Movie Review

(On TV, August 1999) Some types of movies don’t age very well, and older action films often pace in comparison to the frantic pacing of their more recent cousins. While the car chase centerpiece of Bullitt -nowadays the movie’s main claim to fame- may have thrilled audiences in 1968, it pales in comparison to what’s been done since. The non-action remainder of the film has its moments, but ultimately ends up in an overlong, quasi-senseless foot chase. Though not a bad film per se, Bullitt has few new or fresh things to offer thirty years after its release.

(In theaters, August 1999) Somehow, I expected better from this Hollywood satire, almost as if it was deliberately pulling its punches in order not to offend anyone. Yes, Eddie Murphy does a creditable job in two roles that ask a lot of courage from a superstar actor, but is this the hilarious comedy we could have expected from Steve Martin? Though steadily amusing, there aren’t very many big laughs in Bowfinger and one has to wonder why given the great premise (an actor is manipulated to star in a film without him knowing it). As it is, though, even if the film is a slight disappointment, it is not a waste of time.

(In theaters, August 1999) There’s a limit to what you can do with the “fish-out-of-water” concept and this films pretty much reaches it. Fortunately, Brandon Fraser and Alicia Silverstone sufficiently brighten up the screen so that we can gloss over the other less satisfying parts of the film. Some plots “twists” are seen miles in advance. The conclusion annoyingly relies on a coincidence. There’s a very good swing dance number. Otherwise, it’s a good, but unmemorable film.

(On TV, August 1999) Oh my… I sat down to watch this, thinking that if anything else, David Spade’s sarcastic brand of comedy would liven things up. Mistake. Even though Spade comes through with some dignity, I’ve never been a fan of Chris Farley (dead now; not a cinematic loss) and Black Sheep only reminder why. A big, unfunny mess that somehow thinks it’s worth considering seriously, Black Sheep contains a scattering of chuckles, but is otherwise cloyed in false sentimentality and immature embarrassment humour. Not many movie can pull off unfunny characters-on-drugs moments, but Black Sheep does. Thrice. Give this one a miss; it’s a definite potential choice for “worst movie” awards, and not the “so-bad-it’s-good” ones.

(In theaters, July 1999) There are two ways of approaching this film. The undemanding method results in adequate enjoyment, but in the other lies madness. On one hand, we can appreciate Wild Wild West for what it offers: Will Smith looking darn cool, Barry Sonnenfeld’s sprinkling of ironic visual humor (like the sights gags about E.T. and -my fave- RCA’s “voice-of-his-master”), some interesting character dynamics and -boy, oh, boy!- a giant mechanical spider. Mix everything up and you end with an adequate summer popcorn matinee movie: Not too bad, but unfortunately not too special either. And there lies the seed of our discontent: You’ve got a script with the potential to pick and choose over the strongest aspect of James Bond, Steampunk, Buddy Movies and Westerns. You’ve got Will Smith, Kevin Kline, Kenneth Branagh, ILM, Salma Hayek, Barry Sonnenfeld and $180M. How the hell to you end up with such a barely adequate movie? Six of the most attractive actresses in recent memory grace the screen, and the movie can’t even wring some hot scenes out of it? Six writers and you end up with “That’s a man’s head!”? Sheesh… The editors should be shot for letting at least three separate scenes run for a full thirty seconds after we understood the joke. This is the kind of movie that really make you reconsider the average IQ of Hollywood residents. How could you produce such a non-event out of such sure-fire concepts and talent? Watch Wild Wild West to find out.

(In French, Second viewing, On TV, April 2004) Yup: five years later, this film still sucks. While the incoherent pacing may have been affected by the choppy for-TV editing, the lame editing of the surviving scenes still rankles. Oh, the visual design of the film is fantastic: this American steampunk vision is often impressive (despite unconvincing special effects) and the melding of action movie aesthetics with western period flavour is enough to make anyone dream in wonder. But seldom has so much been wasted by so many: The atrocious script is conceptually OK, but fails on a scene-per-scene basis, with unexplainable pauses and lame gags repeated over and over again until all freshness has been squeezed out of them. Salma Hayek is gorgeous (as usual), but is wasted in a role that pops in and out of existence. No wonder so many people, myself included, hated it five years ago: it has lost none of its awfulness.

(In theaters, July 1999) Short anthology of animated cartoons, from the highly-technical CGI “Tightrope” (by Digital Domain) to the almost-primitive classic “Bambi Meet Godzilla” (which is followed by a forgettable computer-animated sequel) Lowlights include a few baffling French shorts, and at least one English shoe love story. I wasn’t impressed by 1998’s Oscar-winning “Bunny”, but 1987’s Oscar-winning “Balance” is pretty cool in an eastern-European concentration camp way. Among the undisputed high points of the festival are “Billy’s Balloon” (one of the sickest, funniest shorts I’ve ever seen), the baffling “Bingo”, the opening computer-generated Penguin/Bear gags, the British “Hum Drum” and a rather suggestive scene between a carrot and a grater. Not a must-see but not a total waste of time either, this edition of Spike And Mike‘s animation festival could have been much, much better. Not to mention funnier.

