Movie Review

(On TV, October 1998) It’s a well-known fact that high-profile film project often inspire cheap b-series movies. Jurassic Park spawned Carnosaur and Twister spun off Tornado (with Bruce Campbell) but here, Gridlock is a low-budget TV-movie exploitation of Die Hard 3: With A Vengeance. To wit: Robbers cause mayhem in New York to cover the fact that they’re robbing the Federal Reserve Bank. But instead of Following Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson through New York, we get to see David Hasselhoff as a police officer trying to rescue his fiancée -played by supermodel Kathy Ireland- from the evil robber terrorists. Hasselhoff is actually credible and Ireland is pretty to look at. The remainder of the movie is an exercise on how to film a standard action flick without the big budget, a competent action director or a big budget: While the preposterous story is adequate by the standards of the genre, the final result falls short of even the most average actionners. (Favorite stupid detail: They steal gold and paper money and erase the numbers of both in the main computer. Why not just grab the gold and melt it afterward? Duuuh…)

(On TV, October 1998) This isn’t very good considering the logical plotholes, run-of-the-mill plotting, average dialogue and sophomoric humor. On the other hand, it lets itself be watched quite easily. Few comedies deal with submarines and it’s probably a measure of my fascination with subs that I enjoyed this even despite counting off the stupid mistakes. (Though we get the feeling that the mistakes are intentional and from someone who has at least an adequate grasp of the field.) Lauren Holly, despite being completely useless, is a visual delight constantly renewed (it’s amazing to see the lengths at which movie producers will go to show cleavage in any movie). It’s also kind of cool to see a Village People song used as package for the end credit outtakes, along with bodacious babes in bikinis in the background. A guilty pleasure.

(On TV, October 1998) Michael Crichton’s reactionary novel about female sexual harassment in a high-tech firm was a pernicious page-turner. Written according to Crichton’s usual stellar standards of plotting, accessibility and superficial issue examination, it seemed like a natural candidate for translation on the big screen. Disclosure is exactly what it purports to be; an average thriller with enough anti-feminist elements to make it attractive to the general public. Some moments are ludicrous (the Virtual Reality sequence, the elevator dream), but the remainder is okay. Demi Moore is hot. Some changes from the book.

(On TV, October 1998) This scores high on the giggle-meter if only for the setup, where Jean-Claude Van Damme is revealed to be a policeman from Quebec (!) put in a California prison so that he won’t be recognized (!!) while investigating the deaths of several prisoners. (!!!) From stereotypical lecherous hackers to the final showdown between van Damme and The Guy Who Killed His Partner -including the non-resolution of the mystery,- this is bad enough to make you throw a party every time it plays on TV. Better yet; rent it with Sudden Death and bill your experience as Sudden Death Warrant: A Van Damme Retrospective.

(On TV, October 1998) While this film will never be considered a great movie by any rational criteria, it must be said that it’s considerably enjoyable. One of the purest comic-book movies ever, Darkman blends howlingly funny melodrama with the over-the-top direction of Sam Raimi (Army Of Darkness) and the result is silly but exciting. It’s a shock to see Serious Actor Liam Neeson in the title role. A good late-night movie.

(On TV, October 1998) Even though I’ve used Syd Field’s Screenplay to write a script and generally worship everything the guy says, I don’t agree with his enthusiastic praise of Chinatown. Problem is; it’s just not interesting enough. Three P.I. tricks, incest, unhappy ending and a cut nose. Nope; saw better elsewhere. Nicholson is okay, but the other players fade in the background. It certainly holds up better than most of the other movies of the time (it can be re-watched today without many problems), it’s probably one of the best movies of the seventies, but so far it’s not a favorite of mine.

