Movie Review

(In theaters, January 1999) As my first movie of 1999, I wanted a baseline. A not-too-good film against which to compare the others I’ll see this year. I certainly got that with Virus. Neither astonishingly bad or particularly good, Virus is about the most generic movie you could imagine about an energy life-form taking over a boat. As a representative of the “there’s-something-evil-on-this-ship-and-we’re-stuck-with-it!” subgenre, Virus does the job without distinction but also without being too tiresome. Joanna Pacula is as lovely as ever, and Donald Sutherland’s deliciously bad performance as the ship captain is a hoot to watch. The direction is promising, but hampered by jumpy editing. The special effects aren’t all that special (the CGI sequences are unfortunately easy to spot) and some lines of dialogue are hilariously bad. (Lighting coming out of the computer: “Something’s accessing the computer!” “Impossible! Only I have the access codes!”) Might be a good choice in a few years on late-night TV. Until then, it will join Mimic, Screamers, Species and other undistinguished not-too-bad-not-too-good SF movies on the shelves of your local video store.

(In theaters, January 1999) An acceptable 90 minute WW2 movie mixed and intercut with a five-minute credit sequence, thirty minutes of a Discovery Channel special on the plants, animals and wonderful savage people of the south east-asian jungle, a fifteen-minutes experimental film by stoned freshmen philosophy students and another forty-five minutes of footage that the editor forgot to cut, probably because he fell asleep at the editing console. I really loved the camera work, the cinematography and the war scenes. I also liked the characters, but I just wish they’d been featured in a better movie. Saving Private Ryan it ain’t, because Spielberg never forgot that great movies entertain as much as they’re art. Now, could someone re-cut The Thin Red Line and chop off all the simplistic philosophy, repetitive romantic imagery and non-sequitur interludes? There was a great film in there, but director Terrence Malick choked it to death it with his disillusions of cinematographic grandeur. I’ve seen better reflections on the nature of war in men’s adventure novels, and those were entertaining.

(In theaters, January 1999) I expected nothing from this film and wasn’t entirely disappointed. Sure, it’s even worse than its prequel, but at least the supporting players are fun to watch (with distinctions to Jack Black’s stoned hippie) and Brandi’s irresistible charm did a lot to raise my opinion of the film. (Not to mention her tight clothes.) The remainder of the movie is a representative example of a genre that should have remained dead for some more time.

(In theaters, January 1999) This does nothing to enhance my low opinion of scriptwriter Kevin Williamson. If he’s supposed to be so clever, then why is the movie so ordinary? A particularly bland entry in the “psycho killer” genre, I spent hours trying to find something distinctive to say about it, but in vain… At least, the (mostly-teenaged) audience I was with regularly snickered and laughed out loud at moments that were supposed to be scary or tender. Whether this reflects the unredeemable cynicism of our generation or good movie-watching sense remains an exercise to the reader.

(On VHS, December 1998) Another of these movies whose opening sequence might be too strong for its own good. We’re very convincingly introduced to Daryl Zero, an utterly eccentric modern-day Sherlock Holmes and the plot is set rolling by a series of rather fun scenes. But then, the movie begins to takes itself seriously, Zero loses a lot of his peculiar nature (and doesn’t use his amazing deductive powers as much as we’d like) and the result, while reasonably good, is somehow disappointing. Too bad, given Bill Pullman’s good performance and the potential of his character.

(On VHS, December 1998) My hopes might have been slightly too high for this film, given that this was a John Woo film. The nuance is that this is Woo’s breakthrough film; a promising cop/criminal drama, but nowhere as eye-popping and exciting as his best movies (Hard-Boiled, Face/Off) or even his first American disappointments (Broken Arrow and Hard Target). On the other hand, unlike his two first Hollywood effort, A Better Tomorrow keeps the strong emotional core that’s so characteristic of Woo’s work. The result might not be a kickin’ action masterpiece, but remains an enjoyable movie. Curiously, Chow Yun Fat is under-used as the sidekick.

(On TV, December 1998) The title offers many opportunities for rotten cracks on “hammy acting” and such, but it would be a mistake to pounce on this relatively enjoyable spoof of (mostly) Psycho, with bits of The Silence Of The Lambs thrown in for good measure. It’s far from being as polished as other spoof comedies, but still packs in an impressive array of jokes. Most are juvenile; some are hilarious. Probably not worth renting unless you’re in the mood for this stuff, but it’s a blast if you can catch it for free on TV.

