film. The hook is simple: a platoon training in Scotland finds itself hunted by a pack of werewolves. They barely make it in an isolated country house before being besieged by the creatures. Who will last the night? The beginning is a bit slow and the seams of the budget sometimes show in the restrained direction, but Dog Soldiers does have an extra bit of oomph to make it stand out in memory. In the grand tradition of cheap horror films, writer/director Neil Marshall uses what he has at his disposal in the most effective fashion and the result holds up even to jaded viewers. There are a number of twists and turns, along with a suitably chaotic conclusion. Not bad.

(On DVD, September 2005) Most romantic movies start with a unique hook before devolving in identical third acts, and Deliver Us From Eva is no exception. A biting start featuring a strong-willed female character and some fluid directing leads to a third act that seems indistinguishable from countless other romances. Disappointing, but not too much: There is still plenty to like here and there in the film. I, of course, am an unabashed fan of Gabrielle Union, and she gets plenty of fabulous material as the eponymous Eva, going from shouting matches to romantic smoothness to energetic moments like “And-then-we-burned-a-hole-in-the-floor!” Faaabulous, which makes the last-third erosion of her character all the more disappointing to see: In a development that is sure to anger not just feminists, her hard-willed character becomes a mewling kitty as soon as she gets a good night’s of, er, not-sleep. At the same time, the three sympathetic henpecked boyfriends who get the plot moving are revealed to be moral weaklings who pretty much deserve everything they can get. None of that is meant as a slight of James Todd Smith (aka LL Cool J) in the male lead role, appropriately smooth and amusing as needed. The direction also has its moments, though those tend to sputter off as the film advances. In the end, Deliver Us From Eva a decent film, worth watching for Gabrille Union fans, but also a disappointment and a sign that there’s still plenty of room for improvement in how romantic comedies are structured.

(On DVD, September 2005) Man, this film has everything. Nazis, nudity, car chases and political satire. False French antagonists, Sylvester Stallone, decapitation and fistfights. It’s true that they don’t make ’em like they used to: On the other hand, 2005’s loss is 1975’s gain, as this film has endured through thirty years and looks poised to survive yet another thirty. The plot is thin (just look at the title for a clue), but the details are enjoyable and the film runs with a fast-paced streak of audacity. Yes, the acting is awful, and so are the special effects. The script is more promising than fulfilling, but the cheap B-movie charm overpowers everything else. Truly, this is one film that deserves a revival, though maybe not a remake.

(In theaters, September 2005) Goth-geekmaster Tim Burton does it again with this impeccable stop-motion tale of a morbidly amusing love triangle. The story is simple and the outright laughs are often scarce, but it’s a non-stop smile from start to finish. Visually, the film owes a lot to Burton’s design style (each character is its own caricature) and sensibilities. (Has there ever been a sexiest plasticine figure of a decomposing dead girl? No, don’t tell me.) Snappy songs, grotesque gags, astonishing stop-motion work and constant invention all put this film on the top shelf and a contender for the year’s end Top-Ten. It may not be as striking as The Nightmare Before Christmas, but it’s well worth a look. Wonderful stuff. It will endure long after most of 2005’s films will have been forgotten.

(In theaters, September 2005) Skillful, low-octane, high-intensity thriller that tackles an original premise with a great deal of cleverness. It’s first-world versus third-world in this tale where commercial interests mesh with diplomatic power. Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes are both fine in yet another fine film from director Fernando Meirelles (after City Of God). It’s a quiet little thriller, but this restraint makes the standard “thriller moments” even more visceral: When our protagonist loses his passports, receives death threats or is chased by another car, you feel it a lot more than in a Bruckheimer production. The palette of the film is interesting, bathing first-world scenes in cold grey-blue while giving a colourful hand-held kick to its African moments. The Constant Gardener also proves to be in-tune with the geopolitics of its era, mentioning the Iraq invasion and dealing heavily with the reality of a superpower-heavy era where corporate profits bend national righteousness. The conclusion is at once sad and appropriate, capping off a film that doesn’t mis-step all that often. Call it a thriller for adults, well-worth watching with your brain turned on.

