Movie Review

(On TV, November 1998) Inferior made-for-TV movie about a disaster aboard a space shuttle. Far from being even remotely realistic (even with a relative ignorance of actual NASA procedures, I was able to spot several mistakes), it can also “boast” of belonging to the cookie-cutter school of screenwriting, with painfully mistaken conventions of dramatic structure and characters that we’ve seen countless time before. It wasn’t a waste of time for me, since I consider a bad techno-thriller better than no techno-thriller at all, but less enthusiastic viewers might very well disagree. Max Q makes the fatal mistake of trying to emulate the superlative Apollo 13… and it’s not even close to being in the same league at the already-classic 1995 film.

(On TV, November 1998) Unarguably one of the most amazing action movie I’ve seen. Whereas other directors will settle for a shot of a guy jumping quickly cut to an exploding car, Hard-Boiled‘s John Woo uses a slow-motion uninterrupted shot of the actor jumping out of an exploding car, debris falling over him. You can actually see pieces bouncing off the stuntmen, who definitely earned their salary in this movie. The emotional core of the movie is also there, and it’s effective. (I publicly thanks Toronto-area station CITY-TV for having the wonderful integrity to run Hard-Boiled in its full letterboxed, subtitled glory.) Despite some annoying heart-stirring manipulation (babies, anyone?) and the problems in trying to piece together a foreign-language movie, Hard-Boiled is miles ahead of your usual Hollywood summer blockbuster. An unforgettable action masterpiece. Don’t miss it.

(On TV, November 1998) certainly isn’t for everyone. Comedy, even in the best of time, is a very subjective thing. It’s even worse when it comes to a quirky style maintained and perfected by a group of comedians. I had never watched Kids in the Hall, but still had a good time watching Brain Candy, an uneven take-off on pharmaceutical research. My sister, though, got up and left after ten minutes.

(In theaters, November 1998) A B-movie. Purely and simply. Low-budget, imaginatively filmed, violently over-the-top, touching upon ideas that mainstream cinema wouldn’t dare consider (a group of vampire slayers funded by the Vatican) in a way that only B-movie filmmakers would dare try (gratuitous nudity, violence, verbal abuse, etc…) That John Carpenter is the director is incidental. The result is fun provided that you’re willing to accept the poor dialogue, rotten pacing, disturbing sexism and lacklustre middle third. On the other hand, the film has an undeniable atmosphere, the premise is interesting and James Woods is completely delightful as protagonist Jack Crow. I have serious misgivings about the script and wouldn’t recommend the movie, but still enjoyed it.

(On VHS, November 1998) has a few clever moments (most of them related to Bruce Willis’ character) but had me groaning and swearing each five-ten minutes. Unfortunate, since the acting is pretty good (Richard Gere sleepwalks as usual, but he looks so darn unflappable that nobody minds. Bruce Willis, on the other hand, does a satisfying job at half-a-dozen different disguises) and the production values are reasonably high. The fault all goes back to the script, which is almost uniformly bad. Most movie clichés find their way in this film. The result is something as vapid and unmemorable as 1997’s The Shadow Conspiracy. (Remember that one? Me neither.) Not even the numerous Canada/Québec references can save this movie from rapid memory oblivion.

(On TV, November 1998) This film is -wait for it- better than the book. This simple story of an average crook in the Hollywood fast-lane differs only slightly from the original work, but makes it work. Elmore Leonard’s undecipherable dialogue comes to life on-screen, and the result is an average movie that’s reasonably entertaining to watch. John Travolta and Rene Russo are as good as usual. Some in-jokes are precious.

(In theaters, November 1998) A movie about two heavy drug users on a trip (!) to Las Vegas at the beginning of the seventies. I have never touched drugs and after this movie I feel as if I don’t need to, having already experienced all that mind-altering chemicals have to offer. As one friend remarked; “Hey, you who missed the drug revolution! Here it is!” It’s constantly funny in a bizarre sort of way. I liked the contrast between the serious-as-hell narration and the zonked-out actors on-screen. It might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but don’t miss the first fifteen minutes.

