Movie Review

(On TV, November 1998) Despite a languid pace, the original The Exorcist still holds up reasonably well today. The sequel, however, is pure and unmitigated crap. Destroyed by ridiculous matter-of-fact beliefs in psi powers (made even more sad by the age of the movie; how is The X-Files going to sound in twenty years?) and a worship of primitive cultures, the whole is so sleep-inducing that I ended up fast-forwarding most of the middle hour. The climax is laughable in the most inept-movie sense. The result isn’t even worth your time.

(In theaters, November 1998) A paranoid’s wet dream come true. The government can watch you everywhere from satellites! It can destroy your life! It can send hired killers after you! It can steal your blender! Poor Will Smith, unwittingly stuck in the middle of a high-stakes conspiracy… Enemy Of The State is an effective thriller, playing on some very real latent fears and the usual conventions of the genre. Fortunately, Smith and Gene Hackman are great, the story is nicely wrapped up, there are a few high-adrenaline moments and the direction is effective despite an overuse of jerky handheld shot and jump-cuts. A worthwhile usage of your entertainment dollars… even for the few non-conspiracy theorists left among us.

(In theaters, November 1998) This film plays loosely with the true (hi)story of England’s foremost queen, but manages to deliver a film that is interesting and well-made. Apt to disappoint historians of the Elizabethan era, Elizabeth contains a surprising amount of sex and violence –teenagers will be titillated. Otherwise, it’s the fabulous performances by Cate Blanchett in the title role that will capture the viewer’s interest. (Sultry French actress Fanny Ardant is also a lot of fun to see in an English movie.) It’s a shame that many moviegoers will miss Elizabeth, since it’s a better film than most of what’s been shown so far in 1998. It did reinforce my already considerably high opinion of the historical character. Worth hunting down in video.

(Second viewing, On TV, April 2001) Ever read a silent review? As an experiment, I watched this film with the sound off while working on something else. My conclusion? While I can’t comment on the dialogue, Elizabeth remains a film with great visuals and gorgeous cinematography, directed with great skill. Oh, and Cate Blanchett makes a gorgeous Queen Elizabeth. (Have I mentioned I once knew a girl who looked exactly like her. Swoon!) It almost made me want to watch the film again with the sound on.

(On TV, November 1998) This occasionally shows signs of brilliance, but ultimately fails at even the most basic movie-experience requirement; telling a coherent story. Granted, I am definitely not of the Easy Rider target crowd but still: the drug-inspired meandering of the two loser protagonists are more tedious than interesting and much more boring than insightful. It’s a hard case to decide what’s more funny; the pop-druggie-psychology spouted off by a very youngish Jack Nicholson (mixed with UFO lore), the completely inane New Orleans drug trip or the caricatural rednecks who finally shoot down the two heroes in a moment of motiveless end-of-scriptitude. If Easy Rider is the emblem of an epoch, then this epoch is better off dead.

(In theaters, October 1998) This film will undoubtedly appeal to some. Sugar-sweet moralistic fantasies about the possibility of an afterlife always reach a certain crowd (already satisfied in 1998 with the angel romance City Of Angels) and I suspect that this is where this movie will make most of its money. Me? As a coldly atheistic cynic, I appreciated the clever sights, but thought that it was a pretty good Outer Limits episode bloated to two hours and weighted down by incoherent dialogue and bargain-bin philosophy. Robin Williams is okay, as are Cuba Gooding Jr and Rosalind Chao. Not repulsively bad, or even displeasing, but not really one of the shining movies of the year; even taking “afterlife” movies as a category, Defending Your Life was much better.

(On TV, October 1998) A Die Hard clone taking place during the last playoff game of the Stanley cup hockey tournament. Starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, though that doesn’t really help. As a lifelong hockey fan, it’s clear to me that the writer of Sudden Death has no idea of what’s hockey… (“Sudden Death”, “The save of his life!”) …but I digress. Howlers here and there can’t damage the effect of Peter Hyams’ dynamic direction. Good fun for a late-night movie.