(On DVD, September 2005) This special-interest DVD presents the three episodes of the Canadian-made “Cola Conquest” documentary, which digs in history to present a socioeconomic picture of the soft drink industry as dominated by Coca Cola and Pepsi. From origins in the dubiously effective “remedies” of the early twentieth century, the soft drink industry becomes a poster child for marketing, and even starts affecting politics during World War 2. The first episodes is the best, as it explains how sugared drinks attained their current position in today’s culture. Plenty of revealing information about the power of marketing! The second episode spends a bit too much time in the depths of the Cold War, but does a fine job at linking soft drinks to politics. The third one is a bit less focused, going from globalization issues to taste-tests. It’s all quite fascinating, though the pace of interest is somewhat uneven. Makes an interesting companion to Super Size Me.

(On DVD, September 2005) Given how Harvey Pekar’s “American Splendor” series of comic books is all about the fascinating dullness of ordinary life, it’s entirely appropriate for its movie adaptation to be similarly interesting and boring, with a little real-life twist. Paul Giamatti is Harvey Pekar, but Pekar is also in the film, commenting on what’s being shot about his own life, with friends and family similarly reacting to the depiction of themselves. What’s more, the film regularly makes use of comic book iconology, flipping through actual “American Splendor” illustrations and switching back to film. It’s an unusual approach, maybe even one that makes the film a must-see for serious cinephiles. As far the rest of the content goes, well, it’s about a comic book writer struggling to make ends meet: There isn’t much that’s interesting there, and that is the whole point of the film. American Splendor is remarkably successful at juggling uneasiness with interest, an approach that will either be cause for admiration, boredom or scorn. Or sometimes all three.

(In theaters, August 2005) I’m really not a fan of frat-boy comedies, so please excuse my bemusement as Wedding Crashers goes on to shatter every R-rated comedy box-office record. Womanizers triumphant? Meh. It’s the kind of box-office success that leads one to think dark thoughts about the collective intelligence of the American ticket-buying public. It’s not that Wedding Crashers is bad as much as it’s featureless. Obvious. Dull, sometimes. Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson play their own respective typecast roles, and if I’m still a sucker for Wilson’s brand of surfer-type laid-back smoothness, Vaughn’s usual loudmouth shtick is getting thin. Ironically, Wedding Crashers is never as good as when it’s behaving badly: the film seriously tanks in the third act as it discovers a conscience and attempts to reconcile itself with mainstream values. Boring! Speaking of which, Rachel McAdams makes no impression as the lead girl whose role is to shut up and look pretty. Meanwhile, Isla Fisher steals every scene she’s in as the not-so innocent sibling. (Heck, she even steals every scene she’s not in given how badly we wish she was in more of the film.) There are a number of good gags and some inspired set-pieces, but in most ways, it’s a perfectly ordinary film. But then again, it’s made for other people.

(In theaters, August 2005) Damn you Rob Cohen! Just as I was ready to tear this insipid script apart, here you come with those fantastic action sequences, virtual cinematography and the good sense to cast Jessica Biel! How can I resist your film, even if it’s one of the dumbest thing I’ve seen all year? As a big fan of military techno-thriller, I can point at the screen every five seconds and darkly mutter “Mistake!” (That whole survival-and-evasion sequence ought to be shows at SERE courses as tutorials on what pilots should not do.) But why bother when I know that the film will reliably knock my socks off with a boffo action sequence every fifteen minutes? Curse you and praise you for that refuelling sequence, both moronic and exhilarating. Every time I thought about leaving the theatre in disgust, you showed more of Jessica Biel’s curves and I stayed. I hope your career implodes, because otherwise every other director will learn how to shore up a bad script with cool directing tricks and fast-paced editing. It took a while, but fortunately you relented and delivered a truly awful last ten minutes, minutes during my brain re-surfaced and managed to get some perspective on the film. Did you really go into one of those silly “humans are better than machines” speech, or was I hallucinating that? Did the film argue for the intelligence and decision-making power of humans even as the United States are stuck in Iraq? Did you even try to stuff an MP3-downloading killer A.I. zapped by lightning in the oldest and lamest of all Frankenstein plot rip-offs? Surely I should be tracking down every copy of this film for destruction purposes. And yet I feel the need to buy the DVD to watch it again…

(In theaters, August 2005) Every summer has a pleasant surprise or two, and to my mind this is the sleeper film no one was expecting. Made with a tight budget, cheap special effects and a decent script, Sky High shares a number of common preoccupations with The Incredibles (especially the “superhero family” vibe) but stands on its own as a witty hybrid between superhero films and teenage comedy. It goes along much better than expected thanks to some good supporting roles from Kurt Russell, Dave Foley, Bruce Campbell and Lynda Carter. The script has weak patches (especially the “yearbook reveal” slip-up, which pretty much gives away the rest of the film), but its sharp dialogue and steady rhythm keeps it chugging along nicely. The lead actors are suitably sympathetic, and the film at least has a rudimentary sense of its place in genre history. Is it any accident if the only worthwhile superhero films these days are those which tinker at least a bit with the concept, from The Incredibles to Batman Begins? In any case, I tend to think of Sky High as this year’s Bring It On or Mean Girls: a fun teen film fit for more demanding audiences, with plenty of charm and good jokes to tell.