(Second viewing, On DVD, March 2009) It’s fair to say that I know a lot more about Hunter S. Thompson now than when I saw the film in theaters in 1998. I have also read the book twice in the meantime, giving me a different perspective on the film than at first. It’s now obvious that this is a lot more than the zonked-out adventures of two junkies on a Las Vegas bender: The “High water” passage is one of the keys to the work, and so is the increasingly uncomfortable disillusionment of the last act. As an adaptation of the book, it’s nothing short of wondrous, though director Terry Gilliam’s own pet obsessions sometimes derail the overall impact. Johnny Depp is often unrecognizable as Thompson, something that is also true for Benicio del Toro as the manic Doctor Gonzo/Oscar Acosta. Visually, it’s a trip, and the film does manage to wring a few new laughs out of the material. The pricey Criterion DVD edition is a must-have for Thompson fans, as it features three commentaries by the director, the producer/stars and Thompson himself. Additionally, the two-discs edition contains documentaries putting Thompson front and center, something that wasn’t readily available before Gonzo was released on DVD.

(On TV, November 1998) While overrated (incredibly too long, comatic first hour, not as shocking nor as exciting as it was in ’73), it can still aspire to being a classic. It certainly holds up better than other horror films of the period (Rosemary’s Baby, anyone?) and the gradual heightening of tension is effective. The last twenty minutes are quite good.

(On TV, November 1998) Despite a languid pace, the original The Exorcist still holds up reasonably well today. The sequel, however, is pure and unmitigated crap. Destroyed by ridiculous matter-of-fact beliefs in psi powers (made even more sad by the age of the movie; how is The X-Files going to sound in twenty years?) and a worship of primitive cultures, the whole is so sleep-inducing that I ended up fast-forwarding most of the middle hour. The climax is laughable in the most inept-movie sense. The result isn’t even worth your time.

(In theaters, November 1998) A paranoid’s wet dream come true. The government can watch you everywhere from satellites! It can destroy your life! It can send hired killers after you! It can steal your blender! Poor Will Smith, unwittingly stuck in the middle of a high-stakes conspiracy… Enemy Of The State is an effective thriller, playing on some very real latent fears and the usual conventions of the genre. Fortunately, Smith and Gene Hackman are great, the story is nicely wrapped up, there are a few high-adrenaline moments and the direction is effective despite an overuse of jerky handheld shot and jump-cuts. A worthwhile usage of your entertainment dollars… even for the few non-conspiracy theorists left among us.

(In theaters, November 1998) This film plays loosely with the true (hi)story of England’s foremost queen, but manages to deliver a film that is interesting and well-made. Apt to disappoint historians of the Elizabethan era, Elizabeth contains a surprising amount of sex and violence –teenagers will be titillated. Otherwise, it’s the fabulous performances by Cate Blanchett in the title role that will capture the viewer’s interest. (Sultry French actress Fanny Ardant is also a lot of fun to see in an English movie.) It’s a shame that many moviegoers will miss Elizabeth, since it’s a better film than most of what’s been shown so far in 1998. It did reinforce my already considerably high opinion of the historical character. Worth hunting down in video.

(Second viewing, On TV, April 2001) Ever read a silent review? As an experiment, I watched this film with the sound off while working on something else. My conclusion? While I can’t comment on the dialogue, Elizabeth remains a film with great visuals and gorgeous cinematography, directed with great skill. Oh, and Cate Blanchett makes a gorgeous Queen Elizabeth. (Have I mentioned I once knew a girl who looked exactly like her. Swoon!) It almost made me want to watch the film again with the sound on.

(On TV, November 1998) This occasionally shows signs of brilliance, but ultimately fails at even the most basic movie-experience requirement; telling a coherent story. Granted, I am definitely not of the Easy Rider target crowd but still: the drug-inspired meandering of the two loser protagonists are more tedious than interesting and much more boring than insightful. It’s a hard case to decide what’s more funny; the pop-druggie-psychology spouted off by a very youngish Jack Nicholson (mixed with UFO lore), the completely inane New Orleans drug trip or the caricatural rednecks who finally shoot down the two heroes in a moment of motiveless end-of-scriptitude. If Easy Rider is the emblem of an epoch, then this epoch is better off dead.