(In theaters, October 1998) I usually have a very high tolerance for bad SF, especially if it can be enjoyed as cheap SF. Soldier started out as a promising prospect: Written by David Webb Peoples (Blade Runner), directed by Paul Anderson (Event Horizon) and starring Kurt Russell, it seemed to be headed for a mix of intelligence, dynamism and coolness. It ends up as a disaster with neither. The script is beyond ordinary, offering no surprises and ever fewer interesting moments. The direction is flat, a shocking thing from Anderson who, despite being a moron (read any interview with the guy) had proved himself to be a visually interesting action director in Mortal Kombat. The only star emerging with his dignity intact is Russell, who despite saying a handful of words (estimates vary between 69 (Russell) and 104 (Edward Johnson-Ott). I counted around 75.) does wonders with what he had. But even that can’t rise above the ludicrousness of the setup (as serious SF, it fails in the first minutes), the cheap-looking sets, the awful touchy-feely song used as montage backdrop near the middle, the boooooring “action” scenes and the simple lack of imagination. I might have accepted this from B-series newcomers with low budgets. But given the talent and money that went into Soldier, the result might be best confined to the garbage planet (*Garbage Planet?*) it’s taking place on.

(On TV, October 1998) Now, can anyone explain to me why it’s supposed to be such a great movie? Glacial cinematography, coma-inducing pacing, painfully obvious plotting, ugly heroine, laughable scenes (the would-be horror showcase scene of the movie sent me in uncontrollable giggles the moment the words “Satan is the father! Hail Satan!” were pronounced) and a conclusion without any real payoff makes this ridiculous movie a relic of the past. It would have been far better as a half-hour “Twilight Zone”, although I doubt Rod Serling would have allowed such silliness on his show. It’s a measure of the movie’s lack of effect that I found myself thinking that real-life witches are unfairly discriminated against by Rosemary’s Baby.

(On TV, October 1998) One co-worker is fond of saying that Risky Business is one of the most subversive comedies of the eighties. He’s right: Not only is the premise (guy starts a whorehouse at home while his parents are gone on vacation) pretty amoral, but the movie makes no attempt whatsoever at any kind of message or fairness. Bordering on soft-porn at time, it’s definitely a memorable film. Unfortunately, that doesn’t quite mean it’s good: Overlong at times, suffering heavily from an infernal Tangerine Dreams early-eighties electro-synth soundtrack (and a Genesis song that was so singularly awful that it managed to make me fast-forward through a nude scene), not really witty in term of dialogues and muddily shot, it’s not quite as good at could have been. On the other hand, Tom Cruise is suitably sympathetic, Rebecca de Mornay is breathtaking and the unabashedly perverted tone is decidedly worthwhile.

(On TV, October 1998) It’s always a good time for a movie in which a monster takes over New York, and this one is quirkier than most. Titled Q because nobody (including me) can spell Quetzalcoatl, this is a low-budget horror film that has a few surprises but few rewards. The basic story (loser criminal discovering monster nest; police tracking down monster’s nefarious deeds) is better that average for the “monster”-type of movie, but it’s also unfortunately quite silly and burdened with laughable effects. Not a lot of suspense either, and not enough of that monster.

(In theaters, October 1998) Hot on the heels of Gattaca, Dark City and The Truman Show, here’s yet another quirky, imaginative film that truly gives hope for Hollywood’s future. What if those 50s sitcom were real, and you could live in them? What if you could change this universe? Pleasantville takes this rather simple premise and runs with it, delivering a scattershot of social commentary that is, more often that not, on target. Superb acting barely takes precedence over a wonderful use of digital effects to show the changing nature of Pleasantville. Without seeming like it, this is actually one of the most pernicious movies in recent memory; one -er- “flaming” visual pun is so obscene that I’m too ashamed to describe it here. I had problems with several elements the conclusion (Writer/Director Gary Ross wrote himself in a corner) until I rationalized them as Pleasantville‘s way of highlight one of its central thesis; uncertainty must be accepted. (I also have issues with the way that few of the other idealized values of Pleasantville are thought desirable.) Thought-provoking, uplifting and simply very well-done, Pleasantville vaults to the top of this year’s crop. Do not miss it.