Movie Review

(In theaters, May 2002) A Southern-California detective (Al Pacino) is sent to Alaska to investigate the murder of a young girl. Stuff happens, someone dies, some blackmail takes place and suddenly our protagonist is caught up in complex moral dilemmas, which aren’t helped by his progressive debilitation from lack of sleep. There isn’t much to say about Insomnia besides that it’s a good thriller, with enough grimness and storytelling savvy to keep everyone interested until the end. The Alaskan cinematography is spectacular, and so are most of the actors involved. Director Christopher Nolan’s follow-up to the boffo Memento isn’t nearly as brilliant nor as convoluted, but he proves adept to the task of telling a more classical story. Now let’s wait for his next feature…

(On VHS, May 2002) Make no mistake; you have to be in a very specific mood in order to like Roberto Begnini. This being said, it’s always a lot of fun to see him at work if you like his specific shtick. Il Mostro is a touch overlong and a little too repetitive, but when it works, it sort of works well. I wasn’t overly pleased, though, by the introduction of a serial murderer in what is otherwise a rather innocuous comedy; maybe it’s an Italian thing.

(In theaters, May 2002) Pure exploitative trash! Take a beautiful female protagonist, give her the worst psycho husband ever imagined and then give her a rationale for killing him. It doesn’t take much more to make such an obviously manipulative film. The surprise here isn’t how unsubtle is the film as much as it’s how it all works so well: The husband is enough of a crazy maniac that killing him doesn’t seem an act of female aggression as much as a righteous purge for all humankind. (You just have to see how he behaves with other men to figure out how much of an eeevil antagonist he is.) Jennifer Lopez is wonderful (as usual) as the protagonist, going from innocent to victim to fighter in one satisfying arc. (I don’t like her short hair nearly as much as her usual hairstyle, but that’s pretty shallow, isn’t it?) Let’s not fool ourselves: Enough is pure thriller trash without social signification, but executed well enough that is becomes somewhat of a guilty pleasure. Your mileage may vary.

(On DVD, May 2002) Goodness bless Tim Burton, he of the wacky visual sense and teenage sensibilities. It’s easy to see a little too much symbolism in Edward Scissorhands, considering the characters as a metaphor for troubled teenagers (whose actions often seem to destroy everything they touch), a retelling of Frankenstein and a general fable on ostracism, but the ending of the film doesn’t drive any particular point home (except, maybe that some people just can’t fit in, which seems a curiously reactionary counterpoint to classic movie values.) Still, whatever unease the film may eventually cause, there’s no denying that the film is a visual treat and a joy to watch. On one level, Edward Scissorhands succeeds on pure originality, because it’s only all too rare to see such imagination on display. At the very least, it’s a change from the usual fare. The DVD features a bunch of interesting extras, including a dry but informative commentary track by Burton.

(On VHS, May 2002) Imagine a flyer inviting amateur Los Angeles-area filmmakers to send in their short Blair Witch Project parodies. Imagine screening all of these g’damn shorts. Scary? Repulsive? Dreadful? Well, you can get a taste for it, because they’ve selected the “best” five of them for your viewing pleasure. I normally have a very high tolerance for silly parodies, but that threshold’s was reached early on with The Bogus Witch Project. There are a few clever jokes here and there, but if there was a case for plagiarism, it would have been to steal all the best ideas and do one single parody. After all, there’s a limit to the number of times a lens-cap joke can be effective. Heck; the Pauly Shore segment is the best thing about the film. What else can I say?

(In theaters, May 2002) Anyone in the mood for a silly crime comedy could do much worse than to take a look at this film. Roughly a dozen familiar actors pop up in a narrative that deftly manipulates a large character cast without too much confusion. The story might be uncomfortable for some, as it features a nuclear warhead being smuggled past airport security, but don’t let that distract you from a darn good film that is roughly in the same vein than Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Dave Barry’s novel is decently adapted, preserving some of his dry wit (mostly though Tim Allen’s narration) and most of the insanity that seems so prevalent in South Floridian crime thrillers. It’s simply a lot of fun.

(On VHS, May 2002) Josh Hartnett has never been a truly dynamic performer, and his turn in this sex Comedy comes close to sinking the picture. His puppy-dog charm manages to save it from utter collapse, but what we’re left with is a completely average film that will quickly fade from memory. The premise (abstinence for Lent) itself isn’t completely compelling. Without providing too much information on your reviewer’s sex life, going 40 days without sex doesn’t seem like too much of a sacrifice. (The nature of a protagonist for whom this would be a Big Deal is enough to make one go—ew!) To the screenwriter’s credit, he manages to sustain the premise until the end—though frankly, only a few scenes stand out as being particularly funny. The last 30 minutes of the film get mired into standard romantic plot shticks. (Your reviewer is a bit of a thicke in these matters, but not jumping right into bed with a potential paramour wouldn’t seem to be that much of a problem. Maybe it’s a San Francisco thing.) Then again, everyone in this film seems to be working in offices where sexual harassment laws seem to be unknown. For the rest of us, though, 40 Days & 40 Nights is a tepid fantasy that will quickly evaporate without a trace. Well, maybe aside from being an early film in the Shannyn Sossamon oeuvre; her Goth-girl personae is thin, but compelling.

(On TV, April 2002) There have been, um, a lot of conspiracy films released over the past twenty-five years, but even today, the granddaddy of them all, Three Days Of The Condor, still manages to packs some punch. For one thing, it plays everything very straight, as if no one up to that point had ever seen a conspiracy thriller (which they often hadn’t, to think of it). For another, it features Robert Redford as a bookish, but fiercely smart protagonist, who reacts in a way that viewers can only cheer for. Good plot twists follow, mixed with clever manoeuvres from both sides. Though unshakably set in the mid-seventies, this film survives admirably well as a period piece. It concludes on a meanly effective monologue that still resonates a quarter of a century later.

