Movie Review

(On VHS, November 2001) Interesting experiment, here, as the structure of a typical monster movie is taken over by a writer with a good ear for dialogue. The result is nothing more than a monster B-movie, but the repartee is so crunchy that you’ll forgive the film a lot of otherwise unpleasant things. Such as the unlikable characters, the silly characters and the cardboard characters. Oh, but have-I mentioned that the dialogue is pretty good? In a sarcastic kind of way, of course, as the writer’s idea of “good” dialogue is verbal insults. It might work for you. The rest of the film is nothing special, though it is a cut above the usual straight-to-video monster movie.

(On VHS, November 2001) Every single Ed Norton fan in the audience, please wave your fist in the air and cheer for the guy, who not only turns in yet another great performance, but also convincingly directs his first film with Keeping The Faith. The story sounds a lot like a bad joke (“So this priest walks in a bar, tells how he and a rabbi both fell in love with the same girl…”), but the development of the tale is anything but silly. The three protagonist couldn’t be played better than by Norton, Ben Stiller and Jenna Elfman. Fortunately, they can depend on a rather good script, which not only mixes the inevitable romantic entanglement, but also includes a pretty good comparative look at both Catholics and Jews. This chameleon-like film will play well not only with religious audience of both denomination, but also with less-devout audiences. There’s something to like for everyone, from a karaoke salesman to great shots of New York. (Plus a wonderfully cool bit with our two men of faith walking in slow-motion to Santana’s “Smooth”) Funny, smart and even poignant, you’ll be hard-pressed not to enjoy Keeping The Faith.

(In theaters, November 2001) I like Kevin Spacey, but ever since he’s had his Oscar, he’s been making strange choices. I mean… Pay It Forward? Now comes K-Pax, another one of those sugary dramatic treats that Hollywood does so well. Think One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest. Think about that alien-comments-on-humans Starman shtick we’ve seen so many time before. Think mental-patients-are-really-sane- in-an-insane-world cliché claptrap. Better yet; don’t think, because the film bends over backward trying to make damn sure that there’s no logical solution to the problem it poses. It first tries to set up the alien hypothesis, then -through an atrociously convoluted “hypnosis” sequence- tries to build the “crazy guy” hypothesis. Naturally, by the end, we have convincing proof of both, and at the same time of neither. The film is really a showcase for Spacey (who, it is true, is rather enjoyable in the first half of the film) but beyond that, there isn’t much to like. Sure, the directing is efficient and Jeff Bridges is all right, but for those things, why don’t you rent The Big Lebowski again?

(In theaters, November 2001) David Mamet can be frustrating or entertaining, but with Heist, the emphasis is on the entertainment. 2001 has seen at least three movies about professional robbers, and Heist ends up being the film that The Score and Ocean’s Eleven so desperately tried to be. Crackling dialogue, well-defined characters and constant plot twists will bring a smile to your lips even as you recognize the usual “caper-film” structure. It all adds up to an entertaining package. It’s as gratuitously convoluted as Mamet’s previous The Spanish Prisoner, but not as annoying: you’ll hardly mind as the onscreen action unfolds in a way that would be impossible out of movies. The beauty and satisfaction of Heist over comparable movies comes mostly from the various array of clever tricks used by the thieves to con everyone including themselves. Twists, twists, twists, up to and including the final seconds. Don’t make any mistake; this isn’t a particularly noteworthy or particularly heart-felt film: you’ll recognize the mechanics and the calculations. But never mind; Heist is so entertaining that it would be a crime to dislike it.

(In theaters, November 2001) Is it possible for a movie to be too faithful to the original novel? It’s tempting to say so while watching this first film in the Harry Potter series as the second half of the film sinks in indulgent pacing and gratuitous scenes. Indeed, the film seldom exhibits signs of snappiness or extreme originality; it’s leisurely, even conventional in pure fantasy terms. Avid fantasy readers will have “seen” all of this before. But don’t let the above deter you from considering Harry Potter 1 to be one of the best films of 2001: The technical professionalism, good dialogue and acting talent of the film more than make up for any deficiencies, and the result is a long, conventional but very good film. It’s mind candy almost all the way through! Particular recognition goes to acting wizard Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, and newcomer Emma Watson as the irresistible Hermione. In a year where most blockbusters have fallen flat on their faces (Pearl Harbor, Tomb Raider, Planet Of The Apes, etc.), this is one hyper-hyped movie event that really does deliver.

(In theaters, November 2001) Is it an accident if motherhood and water are the two recurring themes of the film? Far from starring the usual stalwart single action hero, this thriller revolves around a harried single mother whose husband is away on naval duty. She is gradually drawn, in inimitably thrillerish fashion, in a series of increasingly criminal acts to protect her family… but then the menace starts to be seductive and everything goes wrong. Tilda Swinton cuts a sympathetic figure as the heroine, but even despite everything, the film feels a bit too forced, too calculated and definitely too slow even at 100 minutes. It’s definitely a minimalist thriller, the type that allows a few viewers to imagine themselves is similar claustrophobic circumstances. If you’ve got a long attention span, fine; otherwise, be prepared for slow stretches.

