Movie Review

(On TV, January 2001) One of Hong Kong Action cinema’s strongest selling point is its sheer demented nature. Rather than waste time establishing realism, Hong Kong Action works on hypercharged kinetism, extreme theatrics and guns that don’t need reloading. The Mission tries to break away from this style with a slightly more realistic approach, but the result isn’t nearly as successful. The atmosphere and tone are much more somber, with unsweetened violence and -especially toward the end- a constant paranoia of sudden aggression. There are also too many main characters to deepen any of them. The action is brief, humorless, often without any of the suspense of the best examples of the genre. The Mission will do on a slow afternoon, and does work on several levels, but don’t expect it to be as entertaining as the other typical representatives of the genre.

(In theaters, December 2000) If you can depend on any one director around to deliver a solid action film, it’s Martin Campbell. Here, he follows Goldeneye and The Mask Of Zorro with another technically superb piece of pure entertainment, the mountain-climbing thriller Vertical Limit. Granted, he doesn’t have a lot to work with in terms of plot: Filled with impossibilities, clichés, bad dialogue and major structural problems, Vertical Limit does not work on the page. (Though I’ll admit at being rather amused, as was the rest of the Ottawa-area audience, at the jab about French-Canadians. It helps that my mother’s a nurse named Monique.) The problem worsens with the casting, with blandness-incarnate Chris O’Donnell and Robin Tunney. (While competent actors both, they simply aren’t compelling as action heroes) But in an air-conditioned theater with a huge screen and heavy bass speakers, you can practically fool yourself that you’re having a good time. As soon as an action beat comes up, Campbell’s technical skills come in focus and you can be assured of audacious camera shots, expert editing and white-knuckle thrills. Too bad that most of the good action scenes are at the beginning and the middle of the film rather than at the end; this proves to be the single biggest failing of the film as it deflates more than it goes out with a bang. Certainly worth a look for action junkies, as it stands as one of the best action films of 2000. Granted, it wasn’t a very good year to begin with…

(In theaters, December 2000) Independent filmmaker attacks traditional romance in what ends up being an interesting, but ordinary film. Purporting to go behind the scenes of male seduction techniques, it merely end up being an entertaining film with enough fun quirks to warrant a look. The story’s been done before, a Don Juan falling for the one woman he can’t truly lure. That the Don Juan is overweight is merely misdirection. (In fact, watching carefully, it’s obvious that the lead actor is heavily padded to appear far more obese than he truly is.) Some scenes feel forced. (“I’m the special of the day”) Think of it as a date film for those dates who can’t be swayed by the usual romantic tripe.

(On VHS, December 2000) Where did it go wrong? I was a fan of the concept (a comedy showing the “other side” of Hamlet through minor characters’ eyes), the execution (extensive wordplays and logical games with extensive metafictional elements) and the actors (Richard Dreyfuss, Tim Roth and Gary Oldman). So why, despite some extremely funny segments, does the film feel so flat? I’ll take a chance and blame the budget (low), the adaptation (still feels like a theater play) and, primarily, the direction (flat and uninspired, especially for a comedy). Disappointment!

(In theaters, December 2000) The true test of a movie star is to watch said performer struggle in an average film. Here, Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan have to contend with an efficient, but hardly exceptional script, and only one of them rises above the material. It’s not Ryan, who seems miscast and ill-defined as “the wife” character. Crowe fares much better as a top-notch ransom negotiator, clearly showing why more and more people are calling him a genuine leading man. The rest of film is hit and miss: The cinematography gets a lot of mileage out of its lush South-American locale. The script contains both good moments (good opening, good conclusion and good technical details about the ransom business) and not-so-good moments. (The extraordinary coincidence that precipitates the film’s third act is almost unforgivable) It should be noted, however, that the film clearly shows excessive cutting room rethinking: While it’s refreshing to see that the romantic angle is barely mentioned, its half-hearted inclusion creates a few puzzling moments if not outright howlers, such as “Do you love this woman?” suddenly coming out of nowhere. The DVD version should be interesting to examine. Otherwise, David Caruso is sympathetic in a supporting role, the film plays better than expected, and Russell Crowe’s performance, again, is worth watching.

