Movie Review

(On TV, September 2001) So rich-daddy’s girl Reese Witherspoon hooks up with Mark Wahlberg, who turns out to be not a sensitive guy but rather a full-blown psycho. Despite what you may want to think, this actually turns out to be a sociologically relevant teen thriller. Sure, it does start out as your average teen romance film, what with the overworked daddy, the bitchy stepmom, the annoying kid brother and the lonely female protagonist. A chance encounter with a nice boy evolves into something far more dangerous and pretty soon, we’re in every daddy’s best nightmare. Suddenly, the father-figure has been right all along about the creepy boyfriend and must actually physically protect his family. If that’s not wish-fulfillment, I don’t know what is. As a thriller, Fear is only average, with a lengthy start and a progressively sillier finale. But it’s when considered on a more abstract level that it becomes fodder for a master’s thesis on teen alienation and fatherhood representation in pop culture. Squint even more, and you’ll find a fable about the panic of first romance and the inevitable transfer of a young woman’s affection from one male figure to another. Not bad for a teen flick starring Marky Mark, right?

(In theaters, September 2001) My initial reaction at seeing the trailers for this film was to wonder if there was something -*anything*- in there to motivate me to go. There wasn’t. Even after watching the film, I still can’t see any reason to see it. As soon as you define the genre (teen romance between a rich white girl and a poor ethnic kid), you pretty much have a good idea of where and how the film is going. The only particularity is the self-destructive personality of the female lead, which gives rise to the only interesting scene of the film, a sequence where the father of the girl promises to sign the guy’s military academy admission papers only if he stops seeing the girl… for the guy’s own good. The film soon after reverts to true Hollywood form, complete with happy weepy ending. It doesn’t help that in addition to the linear nature of the story, the film is one of the ugliest piece of cinema of the year, with “naturalistic” cinematography that just ends up looking dirty and unpleasant. A good script could have helped matter, but what we’re stuck with is a simplistic clunker that charms no one. (The film’s most vivid audience reaction at my screening was caused by improper framing and errant boom microphones. The biggest laugh happened after the girl says to the guy “My father’s away until midnight. We is all alone!”… and they’re followed by the overhead microphone.) Kirsten Dunst might be in the film for credibility points (she basically plays the antithesis of her cheerleader protagonist from Bring It On) but chances are that no one will remember this film in six months.

(On VHS, September 2001) Exhilarating picture mixing action, fantasy, romance, comedy and seemingly everything else. It’s gonzo filmmaking in the Evil Dead and Dead Alive vein, with hordes of monsters, impossible stunts, out-of-nowhere twists and turns, full-bore fantasy elements and a whole lot of fun. You head will spin, turns and maybe even hurt trying to piece it all together. Try not to; it’s more fun just to be swept away. The technical polish of the film is a bit lacking, but don’t worry: you might never notice. While maybe a bit overhyped (this review isn’t any exception), A Chinese Ghost Story will delight anyone looking for something dynamic yet not from the same boring Hollywood tradition. One question, though: Looking at the release dates of both films, how much -if any- of A Chinese Ghost Story was influenced by The Evil Dead?

(On TV, September 2001) Wow, wow, wow… Everyone has to see this film sooner or later, if only for historical relevance. Directed by Russ Meyer and co-written by Roger Ebert (!), this film purports to be a parody, but unless you already know that, you’ll have a hard time telling given how seriously it’s played out. This only makes it funnier, of course! The story is about an all-girl band off to Hollywood to make it rich, but the real value of the film is in the pure-sixties vibe, the ridiculously oh-so-dangerous representation of excesses, the flamboyant characters (ah, that Z-man!) and overall sense of… fun? There is a dynamic “travel” sequence that feels as if it had been edited just yesterday. There’s kitschy melodrama. There is a hilarious moralistic coda (“Their love wasn’t evil… but it allowed evil to happen!”) There are more fancy hairdos than an entire issue of Vogue. But, above all, you’ll get the impression that for all the debauchery and vice going on, there’s nothing more serious than teenage hijinks to be tut-tutted by some invisible adult. A scream, a laugh and a bunch of other stuff, Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls is worth a look. Keep your ears open for the source of one of Austin Powers‘ best lines.

(In theaters, September 2001) On paper, it’s hard to see where this could go wrong: John Cusack and Julia Roberts as leads, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Billy Crystal as foil with small roles to Seth Green and Christopher Walken… it should have worked perfectly. And yet the film is a train wreck, with limp gags, weak plotting, obvious setups and characters that go nowhere. Anyone who knows anything about the movie industry will roll their eyes at the pseudo-insider’s view of the field. Save from infrequent moments, it just doesn’t work at all. The actors may escape with their dignity intact, but that’s about the only thing to remember about America’s Sweethearts.

(In theaters, August 2001) My expectations were probably set a touch too high for this film. I should have been happy just to see a recent Hong Kong actioneer on a big theater screen. What I got was fine enough to keep me interested, though not overwhelmingly impressive. It’s as if the movie works extra-hard not to make us care about the pathetic protagonist and the lesbian policewoman (!) he accidentally sleeps with (!) and makes pregnant (!!!). It’s when watching things like that that you really start bitching about the sad state of screenwriting around the globe. The storytelling is so chaotic that you’ll understand what’s going on maybe five minutes later. There are a few action scenes, but nothing truly new or exceptional; just people shooting at each other. Fortunately, we eventually get the exceptional apartment fight (with a wonderful canyon-like urban environment, used to maximum effect), a good airport sequence and an over-the-top scene mixing gunfights and childbirth that relegates Hard-Boiled‘s finale to the rank of amateur in attempted audience manipulation. (Waah! One life begins! Bang! One life ends!) I give it a solidly mixed review.

