Movie Review

(On TV, October 1998) This scores high on the giggle-meter if only for the setup, where Jean-Claude Van Damme is revealed to be a policeman from Quebec (!) put in a California prison so that he won’t be recognized (!!) while investigating the deaths of several prisoners. (!!!) From stereotypical lecherous hackers to the final showdown between van Damme and The Guy Who Killed His Partner -including the non-resolution of the mystery,- this is bad enough to make you throw a party every time it plays on TV. Better yet; rent it with Sudden Death and bill your experience as Sudden Death Warrant: A Van Damme Retrospective.

(On TV, October 1998) While this film will never be considered a great movie by any rational criteria, it must be said that it’s considerably enjoyable. One of the purest comic-book movies ever, Darkman blends howlingly funny melodrama with the over-the-top direction of Sam Raimi (Army Of Darkness) and the result is silly but exciting. It’s a shock to see Serious Actor Liam Neeson in the title role. A good late-night movie.

(On TV, October 1998) Even though I’ve used Syd Field’s Screenplay to write a script and generally worship everything the guy says, I don’t agree with his enthusiastic praise of Chinatown. Problem is; it’s just not interesting enough. Three P.I. tricks, incest, unhappy ending and a cut nose. Nope; saw better elsewhere. Nicholson is okay, but the other players fade in the background. It certainly holds up better than most of the other movies of the time (it can be re-watched today without many problems), it’s probably one of the best movies of the seventies, but so far it’s not a favorite of mine.

(Second Viewing, On Cable TV, July 2021) I’m sorry, everyone! One of the reasons why I amend my movie reviews as I re-watch them is to capture the evolution of my reactions across the years. That goes doubles for films I revisit after decades, hoping that the years have given me a better perspective on the result. If you’re reading this, you probably read my amazingly stupid first take on Chinatown in the preceding paragraph, written as a young twentysomething college student. I was young and ignorant, but that’s no excuse. Now that I’m approaching the film with a far better understanding of life and Hollywood history, let me change my mind – Chinatown deserves the classic status that has been bestowed upon it. It is markedly better-written than most movies, better executed and far more hard-hitting in its thematic intentions. As the intersection of crime thriller, Los Angeles history, character study, genre deconstruction and paean to classic films, it’s got quite a lot on its mind, and presents it effectively. I remembered broad strokes of the film and the implacable conclusion, but much of the pleasure of a second viewing is in appreciating its execution: Much has been written on the collaborative push-and-pull that resulted in the final result, and it’s a fascinating case study in how it takes plenty of skilled people to produce something like it. Jack Nicholson is excellent as the private detective manipulated in creating problems for everyone, while Jack Huston turns in a veteran’s performance as a monstrous antagonist. The period recreation is convincing despite being limited by the means available at the time – although critics have a point when they suggest that the film isn’t about being set in a specific year as much as it’s a blend of historical elements spanning decades. The narrative engine of the film is strong enough to keep even spoiled viewers invested in where it’s all going, especially as it starts tweaking clichés along the way. Yes, I’m glad that I revisited Chinatown, if only because I can update my assessment to a far more satisfactory one.

(On TV, October 1998) I had originally intended to complete an assignment on the computer with Casino playing in the background. What happened was that from the very first frames of the movie, I was reeled in by the film and quickly abandoned the thought of doing any useful work on the computer. Not only the tale of Las Vegas gangsters during the seventies, Casino is the type of film that tells a great story in a way that’s completely absorbing. Clearly the work of a masterful director (Scorsese), it makes good use of stars De Niro, Pesci and Stone. While the first half is the best (with its emphasis on Las Vegas rather than advancing the plot), the remainder is no lightweight either. Narration that works, Sharon Stone doing some acting, sympathy for devils: those are only a few of the things that Casino achieve. Rent it now.

(In theaters, October 1998) The business of making an all-animated CGI movie must be completely different from a normal film: Since all shots are deliberate and cost incredible amounts of money, care must be taken is order to use the best script and voice talent available, perhaps at the expense of artistic innovation. Antz is a good example. The script/story/dialogue is pretty good (best summed up by one of the movie’s best lines: “It’s just your boy-meets-girl, boy-likes-girl, boy-overthrows-underlying-social-order kind of story”) and the voice talent shines. The animation, needless to say, is great. The overall effect is a decent movie. Perhaps a bit lacking in heart and quirkiness, but one that will offer repeated delights for some time. A good choice for a rental.

(On TV, October 1998) I remember reading All The President’s Men, a few years ago. At the time, I had been stunned by the non-fiction account of the Watergate scandal by the two journalists who broke the affair, Woodward and Bernstein. This film version, starring Robert Redford as Woodward and Dustin Hoffman as Bernstein, isn’t as complete as the book but faithfully translate the gripping tension of the book. Effective direction, a good script and great acting help, but the real star of the movie remains the Watergate story, which stays relevant even twenty-five years later. This movie has its place besides Schindler’s List and other great historical dramas.

(On TV, September 1998) Occasional flashes of interest and comedy (eg; the hospital and the morgue scene) pepper this awful movie that -among other things- can’t decide whether it’s horror or humour. Too bad, since there was potential for a fun teenage comedy here. Starring Denise Richard, who’s rapidly becoming the Queen of Trash Movies with 1997’s Starship Troopers and 1998’s Wild Things. Stay until the end; she does a gratuitous half-strip-tease.

