Movie Review

(On DVD, July 2002) Charming Jane Austen-inspired romantic comedy set in historical Britain. The film revolves around actress Frances O’Connor, who is more beautiful here than she’s been ever since in dud roles in contemporary movies such as Bedazzled and Windtalkers. If you like period romances, it’s hard not to be taken with this slight tale. (Though it’s surprisingly edgy, with a few glimpses of decidedly un-romantic moments) It’s not particularly deep or meaningful, but it’s a good moment. The DVD is pretty much devoid of special features, except for writer/director Patricia Rozema’s enlightening commentary track in which she explains the various changes she made to the original story and the winks to those familiar with Austen. (The lead character becomes a stand-in for Austen herself, and not merely the boring protagonist of the original book.) Good stuff.

(In theaters, July 2002) The fall of the Soviet Union has revealed countless good stories about life on the other side of the Iron Curtain, and a few dramatic ones. This cold-war thriller detailing a particularly dramatic nuclear submarine trip highlights the appalling conditions of the Soviet Navy and the heroism of the men stuck on these boats. It’s compelling, but far more so as a fictionalized documentary rather than a straight-up thriller. Not much is done to differentiate the characters, but director Katheryn Bigelow knows how to crank the tension on scenes that need it, and the big centerpiece of the film works well as a suspense sequence. The rest of the film is quiet, saddled with an unnecessary epilogue and doesn’t deliver nearly as much as it ought to. Nevertheless, there is a lot to like in the authentic re-creation of life aboard these submarines, the set design and the unusual glimpse in a wholly different environment. Worth a look for submarine buffs, certainly, but the general public expecting a war thriller may want to wait a while.

(In theaters, July 2002) It’s been a long dry spell for us giant-spider movies enthusiasts, but at last, the wait is over and Eight Legged Freaks is everything you can wish for in a giant-spiders movie. It features a small town under attack, a few endearing characters from Central Casting (Including the scrumptious Kari Wuhrer as a shotgun-blasting sheriff; woo-hoo!), loads of weapons, clever tactics, a high body count and, oh, hundreds of giant spiders. It’s loads of fun for whoever can appreciate the pure artistic meaning of a giant-spiders movie. It’s not completely successful (the pacing lags at the end, and some characters -like the conspiracist DJ- are just insipid), but frankly I’d be hard-pressed to find a better monster B-movie since the original Tremors. Enjoy yourself squishily!

(Second viewing, On DVD, January 2003) Silly, funny and not afraid to be a little stupid when it needs to be, this is a triumphant return of the B-grade monster movie. Camera-equipped PDAs and digitally-created spiders notwithstanding, this is a throwback to the golden era of bad fifties sci-fi, and a pretty enjoyable one at that. At least it’s honest it what it attempts to be (as the commentary quickly establishes) and never aspires to any higher purpose. While the film won’t break through to general audiences with no particular hunger for giant spider movies, it holds up rather well to a second viewing for this fan of the sub-genre. The DVD is otherwise serviceable, with an amusing commentary track, a diverting short film and a few deleted scenes (including one which answers one of my biggest “huh?”s) but, curiously enough, a rather remarkable lack of making of material on visual effects. Oh well. It’s bug-squishing fun enough as it is anyway!

(On TV, July 2002) Contrived, exasperating crime melodrama filled with contrived situations, leaps of logic and a cackling villain. Ashley Judd is cute, but her character must’ve fell on her head a few times during her childhood to act so stupidly all the time. The film is filled with shoddy scare shots and bewildering “action” scenes thrown in for cheap thrills (a nursery with security guard in jeeps? Whaa?). It’s a shame to see respectable actors such as Tommy Lee Jones waste their time with trash like this. And yet, despite my overall loathing of the film, it’s hard to deny a certain guilty pleasure in staring at the screen, wondering what else they’ll come up with, if only to see how stupid this can become. What can I say? Catch in TV if you must.

(On VHS, July 2002) Perfunctory pilot episode to a kid’s series starring Toy Story‘s Buzz Lightyear character. (Be warned, though, that this feature is hand-animated, and doesn’t feature computer animation except for a very brief introduction.) The film itself is fine; a nice way to keep the kids entertained, if not much else. There are a few clever lines, but you’ve heard them all elsewhere. All in all, this is a strictly average production. Acceptable, not great but good.

(In theaters, July 2002) One fatal car accident; three stories. The first one is fascinating, a look at life in low-rent Mexico City where crime is an entirely acceptable option to get ahead. It’s brutal and compelling and you almost hope the entire film will be like that. Alas, the second story isn’t as good, dragging us through the domestic disputes of a high-class couple whose stupid dog won’t emerge from under the false floor of their apartment. The third story is good but far too long, a moralistic tale about an assassin on his last mission. Overall, the film is impressively directed and acted, but feels overlong at more than two hours. Your mileage may vary, especially if you can manage to be interested in the last two stories.

(In theaters, July 2002) Another satisfying entry in the “British novel adaptation” category, About A Boy is a bit too meaningful to be strictly funny. Oh, Hugh Grant is at the top of his game as an immature bachelor who discovers a better life: his internal monologue contains enough quotable gems to keep you smiling. But it’s small quibbles such as a deliberately humiliating finale, a ghastly-looking Toni Collette (who might actually look worse and worse in each successive film) and, oh yes, a suicide attempt that sour the comedy of the film. Now, purists may argue that it simply makes the funny stuff funnier and (again) more meaningful, but for anyone looking for the next Bridget Jones’s Diary, well, it’s no breezy summer entertainment. Make no mistake, though; this is a great film, well-written and decently directed. But as far as enjoyment goes, hmm, your mileage may differ.