(On DVD, August 2005) Long, slow and dull political thriller that is nevertheless smarter than most of what you’ll see in theatres this year. John Sayles is, of course, an independent film-maker’s legend, and the quality of Silver City‘s execution clearly shows why: Not only has he crafted a good script and filmed it in a clean, sparse style, but he has also managed to attract an impressive number of known (and semi-known) actors on the sole basis of the project. Sayles intention with this film is (among other things) to expose the modern pseudo-conservative ideology in which politics is but another mean for businessmen to further their ambitions. It’s certainly no accident if Chris Cooper, playing a puppet candidate, acts and sounds exactly like a certain current American president… But perhaps the most impressive thing about Silver City is how it manages to cover so many themes in scarcely more than two hours. It exudes an Chinatown aura of hopeless corruption, a contemporary society built on lies and exploitation. Sure, the pacing could have been improved, and a meditative thriller is no excuse to put viewers to sleep. Still, there’s more good stuff than bad here, and it’s just too bad that the film is such a hard sell to mainstream audiences.

(On DVD, August 2005) Taken by itself, this is perfectly entertaining, visually exciting piece of cinema. Unfortunately, it comes on the heels of both Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero, and unfortunately covers much of the same territory in much of the same fashion. Slightly pretentious, far too long, maybe a bit too deliberate in how it tries to distinguish between every scene, House Of Flying Daggers seems too familiar to have an impact. The twists in the tale also seem too deliberate to feel interesting: at the end, the only things missing are an alien and a split personality. And that’s truly too bad, because House Of Flying Daggers shows an ambitious aesthetic sense that puts most other films to shame. In trying to figure out how this film may seem too familiar even as dozens of Jackie Chan film can all have their individual appeal, it may be useful to consider the element of fun: Chan, at least in his best early-nineties period, broadly appealed through stunts and easy jokes: Yimou Zhang, on the other hand, has evacuated all humour out of his film, trying for high-end romantic drama with a tragic twist. There very well be a limit to the number of films appealing to that particular corner of the mindspace: Too bad that House Of Flying Daggers had to end there third.

(In theaters, August 2005) I have some admiration for “high-concept” movies, or films that actually dare to take a risk in the quest for a few more thrills. Red Eye is one of those films, deliberately locking itself in an airliner and reducing the drama to a series of conversation between two people sitting next to each other. It’s pure thriller stuff, well-handled through the crafty professionalism of director Wes Craven. Not coincidentally, the film’s interest level goes down along with the plane, and the post-landing segment steadily degenerates into another crazy-killer-in-big-house sequence stolen straight from the Scream series. That part isn’t so good, but if you can leave before the movie’s last ten minutes, you’ll come out with the pleasant feeling of a slick and well-handled thriller. Rachel McAdams finally gets a good role beyond looking pretty, and Cilian Murphy is less annoying than usual as the smooth-talking “operator”. Sure, the plot is packed full of holes. But they’re not so annoying when you’re caught up in the on-screen tension. Could have been better, but it’s not too bad as it is.

(On DVD, August 2005) When considering a comedy/action hybrid explicitly produced by Disney, the only possible encouragement is a bland “well, what did you expect?” Yup: poopy jokes, awkward physical comedy, a plot that manages to waste ninjas and a chance for Vin Diesel to try “The Schwarzenegger Manoeuvre” in which an action star attempts a kid-friendly reputation. Vin is cool, even irreproachable, but the same can’t be said of a film that is quite obviously aimed at kids. That there’s violent gunplay, wrestling and a few deaths will no doubt strike a few as excellent training about today’s world for today’s kids. But even this said, the “action” in the film has been neutered almost beyond blandness, leaving most of the audience wondering who, exactly, is this film destined for. It doesn’t help that the script shows no signs of even occasional wit, and that the directing never improves on the screenplay. While there is enough in The Pacifier to keep us entertained, there isn’t really enough to keep us from saying “well, that wasn’t really good, now, wasn’t it?”