(In theaters, July 1999) Strip away the obscenity, the crude animation and the deliberate shock value of this film and you’ll still end up with one of the wittiest social satires of recent memory. Of course, that’s no surprise to devotees of the show… who will find that South Park is one of the rare movies to actually improve on its source series, in this case by going miles beyond the accepted limits of TV. Make no mistake: This is one offensive movie. But it’s also one of the funniest of 1999, and justifies its vulgarity with some actual meaning, unlike other gross-for-gross-out so-called “comedies”. Further adding to the hilarity are the snappy songs and the occasional parodies (like Cartman’s mock-anime fight!) Sure, not every joke works and the second half of the film doesn’t pack as much punch as the first, but still… who could have guessed that South Park would end up being lauded by critics? Canadian viewers should be tickled pink at the constant references to Canada, which pretty much encapsulate what we all suspected about our reputation south of the border.

(Second viewing, On DVD, January 2002) “Uh-oh” says the tagline for this film, and that’s also pretty much my reaction when viewing the film two years and a half after its theater run. Don’t get me wrong; I still think it’s a terrific satire, a remarkably effective comedy that courageously takes on important subjects in a highly subversive fashion. (Indeed, the 1999 script’s “War on Canada” rhetoric is chillingly close to the “War on Terrorism” propaganda dished out in early 2002.) Furthermore, “Uncle F*cka” is still the best original movie tune of 1999. But the film has not aged well already; once the delightful shock of the film’s vulgarity has passed, the film’s more boring passages become painfully evident. Some of the material is simply dull or annoying once stripped of its shock value. Worse of all, the film’s overall subject matter isn’t as urgent as it once was. Good film, still, but not the classic it could have been had it exercised a touch more subtlety. The DVD doesn’t have much in terms of extra features, though the French soundtrack is a new comedy experience for those used to the original: “Il faut blâmer/le Canada!”

(On VHS, July 1999) This direct-to-video film starring Jackie Chan is, well, deservedly straight-to-video. Though still adhering to Chan’s usual standards of goofy action fun, it takes a long while to revv up, meanders with a needlessly complicated plot (which never makes too much sense) and is far less amusing than his other movies. Fortunately, things pick up in the second half, with some dynamic (but not really eye-popping) fighting and stunts. Otherwise, the movie can boast of rather good production values (with special effects) and a less-misogynistic use of actresses. The car chase is fun, with a fun hack on the Diamonds Are Forever two-wheel-driving stunt. Recommended to Chan fans only, and even then at low rental prices.

(On TV, July 1999) This made-for-TV movie will try to make you believe in Stephen Baldwin as a marooned engineer who manages to build an agrarian culture on a desert planet and defend it against The Bad Guys. It has some good moments (the engineer-as-hero, Lisa Bonet, some dialogue), but is overwhelmed by the bad moments we’ve all seen before (the annoying kid, the fights, the ridiculous “sand pirates”, etc…) Not bad, but somewhat boring.

(In theaters, July 1999) I still can’t fathom why critics savaged this film. Not only is it a perfectly respectable kid’s movie, but it’s got enough humor, action, Special Effects and clever wit to hold everyone’s attention for its dynamic 90 minutes. The opening sequence alone is so wickedly over the top that I was clapping in unrestrained admiration barely sixty seconds into the movie. Matthew Broderick plays his role well and Rupert Everett turns in a delicious performance as the megalomaniac. Parodies abound: Robocop, Mission: Impossible, even Godzilla in a scene that had me shrieking with laughter. The special-effects alone are very well-integrated in the story, promising almost a surprise a minute. Directed with competence and written with better-than-average skills, -it’s mostly clean humor too- it would be a mistake to miss Inspector Gadget. Go, go, gadget video!

(On VHS, July 1999) Why did I miss this in theatres? A charming little movie faithfully echoing the Flashdance paradigm (cleverly cited) of ordinary people being transformed by… er… art and personal self-fulfillment. No, but really: A quirky, comic British film that’s just too sympathetic to miss. Some obvious jokes, but also some delightful moments. Perhaps a bit lower on the laugh-o-meter than its reputation has made it to be, but still worthwhile. Never mean-spirited, and always in good taste despite the raunchy potential of the material. Could have used an epilogue, maybe over the end credits. Great soundtrack, of course.

(In theaters, July 1999) I don’t worship Stanley Kubrick and this film won’t change my mind. Long-anticipated and released in the midst of controversy, this is a movie that actually lets people see what they want in it. It is a bore; it is a masterpiece. It’s filled with undressed women; it’s hugely unexciting (The most erotic scene is, curiously, a kiss between two fully-clothed adults). It’s a love story; it’s a conspiracy thriller. It’s beautiful; it’s ugly. It’s too long; it’s too short. It’s easy to see that Eyes Wide Shut is the kind of movie that has it both ways, by being simultaneously an empty disappointment and a multi-layered success. Me, I’m ambivalent: I thought it was too long, focused on the wrong story (the couple rather than the secret society), not as hard-hitting as it could have been and not as well-scripted at it should have been, but also found it beautifully directed, with involving questions, good acting and a half-naked Leelee Sobieski. Oh, pervert that I am…