(In theaters, June 2002) It’s no secret that I generally worship John Woo and his entire oeuvre, but even I can see when something is clearly not working. In the case of Windtalkers, the Woo-fan in me found plenty of things to like: mayhem-packed war scenes filled with spectacular explosions, intricate choreographies and impeccable cinematography. Alas, the budding Woo-doubter took pleasure in pointing out the awful script and the inappropriate nature of Woo’s direction in this case. Whereas the post Saving Private Ryan films have accustomed us to a more realistic view of war, Windtalkers is a throwback to the gung-ho kill-all-Japs attitude of the 50s John Wayne war epics. Protagonist Nicolas Cage mows’em down with glee and soldiers are repeatedly sent flying by gigantic gasoline-fuelled explosions. It’s all so very impressive, but hardly realistic. That’s not even talking about the ludicrous dialogue, the awfully explicit racist subplot needlessly crowding out a more subtle racial message and some terrible “bonding” scenes we’ve seen countless times before. Christian Slater’s happy-puppy role is a joy to watch and the action scenes are impressive in their own fashion, but otherwise Windtalkers is painful to watch, a depressingly unrealistic film about a subject that deserved so much better. Woo fans, take note.

(On TV, June 2002) As a reformed trekkie, it was both sad and embarrassing to watch a full-length documentary (developed and hosted by Trek actress Denise Crosby herself) about the length to which some Trek fans will go in order to express their admiration for everything related to the show. Some of the trekkies featured in the program exhibit real talent (like the teenage computer-graphic whiz, which whom I identified rather strongly) but others… well… need something. Obsessing over Brent Spiner like that can’t be good. There is a circus-like atmosphere in Trekkies that never quite goes away, sort of a freak parade one step short of showing a car accident in progress. What is it about a Star Trek fascination that makes it so compelling for civilians? Five years after the film’s initial release, though, the question pops up; where are these people now? Are they still so inspired by a fictional mythology? Would a sequel be ninety, or fifteen minutes long? And how lucky am I not to have been consumed by full-blown Trek fetishism once I got out of my own teenage years?

(In theaters, June 2002) It had to happen at some point: A gross-out comedy by and for girls. Eh. To be fair, The Sweetest Thing presents an appealing trio of girlfriends: Cameron Diaz is as loveable as ever, Christina Applegate deservedly gets a good screen role at last and even Selma Blair is rather attractive here. The girl’s chemistry works well and is a welcome change from the usual testosterone-laden sex comedies. A lot of the jokes work well, even though they’re not all that different from what you’d see in movies from a male perspective. (Why is it that stalker-type behavior is almost always funnier if it’s a woman doing the stalking? It’s surely equally creepy in real-life, isn’t it?) Unfortunately, there are several dumb (and gross) moments, enough that they collectively dull the impact of the film to a merely pleasant film. (if that; your tolerance may vary) Maybe worth a curio viewing to compare and contrast with, say, Tomcats, but not an essential film. Unless you’re in that kind of thing.

(Third viewing, On DVD, June 2002) Hmmm. Even though I had rather good memories of Spaceballs, seeing the film once again somehow wasn’t the same thing as before. Hey, make no mistake; it’s still a pretty funny film, an amusing take-off on those seventies SF movies. But whether it’s familiarity or incipient maturity, some of the gags just seemed… lame. This DVD version doesn’t add much: The making-of is mildly interesting, but even if Mel Brook’s audio commentary is constantly amusing, it’s also kind of boring. Maybe I just need to shelve this one for a few years and see how well it fares once I’ve forgotten most of it.

(In theaters, June 2002) It’s difficult not to laugh during some of the film’s most ridiculous moments: Much like most Goths are simply ordinary folks trying to pass off as somehow special, this is really a B-grade horror film with his pretensions of high darkness. Most of it doesn’t work, and we’re stuck with a bunch of vampire poseurs for ninety minutes. This can be insufferable or amusing, depending on your mood at the moment. At least it’s consistently interesting, moving from vignette to vignette in an expedient fashion. As far as vampire films go, I’m a Blade type-of-guy, but Queen Of The Damned could have been worse. Much, much worse.

(In theaters, June 2002) I really should have liked this film. On paper, it sure sounds like a winner: An action-packed monster movie set in medieval France, starring a libertine scientist, his Mohawk kung-fu master, Monica Bellucci as a courtesan and a villain played by Vincent Cassel? With wire-fu action scenes inspired and staged by Hong Kong martial artists? Mixing political intrigue and religious conspiracies? I’m there! Unfortunately, while Le Pacte Des Loups has fascinating components, it never manages to put everything together seamlessly. The film jumps from one emotional register to another without smooth transitions and uses various cinematic tricks without seemingly understanding why they should be used. The result is a loud, incoherent mess that ironically feels very, very long. (It doesn’t help that the last forty minutes are repetitive and essentially useless.) This is a film by technicians, not storytellers; the plot is weak and senseless, whereas the images are often gripping. (I laughed out loud at a cheeky transition pan shot that neatly dissolves from Monica Bellucci’s curvy naked body to a CGI shot of hills and valleys.) There is a palpable sense of missed opportunities amidst the stunning scenery, the expensive special effects and the interesting back-story. It’s just too bad that nothing more intriguing has been done with it.