Movie Review

(On TV, August 1998) Adapted from the Thomas Harris novel of the same name, this movie suffers a lot from a recent reading of the book. Punches are known, and a lot of the tension is absent; a fatal flaw in a suspense thriller. Still, well filmed (though with an overuse of the looking-at-the-camera angle) and very well acted. No wonder this movie won a few Academy Awards. The adaptation is loosely faithful (cutting some material along the way) and adds a clever last scene.

(In theaters, August 1998) Surprisingly good entry in the cop genre, The Negotiator would have floundered without the effective, spare direction of newcomer F. Gary Gray and the superlative acting talents of Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. A friend of mine is fond of saying that Spacey (The Usual Suspects, Se7en, L.A. Confidential) has never been in a bad film; she’s still right. The setup is a bit unbelievable (cops do have an esprit-de-corps, y’know?), some of the dialogue is awful (though the delivery’s perfect!), many of the technical details are flat-out wrong (especially when computer-related) and the ending may seem an anti-climax to those expecting something else. Still, once the movie gets going, it’s an engrossing, fascinating movie that’s well worth your time.

(Second viewing, on TV, August 1998) Interestingly, the first time I saw that movie, shortly after its video release, I thought it amusing, but not that funny mostly due to timing problems. At my great surprise, I found myself laughing a lot more than expected during this second viewing. Part of this may have been caused by the increasing awfulness of the latest “satire”-type movies, or being much more familiar with the Lethal Weapon series that Loaded Weapon 1 is so obviously parodying. Whatever the reason, I can only say that this movie’s funny. Try not to miss it.

(On TV, August 1998) Far less impressive than it is reputed to be. College comedies have to be really good to succeed, and this one suffers a lot from its bad script and its muddy cinematography. (Sound’s often incomprehensible too) John Belushi is okay, as is Babylon-5 star Stephen Furst. It seems like every single female in the movie takes off her clothes at some point. Of historical value, mostly because it’s the prototype for the much-better The Blues Brothers.

(On TV, August 1998) Adapted from the Thomas Harris novel Red Dragon, this movie is amazingly faithful to the source material, up to the end where the book’s lackluster ending is replaced by a gunfight. Good idea, but it’s so ineptly shot that it takes away a lot of the movie’s previous impact. Still, a better-than-average thriller. Harmed considerably by the inclusion of a god-awful early-eighties electro-synth soundtrack. Of historical interest; Written and Directed by Michael Mann (Heat, The Last Of The Mohicans).

(Second viewing, On DVD, October 2002) Now that Thomas Harris’ Red Dragon has been re-adapted by Brett Ratner et al., Michael Mann’s first take on the material can be re-examined with a better critical eye. Certainly, certain aspects haven’t aged well: Underlit tables and antiseptic sets irremediably brand Mann’s Eighties aesthetics style. The awful electro-synth soundtrack is simply unbearable now. Certain plot developments come out of nowhere and don’t make much sense if you haven’t read the original novel (The discovery of the toilet-paper message isn’t very well explained, for instance) Finally, the film’s low budget must have ran out at the last minute, because the rushed ending ruins what would have otherwise been a pretty good thriller. It’s not as if the film is bad, though, even now. The urgency, personal toll and sacrifices required of the lead Will Graham protagonist (played by a too-intense William Petersen) are well-shown, and the film contains a narrative energy that only flags in the third quarter. It’s a solid thriller, too stylish for its own good but worth a look even now, though more as a comparison point between it and 2002’s superior Red Dragon.

(On TV, August 1998) A weak successor to the original film. Part of it may be that it tries to deal with racial issues directly rather than just making a fun movie where the characters happen to be black, like in the first film. Unfortunately, the characters also seem diluted, and the dance numbers are less energetic. The bizarre romantic subplot also annoys more than it entertains. A disappointment.

(On TV, August 1998) “Shut up and drive!” would be my only recommendation to the scriptwriter (The quasi-legendary Robert Towne) of this moderately enjoyable sport thriller. Simply put, Days Of Thunder is more interesting when our stock-car-driving hero (played by Tom Cruise) is on the circuit driving. Everything else feels like filler, up to and including the romance with the pretty neurologist (Nicole Kidman, now Cruise’s wife). Otherwise, it’s another movie from the Simpson / Bruckheimer team. Consciously made to appeal to the blue-collar crowd. Works well.

(On TV, August 1998) Far from being as good as the other humans-and-toons comedy Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but at least has the merit to try for a more adult approach. I say “try”, because ultimately the adult potential of the movie (and there is a lot of it), seems diluted in atrociously unfunny adolescent antics that end up cheapening the rest. A considerable disappointment. This movie should have been re-written for a hard-R rating.

(On TV, August 1998) Now, why are people calling this Mel Brook’s greatest movie? It’s amusing, but not funny. It has its moments, but doesn’t sustain them. Some bits are fun, but most aren’t. Even Spaceballs was better. Seems to me that the western genre is ripe for another send-off. (Although, to be fair, the pacing of modern comedies is so much more frantic that it probably spoils what must have been hilarious twenty-five years ago.)

(In theaters, August 1998) For a reason I cannot fathom, Baseketball flopped badly, pulling in less than $5M on its opening weekend to finish 11^th at the box office tally. It was at our local dollar-theatre its second week. For $2.75C., it couldn’t be much of a disappointment, and wasn’t. Baseketball is funny. Not a classic, not a very good comedy, but a relatively satisfying one. Moments of cleverness lurk behind the remainder of this enjoyably silly movie. I predict a certain cult-status among late-night movie fans. Give or take a star whether you like cheerleaders in tight black leather underwear or not. It’s that kind of movie.

(Second viewing, On DVD, August 2002) I was one of the few supporters of the film when it was first released (and then promptly sank at the box-office), but a look at the film four years later only confirms my moderate enthusiasm. Hey, I still think it’s one of the most solid spoofs of the late nineties, but I’m not quite as taken by the (relatively modest, given its latter contemporaries) degree of gross-out humor or the often-inconsistent pacing. The film sets itself in a familiar narrative structure that’s very comfortable but doesn’t do much to spoof itself. It’s too bad that the film’s tone never equals its brilliant first two minutes about the decline of professional sports. There are several lulls, and a lack of background gags but there are also a few good moments and the two lead actors pull their own. Give it a try if you still haven’t seen it. The DVD contains a perfunctory making-of, but not much more.

(In theaters, July 1998) As a casual fan of the TV show, I was adequately satisfied by this adaptation, which retains most of the qualities and faults of the TV show. On one hand, it irresponsibly promotes goofy conspiracy theories, makes no attempt at internal consistency, confuses “complexity” with “incoherence” and can’t have the guts to answer its own questions. One the other hand, it’s beautifully cinematographed, competently realized, fairly entertaining and the leads actors have a nice chemistry. A good TV episode, it’s a bit of a let-down -content-wise- on the big-screen. Wait for the video.

(In theaters, July 1998) You wouldn’t expect a film about guys stalking a woman to be hilariously funny, and yet it is. In the not-so-grand tradition of the “gross-out” school of comedy (see Dumb & Dumber), here comes There’s Something About Mary, which uses props such as mentally retarded people, crutches, bodily fluids, genitalia-caught-in-zipper, sun-wrinkled breasts, homosexuals, hyperactive pets and almost-dead dogs. It’s vile, disgusting, not subtle but also incredibly hilarious… but you will hate yourself for laughing at these things. (The movie is very probably lost on anyone older than 25.) In short: Very funny, but I can’t recommend it.