(Third viewing, On DVD, November 2001) Justifiably dubbed “the best movie of all time”, Orson Welles’ masterpiece gets a lavish DVD treatment, complete with a beautifully restored print, two commentary tracks and a full-length documentary feature. Particular attention should be given to Roger Ebert’s commentary track, which will make you fall in love with the movie all over again. Even if you think you’ve seen everything about Citizen Kane, give this one a spin.

(On TV, November 2001) Oh, the wonders of Asian cinema. Here we have an action movie starring half-a-dozen young female protagonist in what does actually sound like a Charlie’s Angels derivative. Too bad it just falls flat. To begin with, the protagonists all look like each other. Then the ho-hum plot does nothing to attract or retain interest. While there are a few good directorial flourishes and the plot finally starts to move late in the film, the overall effect is less, much less than we could have hoped for. The action scenes are merely serviceable, and so are the few laughs. Too bad, really; in an environment where men dominate the action cinescape, it’s interesting to see a film where men are either evil or fools and where the ladies are so obviously carry everything. Oh well. The opening credit sequence is cool.

(On TV, November 2001) I despise Adam Sandler, I despise stupid comedies, I despise gratuitously sentimental films and at this stage of my life, you could even say that I despise kids. No surprise, then, if I found Big Daddy to be one of the most useless films I’ve seen in a while. Oh, it sort of acquires narrative inertia near the end, but for most of its duration, it’s the sort of film you don’t feel guilty ignoring. There are a few good lines, most of them not actually said by Sandler. (I liked “Oh, in retrospect it seems as if I’ve made some very bad choices after high school.”) Some will be pleased to note a complimentary reference to Canadian beer. Not an essential film by any means, nor even a worthwhile one.

(On VHS, November 2001) A terribly frustrating movie. Not having any strong identification to the original series, I was left to ponder the film on its own merit, and… egad… It’s not that the film itself is bad, it’s that parts of it are just atrocious. The humor ranges all the way from witty to childish, with several detours though simply-not-funny. And yet, and yet, the silliness of it all somehow won me over, as it’s hard to be angry at a stupid cartoon moose.

(In theaters, October 2001) Ironically enough, this film about the corruption of a young police officer is also gradually perverted by the stupid plot mechanics of Hollywood thrillers. Unfortunately, unlike the protagonist this film gets no redemption by the end. Oh, it starts promisingly enough: Our clean-cut hero (Ethan Hawke) is happy as a puppy to join the drug-enforcement unit of a renowned officer, but his first day on the job proves to be much harder than he expected. For one thing, officer Alonzo (magnificently played against type by Denzel Washington) isn’t one for protocol or slavish admiration. For another, well, he seems as violent and ruthless as the criminals he’s fighting. By the time he tricks our stalwart law-enforcement representative in smoking PCP-laced pot, we’re deep in issues of justice versus law and the means required to enforce whatever ends are sought. It’s fascinating stuff, filmed in dirty gritty style. “Are you a wolf or a sheep?” taunts bad-dude Washington as the audience is willing to follow him wherever he wants to go. Alas, the film teeters too long between the two choices, and the inevitable conclusion mishandles everything. The fate of the protagonist, for instance, depends on a jaw-dropping coincidence, the type of thing that must either be foreshadowed hours in advance or simply re-written past the first draft. Then we go on to an unbelievable pair of confrontations. Finally, bad-guy Russians swoop on the film like plot devices and neatly tie up a dangling ending, because audiences would rather see the sheep win. Terribly unsatisfying, but the film is still worth a look if only to see Denzel Washington give a textbook-worthy charismatic bad-guy performance.

(In theaters, October 2001) Martial Arts fans better stand up and cheer for Iron Monkey, one of the most impressive action film I’ve seen so far. The story is simple but not quite simplistic, with characters you can like and a handful of cool scenes that aren’t about fighting. (Watch for the flying paper dance and a cooking demonstration.) Iron Monkey is a contender with Fist Of Legend and Drunken Master II as a kung-fu must-see: while its ratio of set-pieces might be lower, it’s a better-paced film with a good distribution of fights. The end fight alone is an anthology piece, with three fighters balanced on bamboo poles atop a lake of burning fuel, with all the expected complications. It’s a blast, as is most of the film with its often-unsubtle humor. Good great fun, worth picking up on DVD.

(Second viewing, On DVD, January 2003) Goodness, I so do love this film. Action-packed without being excessively violent, sustained without being repetitive, this martial arts film stands as one of the best entries of its genre. The American re-release of the film presents better editing, good sub-titling and a cleaned-up image. As for the story itself, well, it’s a mix of comedy and action, of painless historical drama and underdog philosophy. Simple but not stupid, Iron Monkey is truly unleashed during its fantastic action sequences, which manage to be distinct and frequently awe-inspiring. Don’t miss two non-violent demonstrations of martial arts. It’s an enormously sympathetic film, certainly one of the best Hong Kong martial arts film. Don’t miss it.