Movie Review

(On DVD, January 2002) My initial sustained reaction to this film was to cackle “Calling Nurse Ratchet!” a lot and generally make sarcastic comments at the screen as memories of just about every asylum movie of the past thirty years came flooding back. That’s unfortunate, because Girl, Interrupted actually does end up being slightly interesting two-third of the way through, as the characters end up transcending their archetypes and come on their own. The ending is actually quite effective, as all the dull setup ends up truly paying off. Winona Rider is lifeless in the narrative role, but Brittany Murphy and Angelina Jolie both have flashier roles. It’s not a transcendent film (the caricature of the said medical establishment is a bit too rough, for starters), but chances are that it will eventually win your interest. The DVD includes no special features to speak of.

(On DVD, January 2002) Now this is an epic film. There’s a crowd shot early in the movie that reminds us of a time where every dot on the screen was an actual person, and not merely a few bits on a computer. Not only are the pictures spectacular, but the scope of the story is impressive as well; Gandhi follows the life of the Indian revolutionary through several decades, a campaign of independence, the creation of two countries and a near-war. (Not to mention World War 2) And yet, through it all, it never loses track of the very individual man at the middle of it all. It’s an “approved” biography, which means that there is preciously little that’s not saintly about Gandhi. (But then again, maybe he was saintly). It’s a long film, but not overly so; it moves along at a decent clip, and features -after all- a lot of material. The DVD features a mind-boggling three language tracks and subtitles in seven (!) languages, in addition to a fascinating interview with Ben Kingsley and some revealing period footage of the real Gandhi.

(In theaters, January 2002) Who can believe that the director of Alien Resurrection would follow it up with a whimsical romantic comedy? You pretty much have to see it to believe it, and that’s doubly true for Amelie, a film whose appeal can hardly be stated in mere words. The first fifteen minutes are, sylistically, a blend of Fight Club and Run Lola Run—high praise indeed! It’s a story about nothing and everything, or more specifically about the gradual awakening of a very special girl to the world at large; how she relates to it and how she decides to act on it. Alas, the film then becomes yet another sappy romantic comedy, a good one but a sappy romantic comedy nonetheless, complete with a happy-ever-after shot that seems somewhat of a let-down in the context of the overall piece. The confused theme of the film is also slightly annoying, as if the film flits from one idea to another without central resolution or meaning. But that’s being overly harsh on a completely delightful film whose nature is perfectly represented by the astonishing direction of Jean-Pierre Jeunet. You may see it a modern urban fantasy if you wish, especially with the variety of slightly-fantastical effects used to tell the story. A good date movie, especially if yours happen to love dissecting a film’s thematic core.

(Second viewing, On DVD, June 2002) I think that I like this film even more the second time around. Now that’s I’m not expecting an ending more original than the abrupt (and unusually sappy) and-they-lived-happily-ever-after, now that I see the fable quality of the whole tale, now that I’m not too bothered by the inconsistent character traits, well… Amelie flows better. The two-disks French R1 DVD release is filled with goodies, the best being a wonderful French-language commentary with director Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Equally concerned by technical details, story points, actors’ performances and filmmaking anecdotes, the commentary is a joy to watch, especially once you realize that Jeunet is as big a DVD geek as the most obsessive of us; he knows what viewers want to hear about, and he delivers. It helps that the DVD is being released long enough after the film theater run that there is some perspective on the critical reaction to the movie. Other DVD highlights include a funny making-of segment and some oddball features.

(In theaters, January 2002) The problem I have with most teen movies is that my own (boring, studious, small-town) teenage years were fundamentally lacking in drugs, sex and/or rock-n-roll. So a film like Dazed And Confused does nothing to reach me with its 24-hours-in-the-life of a bunch of wild-n-wacky teenagers. That the story is pretty much about nothing doesn’t help, though it can serve to illustrate why this is a film in the same logical vein as American Graffiti and Go. A bunch of relatively well-known actors make their first (or nearly-first) appearance here, which adds a bit to the film’s lacking interest. Filmed in a naturalistic style, there isn’t much in term of visual impact here. Some will love it; I myself just couldn’t care.

(On DVD, January 2002) It should have been more fun than it was: A secret war between cats and dogs featuring a feline megalomaniac, pet-fu, high-tech gadgets and Jeff Goldblum as (yet again) an absent-minded scientist. Alas, the film is made for kids, and what would have been a jolly good blast ends up sugar-coated and de-fanged by the desire to offend no one. Another director might have done something remarkable with the same premise, but Lawrence Guterman simply delivers a strangely average film reminiscent of Small Soldiers in how such a boffo premise can be battered in submission. Oh, and I’m a cat-person, which probably doesn’t help. The DVD includes the “bare special edition minimum” (commentary, HBO making-of, a few goodies), features a clever dual menu system but is (aaargh!) pan-and-scan.

