Movie Review

(In theaters, May 2000) A writer is sent to a rehab clinic. Now that’s a premise that can either be milked for maximum pathos or maximum mirth. 28 Days ends up trying both and ending up with neither. Granted, the first tip-off that this is going to be safely middle-of-the-road tripe comes right before the title, when you see that Sandra Bullock is headlining the film. After that, you can expect all the usual clichés: The hunky love interest. The escape attempt. The suicidal roommate. The wacky gay guy. Granted, this is all far more entertaining that I was expecting, but it still doesn’t make of this film anything worth remembering. And what’s up with the final horse thing? Couldn’t that be any more convenient?

(In theaters, April 2000) A fresh return to the rah-rah-rah school of war movies, a gleeful throwback to a time where cinematographic war wasn’t hell, and surely wasn’t complicated by abstract concepts of moral ambiguity. Here, our heroes are red-blooded Americans and our enemies are civilian-shooting evil Nazis. For once, no confusion and no dithering; just an old-fashioned wartime adventure that will glue you in your seat for a zippy 90 minutes. Director Jonathan Mostow delivers the goods and even though the script is strictly from the cookie-cutter school of screenwriting (the end is abrupt and every non-action scene should be subtitled Foreshadowing), it’s almost guaranteed that you won’t be bored. Good special effects (except for the unfortunate end explosion) mesh with the convincing sets to create a good historical feel. This is everything you want in a good (not great) film: Heroes to cheer for, impossible odds, clear action and a thrilling victory. Be sure to buy a new sound system along with the DVD.

(On TV, April 2000) This is a nice little under-rated (when was the last time you heard of it?) SF film that deftly adapts and expands a quasi-classic SF short story in a manner that is both reverential and worthwhile. Jeff Bridges is quite good as the protagonist, a hotel owner who discovers that his clients are even weirder than they seem. The special effects are a bit… er… primitive, but the strength of the story carries the film. An auspicious debut for David Twohy, who would go on to prove his dedication to the genre in at least two other interesting-but-flawed films (The Arrival and Pitch Black). Worth a rental if you’re an SF fan.

(On TV, April 2000) An assassin from the Hong Kong underground is released from prison after a twelve-year term for murder. As soon as he’s out, he is contacted for a political assassination. He refuses, only to find himself framed for the very same job he was asked to do. Now, he’s got to avoid the police, the mob and collaborate with a shadowy group that might or might not want him dead at the end. It’s unusual to see this willingness to talk about political issues in Hong Kong films, but unfortunately, The Suspect‘s “political insider” scenes sound naive and unconvincing. More interesting are the action segments, though pyro fans will be disappointed: Apart from two rather good set-pieces (including a big-budget sequence on a downtown bridge), the film is closer to “thriller” than to straight-out action film. Things pick up somewhat during the last thirty minutes, but not enough. Somewhat long.

(On TV, April 2000) This shows the gonzo attitude of Hong Kong cinema better than any textual description. While the beginning is conventional (terrorists kidnap government scientists, demand ransom), the rest of the film quickly becomes weird (protagonists undergo hypno-training to fight terrorists) and then some (one protagonist turns hyperviolent…) Mixing decent special effects with a few fun action scenes and decidedly unconventional dramatic twists, Hot War‘s dramatic arc is about as classically un-Hollywood as action Hong Kong films can be. Refreshing, if not totally successful from a technical point of view.

(In theaters, April 2000) It so happens that Science-Fiction cinema is often best represented by modest low-key efforts rather than by big flashy blockbusters. Twelve Monkeys, 12:01 and Gattaca are three examples of SF films with minimal effects that nevertheless ranked as their respective year’s best SF films. Now Frequency joins their rank with distinction, popping up on SF fans’s radar screens with minimal fanfare but maximal effect. Time-travel tales are common, but they’re rarely as heartfelt as Frequency, which is -really- an ode to fatherhood disguised in SF trappings. A rather good script (despite more than a few causality problems) directed with tight efficiency supported by good acting; you can’t really go wrong with this film. Frequency works remarkably well and seems poised for a good enduring reputation.

