Movie Review

(In theaters, May 1999) A typical Jackie Chan film. You either like or you don’t. Though not a particularly good Chan movie -too much forced humor, lack of pacing, overlong scenes- Twin Dragons nevertheless serves a hefty portion of kung-fu action and physical comedy. Just ignore the sacrilegious lack of bloopers at the end, and the really bad special effects in two scenes (a shame, considering that the remainder of the “twin” effects are very well handled.)

(On TV, May 1999) No masterpiece here, but a rather satisfying action/police martial arts movie. Brandon Lee is likeable and has a good rapport with his fellow policeman co-star Dolph Lundgren. (Tia Carrere also appears, though she does nothing more substantial than being the damsel in distress) A few good action set-pieces, some fun lines, ludicrous plot if measured against real-world aspects—but clearly not meant to be. The fighting sequences could have benefited from lengthier editing. Not worth renting, but worth catching on the late-night show.

(On TV, May 1999) It would be easy to dismiss this film on its artificial dialogue, unrepentant didacticism and sometime-ridiculous scenes, but it’s actually not too bad considering the time in which it was produced. Interesting special effects for the time and a message that just can’t be out of fashion: “The stars or nothing!”

(On TV, May 1999) Now that is a bad movie. I am no fan of the series, but even the excessive original instalment had some wit and twisted charm. The second movie was half-good, half-bad, but the third one is just plain awful. Handled with all the emotional subtlety of a jackhammer in the face, this film feels more like an extended episode of the terrible TV show than something that managed to swindle money from moviegoers’ pockets. Of a certain occasional value as MST3K material, but more often too depressingly pathetic to be laughable.

(In theaters, May 1999) I normally enjoy Hong Kong action movies a lot, but for some reason, Black Mask left me wanting something more polished. Never mind the silly story and lousy dialogue: the action scenes are what counts, and the fact is that they’re not terribly well-shot. In terms of editing, director Daniel Lee is actually worse than the excessive short-cutter Michael Bay, and the result is a fury of sound and action that doesn’t let us time to appreciate Jet Li’s martial prowess, or form a coherent picture of what’s supposed to happen on-screen. The excessive usage of blood also diminishes the enjoyment I was looking for. Still, it’s a dynamic picture, and Françoise Yip is always worth a look. The hip-hop music is an interesting dubbing choice. Jet Li otherwise rocks.

(In theaters, May 1999) This film manages, despite the rather distasteful subject matter and inevitable conclusion, to be entertaining, funny and even poignant. Everyone shines in their respective roles. The script deservedly won an Oscar, and transforms what could have been a ponderous tale of impending death into something far more interesting than it could have been.

(In theaters, May 1999) That wacky Canadian Cronenberg strikes again with an average “What is Reality?” tale made more memorable by the use of biological “technology” and some scenes rather suggestive of anal sex. No, really. Two actresses shine, what with Jennifer Jason Leigh (As a champ game designer with a lovely hairdo! In a tight blue miniskirt!) and Sarah “Raaah!” Polley. While rather slow in its first hour, Existenz picks up and ends with a really enjoyable last five minutes. Some may be disappointed with its The Usual Suspects-type ending, but I came out of the theatre with a big goofy grin on my face, and any movie that manages that can’t be half-bad.

(In theaters, May 1999) Now here’s a splendid example of a good potential turned into barely adequate material. Where to start…? Catherine Zeta-Jones may be breathtakingly beautiful, but she plays her character like a spoiled child and seldom appears believable in any of her incarnations. Sean Connery is his dapper self, so darn cool that we can only wonder why he keeps playing into these awful films. Ving Rhames is wasted. The script -filled with awful dialogue- smells a lot like a first unedited draft. The editing is weak, avoiding to film a car chase but choosing to spend almost a full minute on Zeta-Jones’ gymnastics. There are plot holes big enough to drive a train car through. The ending is weak. The age differential between the two leads borders on the laughable. (My sister suggested that Baker should have been MacDonald’s long-lost daughter, which would have been interesting. She -my sister- has a future in screenwriting.) Only the heist sequences are rather good, if you exclude the extremely convenient escapes. The overall result is muddled enough to avoid recommendation.

(In theaters, May 1999) This film despite what one might infer from the plot (which revolves around a High-School Council presidential race), is too original to be simply considered a “teen movie”. Unfortunately, as with Rushmore, it’s not enough to be original is you want to be enjoyable. Election is -fittingly enough for its chosen sub-genre- a film with identity problems. It’s a tale where the protagonist is not the good guy and the antagonist is not the bad girl. It’s a tragedy with pretensions of comedy seen through the eyes of the loser who thinks he did the right thing. I ended up cheering for Tracy Flick and agreeing with her assertion that “great minds are always brought down by idiots”. As a former High School council president, I experienced a bit of flashback when a candidate voted for the other because “it didn’t seem right to vote for myself”: Been there, done that, won the election. Election, on the other hand, is a mixed bag of elements not fully integrated.