(In theaters, January 2002) Hollywood has the unfortunate tendency to glorify or demonize soldiers, depending on whether they’re needed as heroes or villains. It’s far less common to see a realistic depiction of their work and that makes Black Hawk Down even more worthwhile. There have been few rewarding post-Vietnam military movies, but this one is able to present the chaos of combat, combine it with high-adrenalin action sequences, get fancy with the artistry and go wild with the special effects. The result is a deeply impressive war film and a satisfying action flick. It does resemble a western from time to time, what with the hordes of “little brown people” attacking numerically disadvantaged Aryan heroes, but it does work quite well (and, according to the Pentagon, ranks highly on the realism). Prepare to be overwhelmed by the non-stop action, the constantly-moving camera and the aggressive sound effects. The film is not without flaws, though; the first half-hour is generally trite and conventional, the ending is a touch too pretentious and director Ridley Scott still hasn’t learned how to build perfectly coherent action scenes. (Though he’s learned a lot since the half-mess that was Gladiator) Still, Black Hawk Down is a darn good film, and the best recent representation of modern infantry combat.

(In theaters, January 2002) The first few minutes of this biography of mathematician John Nash are simultaneously painful and interesting, as a reasonably exciting portrait of a top-notch scientific mind is hampered by the “asocial scientist” clichés so beloved by Hollywood. Then the movie takes a turn for the bizarre as Nash becomes subject to increasingly complex schizophrenic disillusions. Alas, as the film started focusing on Nash’s mental illness, I realized we were headed toward TV-movie-of-the-week territory. It’s irrelevant that Russell Crowe turns in another award-caliber performance, or that Jennifer Connelly has never looked so good (and that’s saying something!); once again, Hollywood goes for the easy target, the touching story of someone who has to overcome his handicap with love and determination. The last half-hour of the film becomes more and more difficult, as there is a palpable sense of distorted narration, half-truths and easy answers. Indeed, reading about Nash’s “real life” (his bisexuality, his repeated hospitalizations, his attempted escape to Europe) quickly reveals how much the movie sugar-coated the truth. It’s a bit of a shame, again, how the most visible cinematic portrait of a scientist once again drips of anti-intellectualism; it wouldn’t be so bad if the film didn’t try to generalize from it (“two helpings of brain, and half a helping of heart”, etc…) Still, it’s not a bad film; though long, it’s not without interest, and even funny at times. (Though my funniest moment happens as an imaginary character pouts at being called a “disillusion”.) If you’re the type of viewer who goes nuts for nuts…

(On DVD, January 2002) When trying to present historical events on film in a fictional narrative, it’s almost always best to present an explicitly subjective view rather than attempt an objective viewpoint. After all, there isn’t enough place on the frame to put in all the details offered in, say, a book. All of which is why Amadeus proves to be such a richly enjoyable film, told from the viewpoint of the “evil” Salieri, who has to deal with his complex hatred of the prodigy Mozart. The music -obviously- is nothing short of fantastic, and the mixture of comedy, drama and intrigue gives considerable interest to a lengthy film. Some choice quotes and gorgeous visuals will remain with you some time after the end credits roll. The DVD features interesting “real-world” information on Salieri/Mozart, but not much else.

(On VHS, December 2001) I guess it had to happen: a martial arts film where I was more interested in the story than the martial arts themselves. For some reason, there isn’t much in terms of spectacular fighting in Once Upon A Time In China (save for the end ladder sequence, which is good fun) and so the interest of the film becomes the theme of guns-versus-fists, and the encroachment of the new Occidental values over the traditional Chinese ways of doing things. Western audiences may feel uncomfortable with the subject matter, but it made me curious to see a non-dubbed subtitled version to see if they have indeed softened some anti-American rhetoric. In any case, Once Upon A Time In China almost serves as a link between the Asian kung-fu films and the more modern Hong Kong bullet-ballets. As far as Jet Li films go, I still prefer Fist Of Legend, but if you’ve seen the rest…

(Second viewing, On DVD, January 2004) On second thoughts, the action portions of this film appreciates and the historical content depreciates. Oh, there’s still a lot of interest in seeing a different perspective, with the French, English and Americans as the bad guys, but the lack of subtlety peeks through once the surprise of seeing actual historical content in a kung-fu film fades away. The rain fight is still a delight, and so is the end ladder fight, but the film as a whole is just adequate. The all-in-one trilogy DVD contains the subbed movie, and that’s pretty much it.