(Second Viewing, On Cable TV, July 2021) I’m sorry, everyone! One of the reasons why I amend my movie reviews as I re-watch them is to capture the evolution of my reactions across the years. That goes doubles for films I revisit after decades, hoping that the years have given me a better perspective on the result. If you’re reading this, you probably read my amazingly stupid first take on Chinatown in the preceding paragraph, written as a young twentysomething college student. I was young and ignorant, but that’s no excuse. Now that I’m approaching the film with a far better understanding of life and Hollywood history, let me change my mind – Chinatown deserves the classic status that has been bestowed upon it. It is markedly better-written than most movies, better executed and far more hard-hitting in its thematic intentions. As the intersection of crime thriller, Los Angeles history, character study, genre deconstruction and paean to classic films, it’s got quite a lot on its mind, and presents it effectively. I remembered broad strokes of the film and the implacable conclusion, but much of the pleasure of a second viewing is in appreciating its execution: Much has been written on the collaborative push-and-pull that resulted in the final result, and it’s a fascinating case study in how it takes plenty of skilled people to produce something like it. Jack Nicholson is excellent as the private detective manipulated in creating problems for everyone, while Jack Huston turns in a veteran’s performance as a monstrous antagonist. The period recreation is convincing despite being limited by the means available at the time – although critics have a point when they suggest that the film isn’t about being set in a specific year as much as it’s a blend of historical elements spanning decades. The narrative engine of the film is strong enough to keep even spoiled viewers invested in where it’s all going, especially as it starts tweaking clichés along the way. Yes, I’m glad that I revisited Chinatown, if only because I can update my assessment to a far more satisfactory one.

(On TV, October 1998) I had originally intended to complete an assignment on the computer with Casino playing in the background. What happened was that from the very first frames of the movie, I was reeled in by the film and quickly abandoned the thought of doing any useful work on the computer. Not only the tale of Las Vegas gangsters during the seventies, Casino is the type of film that tells a great story in a way that’s completely absorbing. Clearly the work of a masterful director (Scorsese), it makes good use of stars De Niro, Pesci and Stone. While the first half is the best (with its emphasis on Las Vegas rather than advancing the plot), the remainder is no lightweight either. Narration that works, Sharon Stone doing some acting, sympathy for devils: those are only a few of the things that Casino achieve. Rent it now.

(In theaters, October 1998) The business of making an all-animated CGI movie must be completely different from a normal film: Since all shots are deliberate and cost incredible amounts of money, care must be taken is order to use the best script and voice talent available, perhaps at the expense of artistic innovation. Antz is a good example. The script/story/dialogue is pretty good (best summed up by one of the movie’s best lines: “It’s just your boy-meets-girl, boy-likes-girl, boy-overthrows-underlying-social-order kind of story”) and the voice talent shines. The animation, needless to say, is great. The overall effect is a decent movie. Perhaps a bit lacking in heart and quirkiness, but one that will offer repeated delights for some time. A good choice for a rental.

(On TV, October 1998) I remember reading All The President’s Men, a few years ago. At the time, I had been stunned by the non-fiction account of the Watergate scandal by the two journalists who broke the affair, Woodward and Bernstein. This film version, starring Robert Redford as Woodward and Dustin Hoffman as Bernstein, isn’t as complete as the book but faithfully translate the gripping tension of the book. Effective direction, a good script and great acting help, but the real star of the movie remains the Watergate story, which stays relevant even twenty-five years later. This movie has its place besides Schindler’s List and other great historical dramas.

(On TV, September 1998) Occasional flashes of interest and comedy (eg; the hospital and the morgue scene) pepper this awful movie that -among other things- can’t decide whether it’s horror or humour. Too bad, since there was potential for a fun teenage comedy here. Starring Denise Richard, who’s rapidly becoming the Queen of Trash Movies with 1997’s Starship Troopers and 1998’s Wild Things. Stay until the end; she does a gratuitous half-strip-tease.

(On TV, September 1998) Earthworms. Sounds scary? Well, when they bite and they’re piled up high enough to rain down on a character when she opens a door, I guess it must be somewhat disturbing. Or, at least that’s what Squirm tries to tell us. The result is mildly effective. The science is ludicrous -anybody heard of power line breakers?- and the look is typically muddy-seventies, but the film is considerably helped by two rarities in characters: The skinny, nerdish hero is someone I could identify with, and the heroine (played by Patricia Pearcy) is still very attractive for a seventies’ film. (But then again, I have a weakness for long-haired redheads.) Worth a look. It will make you squirm.