(Second viewing, On TV, May 1999) “Oh, I’ll just re-watch the first fifteen minutes” (…) “Hmmm, I’ll just watch until after Salma Hayek comes in” (…) “Hey, there’s a good action scene coming up after the nude scene” (…) “Gee, what the heck, I’ll watch it all again”. Desperado sits on my Top-100 favorite movies list and re-watching it only highlights why it’s there: The story in itself is ordinary (man goes after bad guy, gets in gunfights, meets girl) but the treatment is superlative. The directing style is wonderfully kinetic, the script pushes everything over the top, Banderas and Hayek make a couple of Beautiful People… Desperado is a modern western with an far-east attitude, a mix of John Wayne and John Woo with a style of its own. If anything, it’s even more interesting the second time around, as you’re able to appreciate the technique even more. (Though the “missiles” effect now looks obvious.) Watch it again.

(Third viewing, On DVD, April 2004) Goodness gracious, I so love this film. The action scenes are low-budget miracles. The character introductions have seldom been more effective. The whole western-meets-Hong Kong-action vibe is delicious. The principal casting is perfect. Salma Hayek has rarely been so drop-dead gorgeous. I’m still pretty annoyed by the let-down ending, but at least the good audio commentary by writer/director Robert Rodriguez helps to explain why it feels like such a cheat. (While a bit less polished than his usual commentaries, Rodriguez’s track is very informative as to the technical making of the film) A smattering of small documentaries complete the special edition DVD package, a must for any action enthusiast.

(On TV, May 1999) A pretty curious made-for-TV movie, structurally speaking. Presented in two two-hour parts, it has the particularity that the first half (A train racing to destruction!) is far more involving than the second one (Denver destroyed by an atomic explosion, the aftermath!). Some easy cutting would not only have brought the movie back to a more manageable 120 minutes, without sacrificing the action sequences. At least three useless “family drama” subplots bring the movie to a grinding halt. The result is a stupid (no points for science or logic, here…) bloated mess that damnably shows the promise of a pretty decent action B-movie.

(In theaters, May 1999) The story of a man’s slow and inevitable descent in insanity and violence. It’s not a feel-good movie; there is no redemption. (Though there’s a car chase) Call me crazy, but I prefer happy endings. On the other hand, the performances are top-notch and the direction surprisingly interesting at a few moments. I also, for some reason, really liked Willem Dafoe’s narration and character. If you’re able to distinguish between enjoyment and appreciation, you’ll find that this is a very good movie, but that you probably won’t watch it again for fun. Not exactly a good date movie. (Oh, and it’s perfectly clear that no one in the production of the movie knows anything about sub-zero winter and snow; just watch Nolte and Defoe try to shovel the garage driveway. Hilarious!)

(On TV, April 1999) The presence of sultry Catherine Zeta-Jones in this movie immediately reminded me of The Mask Of Zorro, and that’s the frame of mind in which The Phantom is best-appreciated. A charmingly quaint adventure story set in the 1930s, this movie adroitly straddles the line between self-awareness and camp and the result is something that is far too sympathetic to dislike. Billy Zane pulls off a role that requires him to parade in a skin-tight purple jumpsuit (!) without embarrassing himself too much. Though inconsistent with its approach to the supernatural (The Phantom isn’t; the villain is) and a bit overlong in its middle part, this movie is a good choice for a family adventure film.

(On TV, April 1999) Very uneven collection of three sketches supposedly about deadly sins. The first one (“Lust”) is promising but ends on a “conclusion” that’s both pointless and senseless. (Hey! Isn’t it supposed to be about a deadly sin?) The second sketch (“Greed”) is not only the longest, but also the best. A sharp satire about the media, it’s worth watching by itself. (Though maybe five minutes overlong.) The third piece (“Anger”) stars the repulsive Andrew Clay, who pretty much sinks whatever value the sketch might have once had.

(In theaters, April 1999) This film won’t win any awards, will probably be forgotten by most viewers one week after seeing it, but still remains adequate entertainment. Though low on hilarity and deficient in charm, it still remains a rather pleasant date movie and should be caught on television. David Spade is misused (too much sweetness, not enough bite), as are the two great French actors Sophie Marceau and the dapper-looking Patrick Bruel (both of whom should have spoken French when talking to each other.) The script could have used another re-write, to remove the annoying final tag, strengthen the sidekick and tighten the middle act. Ironically, the two sequences that remain in mind are musically-oriented, with Spade triumphing with a Neil Diamond song and the final dance montage. Let’s face it; no movie using Dee-Lite’s “Groove is in the Heart” twice is worthless.