(In theaters, December 1998) Unarguably one of the best movies of 1998. Why? Pure Magic. Who would have thought to be enchanted by a hilarious film taking place in Elizabethan times, starring William (“Will”) Shakespeare as the romantic hero? Doesn’t sound promising, but the result is magnificent. Great acting by Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow as the leading couple, plus Judi Dench as the second Elizabeth worthy of an Oscar nomination this year. (Shakespeare In Love does makes a perfect companion to the rather humourless Elizabeth) The film played exceedingly well to a demographically heterogenous audience, drawing laughs from both Shakespeare scholars and teenagers less familiar with the works of The Bard. (It also played quite well to your crusty “anything-but-a-chick-flick” reviewer…) It’s a testimony to the power of film that Shakespeare In Love will finally make you understand the greatness of Shakespeare and the magic of theatre; while not perfect, it’s good enough to land on my yearly Top-5 without hesitation. A shame it’s not widely released; don’t miss it!

(On VHS, December 1998) Not as good as expected. Sure, Julia Roberts is at her best. Sure, it’s a more balanced romantic comedy than most. Sure, the script has its moment. But the movie cannot escape its own intentions and contradictions. If the result is more mature than the typical Hollywood love story, it’s also much less satisfying. On the other hand, the movie takes life every time Rupert Everett is on screen; he turns a potentially dreary role in a scene-stealing performance. That’s probably why I loved the last scene as much as I did.

(In theaters, December 1998) As a fan of Desperado, and as a wisecracking MST3Ker, I had high hopes -but low expectations- for The Faculty. Written by “look how postmodernist I am!” Kevin (Scream) Williamson (who, I’ll maintain, is a hugely overrated screenwriter) and directed by Robert (From Dusk Till Dawn) Rodriguez, The Faculty should have been something quite special. Unfortunately, its eagerness to spoof “alien invasion” movies clashes with its intent to scare and its rather poor script. There are logical plotholes everywhere and even though we’re not supposed to notice them, they really do grate after a while: some of the “twists” are really conjured out of nowhere, without an inkling of how they should be possible. Still, don’t get the impression that I didn’t enjoy myself: The movie plays well once underway (much like the other teen-supernatural drama The Craft, the first 30 minutes are insufferably tedious but the movie picks up once the basics are established) and there are a few nice scenes here and there. (Shoot me; I liked the football sequence!) The result is an unexplainably ordinary film, perfect on video for a slow Friday night.

(In theaters, December 1998) I usually boycott Disney movies. No hard ideological feelings; I just hate the sugar-sweetness of their animated features and the jackhammer subtleness of their marketing approach. I did make an exception for A Bug’s Life, though, given that it’s A> Computer animated (a few months of experimentation with the form left traces on me) and B> It’s really made by Pixar, not Disney. It was a good decision; A Bug’s Life is a lot of fun and it virtually guaranteed to be so for everyone. Animated features are so deliberate that it’s virtually impossible for a stinker to emerge from the process, since that so many people double-check the results. (On the other hand, don’t expect to see anything but writing-by-committee, but still…) The computer animation is simply incredible and the writing is pretty sharp. I liked the characters, and the Dot-rescue sequence is an tremendously exciting piece of action film-making. Stay for the end credits which are hands-down the most riotous part of the movie. Inevitable comparisons will be made with Dreamwork’s contemporary effort Antz, and that’s really a shame since both are good movies that shouldn’t somehow diminish one another. See it, and not only once!

(Second viewing, In theaters, December 1998) No, not a typo… I really went to see it again. (I made a bet with a female friend and lost… don’t ask.) Frankly, I was surprised at how well A Bug’s Life stood up to a close second look, three weeks after seeing it for the first time. In interviews, director John Lasseter said he made movies to endure through repeated viewings (he does know his adult public) and I’ll admit that he succeeded. Many other details pop up, and the succession of scenes is still as fun the second time. Oh; the second set of outtakes isn’t as riotous that the first one, but still cracked up most of the audience. My favourite? “Princess ABBA”…

(In theaters, November 1998) A vile, vile, unfunny movie that desperately wants to be condemned by the general moviegoing audience, which I won’t grant. It starts off in Las Vegas, where a very pretty stripper is accidentally killed during a wild bachelor’s party. What follows is a series of increasingly grotesque, bloody and malicious series of cover-ups by the five friends to hide what they’ve done. The gross-out factor is high and blood flows freely. I could have enjoyed that movie a lot if it hadn’t been made as an explicit comedy. The charm (for me) of Natural Born Killers and Pulp Fiction was that these movies, while tongue-in-cheek, took themselves seriously enough to let the natural dark irony of the story flow. Here, it’s overplayed for laughs. While the remainder of the theatre exploded in nervous laughter and numerous “Oh my god!”, I just wished for silence. There’s a difference between humorous and funny; they missed it. Still, Very Bad Things is well-made, with good characterization and acting, adequate directing and rather effective tension. Still, why couldn’t they have played it straight…? I dislike being told when to be grossed-out, and that’s what Very Bad Things does, with a gleeful gleam in its eye. I’m glad I didn’t pay to see the movie (Free tickets to the Ottawa premiere), and do not recommend it. If you do see it, just don’t expect any of the characters to A> Live, B> remain whole or C> remain sane.