Movie Review

(On VHS, December 1999) Is it possible to make an engaging film about a despicable character? Judging from this film, the answer would have to be yes. Despite being reprehensible, Larry Flynt is hailed by the film as being kind of an unusual hero, a living conduct for popular freedom of speech. Who would have though that a pornographer’s biography would make these points? Edward Norton turns in another great performance. (Has he ever been in a bad role?) We don’t get much insight in Flynt’s mind -maybe it’s better this way- but we do get outrageous courtroom antics. It’s worth it.

(In theaters, December 1999) As someone with zero knowledge of Andy Kaufman, I approached the film as “Kaufman 101”, and I’m not sure I know more about the guy now than before. Okay, so he was a practical joker without an “Off” switch. Okay, so he manipulated people in order to get attention. Okay, so he didn’t care if people laughed or hated him. Well, I’m still waiting to understand why Kaufman deserved his own film. There is no bigger issue here than Kaufman (unlike in Milos Forman’s own The People Versus Larry Flynt, which made valid points about censorship and civil rights) and the result seems like a showcase for Jim Carrey’s mimetic skills (which are actually fairly good) than something we should care about. Kaufman’s “comedy” isn’t always conventionally funny, and even though the film tries to milk laughs out of the audience, there’s a level of discomfort that never totally goes away. The conventional structure of the film is a disappointment after the brilliant opening, and is full of holes that make this film seem like a spliced multimedia supplement to a pretty good (and far more complete) book. The other embarrassing screenwriting problems (several instances of “see now, never hear from again” situations, a useless girlfriend character, etc…) considerably diminish the worth of the film, until it’s hard to commend it as much more than a marginal video rental.

(On VHS, December 1999) This is a study of a small borderline Texas town, and it packs in a lot of stuff in its running time: Murder, corruption, racial tension, broken families, illegal immigration, education, drugs, adultery, violence, gambling… and in two time tracks separated by thirty years, no less. And yet, it does so almost effortlessly, in a way that hooks you in and never seems too far-reaching. Good performances all around, even though some stuff could have easily been taken out of the film (eg; Joe Morton’s speech to the positive-testing recruit) without any ill-effect. The film features a who’s who of “gee-I’ve-seen-that-face-somewhere” actors: Elizabeth Peña (Rush Hour), Chris Cooper (October Sky), Kris Kristofferson (Blade), Matthew McConaughey (Ed TV), Frances McDormand (Fargo), etc… Good film, well worth the rental. The final line is kind of a perverse relief.

(On VHS, December 1999) There isn’t much to say about this film. Despite the inherent interest of young lesbian fantasy-writing murderers and director Peter Jackson’s usage of special effects, the whole film feels flat and obvious. Kate Winslet is notable in her screen debut.

(In theaters, December 1999) A rather long sit. You wouldn’t notice it, however, if it wasn’t for the writer’s sadistic fixation on urination. Fortunately, both screenwriter and director keep thing moving at a good (if not rapid) pace, and the film is seldom boring. Tom Hanks turns in his usually good performances, and he’s supported by an able gallery of supporting actors. Despite the unashamedly manipulative nature of the film, the ride is a fun one, and The Green Mile stands as a fairly good, mostly innocuous adult fairy tale.

(On VHS, December 1999) I have it on good authority that most people who watched Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas, then his latter Casino experienced a strong feeling of déjà-vu. For me, it was the reverse: Having first been very impressed by Casino, it seemed like Goodfellas was going over much of the same terrain in pretty much the same fashion. This doesn’t invalidate the worth of the film, which is considerable, but it does diminish its impact. Nonetheless, Goodfellas is a pretty crunchy tale of New York Mafiosos, told in a marvelously enjoyable overlap of narration, quick scenes and sharp vignettes. It meanders after a while, but somehow doesn’t lose interest. A great film, from a great director in great shape.

(In theaters, December 1999) This doesn’t rise much higher than most “stupid comedies” seen lately, but does the job if you’re in the mood for this type of film. Rather sweet-natured despite the constant jabs at almost every “different” group you can think of. Includes the first parodies of The Matrix; two hilarious take-offs on action scenes accompanied by the Propellerheads’ “Spybreak!”. It’s unfortunately easy to see where this comedy could have been improved at the script stage to produce something with a longer video-store shelf-life: Rob Schneider isn’t the best actor for the job (the role would have been ideally suited for the cynical wit of David Spade) and the script is full of missed opportunities and insufficiently defined situations. For instance, Deuce is never clearly established as a genius or and idiot; wouldn’t the movie have been much more fun with a sarcastic, nerdish Deuce Bigalow thrown into the “he-whore” business?

(In theaters, December 1999) A sumptuous, lavishly detailed historical quasi-romance with flashes of comedy, drama and action. Something for everyone, including good performances by Jodie Foster (“an intellectual’s pin-up girl” says one colleague) and Chow Yun-Fat (who here broadens his appeal beyond the tough-guy action roles that have been his trademark for American audiences up to now.) The film does loses its focus midway through and meanders a lot during its final hour. Audiences still get an adequate entertainment and some very pretty scenery.

(On VHS, December 1999) This film never flinches in its treatment of racism. But don’t think that this is another preachy morality tale where all sins are easily redeemed; American History X is far more unsettling. Perhaps its biggest strength is that it doesn’t represent racists as easily dismissed kooks; in the context of the film and the character’s situation, the racist arguments sort of make sense. That’s where the film’s true power lies: In depicting the slow slide, the external factors, the erosion of common sense that can lead anyone into the trap of racial hate. Fortunately, the film is carried through by Edward Norton, who turns in yet another great performance. Though not without flaws (the ending doesn’t make as much sense as it should. Norton’s character’s re-education is sketchy), this is -no mistake about it- an important work. Great, moving film.

(In theaters, November 1999) This sequel easily comes close to its predecessor in terms of humor, action, emotion and enjoyment. It’s amazing to see that, in an age where committee-produced art is sign of blandness, Pixar continues to turn in films that are the epitome of computer-generated production yet manage to have more human emotion than most live-action films. A lot of laugh-out-loud moments, clever parodies, a high-octane opener and a lot of great references to the original film. The movie pulls off an emotional musical sequence near the middle, and manages to insert an unusually powerful message at the same time. The action scenes are better than most “action movies” of this year. A very good choice for adults and kids alike.