(On VHS, December 2001) Charming little romantic comedy with a strong touch of magical realism. If you usually like Penélope Cruz, you will love her in this film as she plays an endearingly flawed Brazilian chef trying to succeed in San Francisco. (Her affliction? Nausea whenever she can’t control her motion. It’s a problem in transports and in bed, hence the title. Naughty!) It’s a slight little film, but it works well throughout. It will make you hungry, very hungry. Not sure if it’s an ideal date movie, but you could do much, much worse.

(On VHS, December 2001) Dull, unimaginative thriller that will make you angry at it rather than angry at the villain. Keanu Reeves and James Spader do the best they can with the material they’re given, but ultimately there isn’t much to single out in this unremarkable attempt at a psychological drama. It’s always a pleasure to see Marisa Tomei again, but there are limits to the lengths at which I will go in order to gawk at her again. If ever there’s a Watcher 2, for instance, I’m staying home.

(In theaters, December 2001) As a fan of the original Spanish film Abre Los Ojos, I must say that I like Vanilla Sky even more: The story hits closer by simple virtue of being American, and director Cameron Crowe has polished many of the most annoying rough edges of the first film. The New York setting is used to spectacular effect (oh, an empty Times Square!), and the personality of the lead character is more defined here than in Abre Los Ojos. The best change, however, is in the role played by Cameron Diaz, whose Natalie is far more human, and sympathetic, than in the original. Of course, the best thing about Crowe’s adaptation is that he doesn’t fiddle with the concept of the film, and allows the twisty, shocking revelations to occur at roughly the same pace. Well, very roughly the same pace: One thing to dislike about this new version is that it’s quite longer, and consequently not as meanly efficient. Still, I felt pretty much the same growing respect for Vanilla Sky than Abre Los Ojos as the film progressed. As usual with Crowe’s films, the soundtrack is well-chosen, though definitely intrusive at times. (The worst being the use of the Beach Boy’s “Good Vibrations”… though it’s a safe bet that no one will forget that scene, which manages to milk real emotion out of someone shouting “Tech Support!”) It’s a film that might very well take more than one viewing to fully appreciate. Oh, and another thing: I absolutely love how much all the advertising for the film made it look like yet another Tom Cruise film… when it’s so much more devious than that!

(On TV, December 2001) The worst thing about being a cinephile is how, from time to time, you’ll watch a terrible film playing on TV just for the sake of having seen it. The second-worst thing is to rationalize it by thinking that you’re filling in an important blank in the historical context of a given sub-genre. Because that’s the only way to consider Urban Legend important; as a historical representative of the late-nineties post-Scream teen-slasher genre. As such, it’s not half bad: A few of the lead actresses are striking, and the death scenes are ingenious in a Rube-Goldberg fashion. The identity of the killer is complete nonsense, but at least it doesn’t feel pulled-out-of-a-hat like in other movies. There is a strong degree of self-reference (from Robert Englund as a teacher to a reference to “the Noxema girl”), but don’t let that fool you in thinking the film is clever. If, on the other hand, you’ve overdosed on the violent pornographic structure of these movies, well, Urban Legend will only disgust you even more. Destined to cultural oblivion, hurrah!

(On VHS, December 2001) New technology leads to new artistic possibilities, and you can’t illustrate this any better than by watching Timecode, an audacious concept-film which works well at challenging our perceptions of movies. The gimmick is conceptually simple: Now that digital video cameras can film nearly 90 minutes’ worth of continuous material, it becomes possible to have a one-take film. But that’s not very practical if you follow multiple characters, hence director Mike Figgis’ use of four continuously-running cameras, dividing the screen in four quadrants. It sounds complex, but pretty soon you’ll be wondering at how well it works. There’s a lot to keep you interested here, from a lesbian couple to an on-screen sex scene to infidelity to murder. The acting is quite good. It boggles the mind to imagine the behind-the-scenes work involved in doing this film. There are flaws, of course; some stuff isn’t so well-paced, and the soundtrack is definitely obtrusive. However, this is a film to watch: Not only as a discussion piece, but also as a reflective piece on the conventions of cinema and the new possibilities of the medium. If you miss the artistic significance of Timecode, don’t worry: a mouthpiece character neatly delivers them to us near the end of the film. Ultimately, though, it’s original, and sometimes, that’s all it takes to watch a film.

(On VHS, December 2001) Time hasn’t been kind to this film. Even though it holds up better than most contemporary films, the lack of camera movement eventually manages to annoy severely. Vienna is made flat and dull, much like the film itself. Other annoyances abound: The cursed zither music grates, Orson Welles looks more like a naughty fat kid than a world-class smuggler and the middle half-hour does little to advance the plot. Hey, I liked a lot of the dialogue, and the entire Ferris wheel sequence, but it doesn’t alleviate the faults of the film. The dialogue is reasonably good, with at least a classic line or two. (Harry Lime: “In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love – they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”)