(In theaters, December 2000) Trust the British to deliver top-notch exhilarating comedy. The “story” of five teenagers on a weekend of sex, drugs and techno music, Human Traffic quickly wins over its audience with hilarious fantasy sequences and fast-paced narration. Film techniques are blasted frenetically at the audience and after the first fifteen minutes you’re either in the film or outside the theater. Unlike other similar films, though, Human Traffic maintains its energy (and the constantly hilarious fantasy sequences) all the way to the finale. Moralists will tut-tut the ambivalent drug “message” and the lack of consequences for reckless activities, but it somehow comes across as realist, not offensive or preachy. It’s hard to describe in written terms the overall impact of Human Traffic without overusing words like “fun”, “energy” and “hilarious”, but just think of it as a lively gem just waiting for your discovery. If you’re still under thirty.

(In theaters, December 2000) Don’t bother looking for a plot: This is basically a “let’s have a rave” film featuring pretty much what you’d expect as associated events: A romance that takes too much time, a naive guy who takes too much drugs, a police raid, a DJ that gets his groove back, two couples with relationship problems, etc… There’s some good music, though not quite enough. At least the main romance features appealing protagonists, and there are some pretty good jokes here and there. It does present a rather good impression of rave culture, though it ends up being a bit too sweet and, yes, conventional. (While Groove makes Go‘s rave scenes look like a preppy party, it’s itself seriously outclassed by the contemporary Human Traffic as an exploration of the hows, whys and weirds of the party scene.) The end film looks a lot like a director’s first feature (which it is) where an inexperienced crew gets some experience. At least they show some good potential: The credit scene is impressive in how it quickly introduces all the main characters, and the rave scenes do have an inherent energy.

(In theaters, December 2000) It’s interesting how expectations can make or break a film. A film on the borderline can be either rather good or rather bad depending on how much you were expecting from it. In this case, I was expecting the worst from Ron Howard’s The Grinch, especially with Jim Carrey as the title character. To my surprise, I found myself giggling alarmingly often, and was pleasantly entertained by the result. I had no particular knowledge or attachment to the Seuss book or the original cartoon version, so any liberties taken with the source material don’t particularly concern me. Granted, the film is a mixed bag. Among the bad: The musical interludes, the set design, the “explanation” of the Grinch’s grouchiness and the Who nose makeup design. Among the good, obviously, is Jim Carrey himself: the film reaches its best moments whenever he’s acting his sarcastic, anarchistic, grouchy characters. But, alas, as this is essentially the tale of the imposition of social conformity on the only independent-thinking character of a small group, the ending of the film is predictably awful, as the Grinch is coerced in becoming another one of the boring morons of Whoville. I’d continue with some further social commentary, but you surely get my point. Still, the getting there is often far more fun than expected, with some subversive adult in-jokes thrown in the mix. (Watch for a visual Ice Storm reference that completely destroys Whoville’s wholesome image) And, hey, Christine Baranski gets both some screen-time and tight outfits. If that’s not enough to convince you, well…

(In theaters, December 2000) A fantasy game movie adaptation filmed in Eastern Europe on a low-low-low budget. If at this point you’re not expecting total trash, you haven’t been paying attention. And, for the first ten minute, Dungeons & Dragons seems to deliver exactly what we’re expecting: Pretentious and confusing voiceover, choppy editing, uneven directing, embarrassing overacting, awful dialogues… it’s all there. But, at the ten-minute mark (as the young female mage lassoes the two thieves), something quite remarkable happens, and the film suddenly becomes entertaining in a good way, almost shamelessly daring us to have fun with it. The quality of the writing improves dramatically, the jokes fly and the direction is handled with the appropriate amount of fun. For slightly more than half an hour, we’re plunged in the heart of “Dungeons & Dragons”: Saving the world while having good fun with friends. (Around the kitchen table, with an unhealthy supply of chips and soft drinks) Alas, that fun is dashed at mid-film as soon as a main character is killed. Then the film turns somber, dour, boring and, yes, pretentious. The political scenes are naive, the overacting gets worse, Thora Birch looks like a china doll tarted up to look like a cheap Amidala ripoff and not even a liberal injection of special effects can save the film from the disappointing finale. Not a good film by any means, but at least there’s a decent stretch somewhere.