(In theaters, April 2000) As a childhood fan of The Flintstones (practically a French-Canadian institution), I was prepared to be very indulgent toward this rather unexpected sequel. And, really, the best I can say about the film is that it’s not bad. No one will ever mistake it for a good film, but it’s rather enjoyable if you don’t come in with high expectations. The set design really fits in the overall Flintstones atmosphere, and the actors mostly adapt to the characters (only Kristen Johnson’s Wilma doesn’t quite match, but that doesn’t really matter seeing how Mark Addy’s Fred and Jeanne Krakowski’s Betty really act like their cartoon counterparts.) The pacing of the film flags down noticeably in the second half and the film can never make up its own mind as to whether it’s supposed to be for adults or for kids, but it can be watched with some pleasure. Sometime, that’s all you want.

(On TV, April 2000) This “police school” story has numerous problems. One would be the relative lack of action. Two: the setup is implausible, given that you’d expect elite force recruits to be already at a high level of police skills, not the raw-recruit level we see in the film. Another problem is the clichéd episodic nature of the film, what with the usual bonding scenes occurring more or less in the order you’d expect. The ending is also problematic, with our protagonists putting down an insurrection of interned Vietnamese foreign nationals –any Hollywood film trying to do something similar would be crucified by interest groups. There are enough good scenes to warrant a look, but not much more.

(In theaters, April 2000) Sit in your overpriced seats, my gullible friends! Watch in amazement as a plucky single mom takes on an evil money-grubbing corporate giant! Cheer as our spunky heroine sticks it to The Man! Laugh as she gets a two-million-dollar check for her efforts! Be entertained by this well-made, completely straightforward film by director Stephen Soderberg! Vote for Julia Roberts at next year’s Oscars ceremony! Do not ponder the repulsive subtext of the film! Do not question the film’s adherence to the “true story” of the events! Don’t be angered at the film’s gleeful representation of 40% lawyer fees! Don’t be annoyed at the glib glorification of the private arbitrage process! Above all, never pause to consider that this film shamelessly presents social justice as a form of lottery, where everyone who’s sick can be all right after winning a few million dollars! No, simply enjoy the film as it is, and conform to popular entertainment!

(On TV, March 2000) Now that’s the reason why I watch Hong Kong films. Released one year before Sliding Doors and Run Lola Run, this film presents the story of two alternate universes offered to a young Hong Kong mobster. Go to Taiwan or go to the Mainland. First we see one story, then the other. But beyond the cute premise, the true fun of the film is in the sheer inventiveness of the cinematography, from a fight filmed upside-down to another in pitch darkness, only illuminated by gun flashes. The camera becomes almost a character in its own right, with some very unusual movements. The rest of the film is a black crime comedy reminiscent of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, though skewed to Hong Kong tendencies. Worth a look, if you can find it.

(In theaters, March 2000) American filmmakers won’t manage to produce good martial arts film unless they understand that the attractiveness of these films’ fight sequences lies in the fight choreography. It is far more impressive to see thirty uninterrupted, uncut seconds of hand-to-hand fighting than to see thirty second’s worth of one-seconds cuts. One is easy and falsely exciting; the other is damnably hard to do, but awe-inspiring. That, in a nutshell is one of this action aficionado’s main problem with Romeo Must Die; it’s not up to Jet Li’s talent. The other problem lies in the mortally slow pacing, which sucks the energy out of the film. Fortunately, Jet Li rocks when he’s allowed to, and Aaliyah is a true-and-true dreamgirl. (Plus, Françoise Yip has a good cameo) At least the film is wonderfully pleasant in its matter-of-fact multicultural attitude. Worth your time if you’re an Hong Kong action film fan, but otherwise… this ain’t Romeo And Juliet.