(In theaters, August 2001) While I didn’t love the first Rush Hour film, I liked it a lot: The mixture of Jackie Chan action, Chris Tucker’s loudmouth antics and general sense of fun (not to mention the racial diversity of the film) made it one the little surprises of 1998. I was looking forward to the sequel; Brett Ratner know how to deliver and it was hard to see where he’d fail. And yet, for a while, it looked as if he would: The Hong Kong section of Rush Hour is, generally, a notable flop: The screenwriter doesn’t do anything interesting with the Tucker-out-of-his-element premise, makes him talk way too much (in dangerous situations where you start to wonder how he ever survived up to this point) and even adopts a slightly patronizing tone. There are a few good action sequences, but that’s it. Then, happily, the film moves back to the United States and improves sharply. (It might or might not be a coincidence if we get a lingerie shot of Latino beauty Roselyn Sanchez at approximately this moment. On a similar register, Ziyi Zhang is menacing and adorable in the henchwoman role.) The film then keeps on getting better and better until the Las Vegas climax, by which time a middling film is rescued by a greatly enjoyable conclusion. But, at times, it was a close thing.

(On VHS, August 2001) Egawd. If you’re going to make a thriller, at least make sure that there are a few thrills in it. If you’re going to make a drama, make sure there’s drama in it. Heck, if you’re going to make a movie, make sure there’s something in it that might interest me. Rules Of Engagement throws a little bit of this (a Vietnam prologue that might seem incredibly important, but really isn’t and might have been taken care of with one of two extra lines of dialogue), a little bit of that (like a big action scene that is not interesting. At all.), some more of this (ooh! Government conspiracy!) and some more of that (Rrrr… Courtorrom drama). That the film withholds crucial information isn’t even a cheat; it becomes only a pale irritant when you don’t care at all about what’s happening. Oh, and the cathartic shot of the little girl holding a gun… got a huge laugh from the three Sauvé siblings, assorted with cries of disbelief at the blatant manipulation. Even if Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson and Guy Pearce all do a good job, they just can’t save this borefest. Checking the credits, it’s no surprise to find that this is an original story by James Webb, author of one of my least favorite military thrillers of the nineties, Something to Die For. Now he strikes again, this time on movies. Gawd, viewers, just go watch something else, okay?

(In French, On TV, August 2001) Well, add another sad case to the group of failed “parody” comedies of the nineties. Apart from the two Hot Shots!, almost nothing came close to the rollicking humor of the classic Airplane!-style movies of the eighties. This one is a little more painful to watch than most, given the low production values, a terribly unfunny Leslie Nielsen (at the beginning of his bad self-parodying phase) and the whorish presence of Linda Blair. Yes, she’s “re-possessed” by the devil. Cue green vomit gag. Hey, a few jokes work, but the average is just so very, very low. Oh, and the awful musical segment… argh. The film runs on far too long, drawing an interminable conclusion at a point where everything should happily work toward a snappy ending. Not worth the bother, unless you’re particularly bored.

(In theaters, August 2001) The premise isn’t fresh (strangers in a contest to find a huge amount of money; think Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.) but it’s fresher than most recent so-called “comedies” in recent memory. The end result isn’t totally satisfying, but it’s a pleasant diversion. You might be attracted to the film for its cast, but in the end, it’s two near-unknowns (Brecklin Meyer and Amy Smart) who will keep your interest, as John Cleese and Whoopie Goldberg simply go by the numbers and Rowan Atkinson grates nearly every time he’s on screen. (I still can’t say anything even remotely nasty about Seth Green, though.) Not every plot thread is equally funny, but they all have their moments. The gags are good an plentiful, but what’s most interesting about them is the intricate build-up of outrageousness, often sustained throughout several minutes as a funny situation steadily gets funnier. That Hitler gag… oh my… (The bets placed by the bored millionaires are also a steady hoot) The conclusion has the problem you’d expect, as the script tries semi-successfully to find a way to make everyone win. Much like the viewers, who’ll enjoy it equally, but not completely.

(In theaters, August 2001) As an Ottawa-born cinephile, I have a duty to be indulgent about any hometown product. And there’s a lot to be indulgent about with this nano-budget film (think Blair Witch Project, except even lower) shot on 16mm film. Blurry image, atrocious looping, unpolished editing, bad acting… it just goes on. Cheap to the point where the title graphics look better than the rest of the film. The sound is especially bad in a movie theater, though home viewers won’t have to struggle as much to hear what’s being said on-screen. If you look past the flaws, however, there’s a lot to like in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter. The weird sense of humor is the film’s biggest selling point, from the premise implied in the title, to the opening MacGuffin (someone’s killing all the lesbians in the Ottawa area! Edge festival threatened!) to the use of Mexican wrestler Santos as a main character—along with an unexplainably amusing sexual harassment joke involving his assistant. But beyond that, look even closer and you’ll find some compelling fight choreography (!) with an imagination rivaling Jackie Chan’s usual antics. The musical numbers are also pretty enjoyable (“It’s okay/it’s all right/Everybody gets laid tonight”) despite the lousy sound, and even feature local-area bands. Storywise, it holds together as well as other kung-fu films, even though the end Jesus/Doctor battle is somewhat too tasteless to my liking. I’m still not sure if I’d recommend the film to anyone else, but I had some fun watching it, Ottawa scenery or not.