(Second viewing, On Cable TV, July 2020) A second, belated look at Three Days Of The Condor shows that I still like it quite a bit.  I like the basic premise of a hapless analyst managing to stay alive despite a conspiracy gunning for him, and I can’t help but detect a certain self-awareness about its own paranoia.  On the heroes’ side, 1970s-vintage Robert Redford is easily charismatic, and Tina Chen disappears far too soon from the film.  But on the heavy side – wow: Cliff Robertson, Max von Sydow and John Houseman?  Not bad.  And yet, it’s not perfect: The romantic subplot is definitely odd and unconvincing.  Still, this is pretty good – and while the film is paranoid, it’s not entire bleak.  This being said, be careful not to confuse this with comic adventure Condorman.

(In theaters, April 2002) Sword-and-sorcery films are usually terrible beyond words, and The Scorpion King is no exception. Where it manages to be good, though, is in the fun department; despite the awful dialogues and the linear plotting, this film never takes itself too seriously. It’s no Conan, naturally, but it’s much better than trash like Kull The Conqueror. (Some of you may remember that The Scorpion King is supposed to be a “prequel” to The Mummy Returns. If so, forget it, because there isn’t any strong link between the Mummy series and this film. At all.) “The Rock” isn’t much of an actor, and the film wisely avoid asking too much of him, with two shudder-inducing exceptions. Otherwise, well, the battles scenes are well-choreographed, and skilfully edited in a coherent whole that Gladiator didn’t even attain. Even the logical flaws are deftly handled; one particularly glaring mistake is covered by the spectacular entrance of Asian co-star Kelly Hu, wet and naked save for her strategically-placed long hair. The enjoyably multicultural female extras do wonders to distract from the rest of the incoherencies. Beautiful ladies, good battles scenes, swordfights and a smirking tone; what else could you possibly want from a B-movie? It’s exactly the type of movies you will like if you like that type of movies.

(In theaters, April 2002) David Fincher is one of the few dependable directors out there, and Panic Room is another good example of why he’s always worth a look. In this case, like in The Game, he takes a script with a few serious problems and transforms it in a technically polished piece of suspense moviemaking that elevates the material to a mesmerizing level. From a film-geek’s point of view, Panic Room is a lovable demonstration of skill, from an effective simple-but-ominous credit sequence to a boffo “camera-flying-around-the-house” CGI/composite shot to a wonderful mute slow-motion sequence maybe halfway through the film. His camera angles are always effective, the editing is top notch, the spatial location of everything is clearly established and the overall atmosphere of the film is as claustrophobic as it should be. But, ah-ha, what about the humans in the film? Acting-wise, everything works; Jodie Foster is rather bland, but she -as with everyone else- turns in a good performance. The biggest problem with Panic Room, though, is illustrated by the fact that the film’s most sympathetic characters is one of the nominal “villains”. There isn’t much reason to care for the protagonist besides the obvious (they’re female, weak, without weapons and afflicted by an illness) and some promising character traits (like the heroine’s claustrophobia and/or myopia) are forgotten in mid-film. The late appearance of a rather useless character raises far more questions than it settles. Ultimately, though, the intellectual cat-and-mouse game between characters and Fincher’s technical prowess are more than enough to make Panic Room a commendable choice. But it’s too bad that with only a little more script work, this could have been a classic rather than merely a good thriller.

(In theaters, April 2002) It doesn’t take much to make me happy in a theater; just deliver a movie that’s better than I expected. In the case of Murder By Numbers, I expected a so-so thriller, and I got that, plus a solid performance by Sandra Bullock, a complex set of character interactions, hissable villains and a few interesting details of police work. Bullock (who co-produced the film) should get points for playing a darker version of her Miss Congeniality policewoman character, a damaged cop using work as a shield—no, it plays much better than you’d expect. The two antagonists are thoroughly despicable teens who decide to kill for kicks, probably working from a stoned reading of Nietzche’s greatest hits. Other matters, large and small, come to complicate everything, and the result is a nicely entertaining film that’s much better than the conventional trailers would lead you to believe—that is, until the ending, which is every bit as conventional as the trailers suggested. It’s unspectacular but satisfying entertainment.

(Second viewing, On DVD, April 2002) Good, fast, action-packed fun. A wonderful lead-couple in the pure pulp/serials tradition. Bliss! Subsequent viewings tend to lessen the silliness and leave a greater place to the pure enjoyment of the piece. The “ultimate edition” DVD is a keeper, with the usual special-effects clips, a self-deprecating commentary track (discussing difficult extras and how tight editing leads to stupid plot-holes) and oodles of other features.

(In theaters, May 1999) What can I say? You either enter the theatre with adequate expectations or you gnash your teeth during two hours. In the right frame of mind, this can be a wonderful, swashbuckling adventure. Fun for the whole family as most of the death and horror takes place off-screen in a very un-gory way. Don’t expect a horror movie! Brendan Fraser is a good two-fisted action hero, though his characters loses a lot of its initial edge by the end of the movie. It’s not that The Mummy is without flaws (gawd, that script leaves plot-holes all over the place!), but it’s that with most people, they simply won’t matter. Even the uneasy mixture of low-grade horror, adventure and comedy has its charm. The Mummy is just a lot of fun, and the epitome of a good, stupid summer movie.