(In theaters, March 2000) Horror is a curious genre, as it’s very dependent on its conclusion to successfully contextualize its initial eeriness. Explain too much, or produce a boring explanation (oh no, another vampire!) and the audience feels ripped off. Explain too little, or don’t explain at all, and the audience also feels ripped off. The Ninth Gate manages a superb first two hours, but then negates most of its impact with a gratuitously ambiguous ending that might or might not explain the past two hours. Too bad, really, because the first 5/6^th of the film are directed with skill (though the focus seems slightly off most of the time), written with some verve and carried by Johnny Depp’s character. Plus, the glimpse into rare-book collecting is fascinating, and makes us forget that the pace of the film is glacial and that not much happens for a horror story. But the finale, the finale… ow… It’s no coincidence if half the theatre audience groaned when the credits came up.

(In theaters, March 2000) A perfect example of what is colloquially known as the “Stupid Hollywood Sci-Fi Blockbuster”. It’s big, it’s loud, it’s really extremely accomplished in technical matters. Even the actors do a really good job. But, characteristically, the script is truly awful, filled with obvious lines you can predict, sudden character shift, silly science and one of the most awful saccharine ending in recent memory; how can you top the cheap-CGI weeping alien, or the let’s-hold-hands-around-the-planet-and-sing-Kumbaya silliness? As with Armageddon, one could built an entire presentation around the bad science in this film, but unlike Armageddon, it’s unlikely that one will manage to enjoy Mission To Mars on a purely visceral level: Uncharacteristically, Brian de Palma’s direction is limp, obvious and mostly without pep. The consistently inappropriate score only highlights the failures of the film at providing excitement. Savvy Viewers ready to give chances to Mission To Mars (after all, for each four or six stupid things, it usually gets one crucial detail right, like the zero-gee effects) will probably give up after the laugh-aloud finale, and rightfully rank this as one of the worst big films of 2000.

(On TV, March 2000) The reputation of Robert Rodriguez’s first, ultra-cheap (16,000$, financed with credit card and blood donations) action film overshadows its actual value, but even then, expect to be pleasantly surprised by this rather simple crime tale. This modern-day western -well-set in Mexico- with requisite good-guy, bad-guy and cute-chick, has its dull moments but also its good ones. The better-known -and more enjoyable- sequel, Desperado, is really a bigger-budget rehash of the same elements more than a sequel. While not essential, El Mariachi is a pretty good choice for Rodriguez fans, and/or anyone looking for a slightly different action film.

(Second viewing, On DVD, March 2004) There are few clearer examples of “the little film that could” than this one: Produced for peanuts by Robert Rodriguez, who used the unexpected success of the film to go on to other, better things, El Mariachi benefits enormously from this “Special Edition” DVD treatment. Anyone who’s familiar with the Rodriguez oeuvre on DVD knows that the man is a ceaseless fount of fascinating information, and so his audio commentary on the film is packed with production anecdotes and tips on how to save money on a low-budget shoot. The film itself has its moments, but it’s a lot more interesting as an example of what can be done with nothing than a full action thriller. Director Robert Rodriguez’s first notable full-length feature is not a bad movie by itself, but it becomes far more astonishing once you know that it cost less than the price of a new car to shoot. In this light, the special edition DVD is a must-see for all budding filmmakers and cinema enthusiasts, because Rodriguez spares no effort in showing us How It’s Done For Nothing, from deceptive camera angles to the usefulness of having local connections. The DVD’s best extra is the director’s commentary, which is (as Rodriguez fans may know from other commentaries) jam-packed with information about the actual making of the film. Wonderful stuff, somewhat complemented by another of his “Ten-minute film school” featurettes. The film is good, but the surrounding material is just great. Don’t skimp on the supplemental material on the DVD, as they give a further behind-the-scene glimpse of the making of the film. While I’d be surprised if general audiences really got into the film, cinephiles and budding directors will be endlessly fascinated.

(In theaters, March 2000) I was rather less impressed by this film than most pro critics. Besides some fun time-jumping here and there, The Limey is, at its heart, a fairly plain revenge story we’ve seen a few times around. The low-budget of the film can’t sustain extensive actions scenes, but fortunately Terence Stamp is there to carry the film on sheer hard-boiled attitude. Better than the average B-grade action film, but that’s what it remains.