(On TV, September 1998) Earthworms. Sounds scary? Well, when they bite and they’re piled up high enough to rain down on a character when she opens a door, I guess it must be somewhat disturbing. Or, at least that’s what Squirm tries to tell us. The result is mildly effective. The science is ludicrous -anybody heard of power line breakers?- and the look is typically muddy-seventies, but the film is considerably helped by two rarities in characters: The skinny, nerdish hero is someone I could identify with, and the heroine (played by Patricia Pearcy) is still very attractive for a seventies’ film. (But then again, I have a weakness for long-haired redheads.) Worth a look. It will make you squirm.

(On TV, September 1998) This film doesn’t live up to its reputation of “the worst big-budget movie of 1995” mostly because, frankly, it’s not that bad. Granted, you would have a hard time convincing anyone given the fact that most of the film’s running time features half-naked women. What else do you expect from the story of a Las Vegas stripper? Still, it’s an okay story with a few interesting scenes. The characters are lousy and unsympathetic, the dialogue is laughably bad, the plotting is uneven and the action grinds to a halt whenever director Verhoeven wants to put up a nekkid boobs show, but it’s far from being a complete Z-grade mess of a movie. Anyone wishing for good porn, however, better look elsewhere: For all the nudity and suggestive dancing, Showgirls remains a curiously un-sexy movie. Blame it on nipple overload.

(In theaters, September 1998) One of the most realistic war movie you’re likely to see. Granted, I’ve never even been near a dangerous situation, but Steven Spielberg really puts viewers in the middle of the action in this WW2 epic. Bullets whiz by; tanks rumble under your feet; handheld camera shots gives you what the soldiers saw. Technically, the movie is excellent, although I’ll quibble that there were many unnecessary jerky camera shots. Beyond that, however, Saving Private Ryan tries to be honest, painting neither a gung-ho pro-war or a rabid anti-war portrait. War is hell, but not without a certain meaning. We are free to see the movie and make up our own conclusions. Saving Private Ryan is neither as good, as shocking or as violent that its growing reputation makes it to be, but it’s certainly that rarity; a film that deserves to exist if only to make history come alive. It’s not a crowd-pleaser that will warm hearts all over the country, but much like Schindler’s List, enjoyment is pretty much irrelevant. One of the best movies of 1998.

(In theaters, September 1998) One of the best buddy-cop movies you have already not yet seen. The standard formula (reluctant partners battling crime and developing respect for each other… yadda-yadda) is faithfully respected, but enhanced by the charisma of both leads Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan. The racist jokes are (mostly) defused by various factors, not the less being Tucker’s character’s complete social ineptitude. Chan isn’t as good here as his other movies, but still shine. Various clichés here and there (bomb defusing-by-cutting-wires… sigh) but still a lot of fun. Don’t miss it.

(Second viewing, On DVD, September 1999) Use boilerplate buddy-cop movie template. Insert Chris Tucker. Insert Jackie Chan. Stir as necessary. The result isn’t great, but it is certainly enjoyable, even on a second viewing. Chan remains impressive despite being restrained by American insurance concerns. Tucker isn’t as annoying as in his previous films. The DVD has a few interesting options, like a great commentary track by director Brett Ratner (though he pretty much destroys the illusion of a carefully-planned movie by pointing out all the last-minute ad-libs) and a documentary which features an extended long take where you can see Jackie Chan planning one of his bravura fight sequences. There are also more goodies like some of Ratner’s previous work, and a few deleted scenes (one of which, the visit to Peña’s apartment, should have been kept in the film.)

(On TV, September 1998) I just love everything done by Jackie Chan, but even I must agree that Rumble in the Bronx is one of his weakest effort that I’ve seen. Nothing really interesting happens in the first hour for one thing, and the supporting actors aren’t very strong… though the girls are cute. Unlike Supercop and First Strike (other slow-starting Chan films), the comedic bent of the script isn’t strong enough to sustain the first half. Things pick up soon afterward, just in time for a series of rather good action sequences, and a finale involving a hovercraft and a Lamborghini. Guilty pleasure, but fun.

(In theaters, September 1998) In many ways a throwback to the bare-bone spy thrillers of years past, as given away by the less-than-perfect lettering at the end. The plot is irrelevant, the goal is unknown but the acting is solid and the action scenes are shot is a way that’s not too confusing or hectic. Granted, there are plot holes here and there, as well as details that should have been spelled out, but Ronin is so well-executed that you might not care, except for the lacklustre finale. The two car chases are among the best action sequences seen this year, and the acting of De Niro and Jean Reno is superb as usual. Ronin has a feel that’s significantly different from most other action movies released this year, and should be seen if only for that.

(Second viewing, On DVD, November 2000) The very good and the rather disappointing intersect in this quasi-seventies thriller by legendary directory John Frankenheimer. The very good is easy to identify: The two spectacular car chases and the interplay between the actors—most notably Jean Reno and Robert de Niro. The flaws are more subtle, but no less annoying: The disjointed script that goes nowhere, the reliance over genre clichés and a huge silver MacGuffin. The DVD director’s commentary helps figure out what happened: A good original script (available elsewhere on the web, I believe) being reworked at the director’s whim. (It’s not a good thing to hear “I always wanted to do something about figure skating, so we changed the ending to take place there.”) Action fans and Jean Reno junkies owe it to themselves to see Ronin at least once: despite all its other flaws, it’s a solid thriller.