Movie Review

(On VHS, July 1999) This direct-to-video film starring Jackie Chan is, well, deservedly straight-to-video. Though still adhering to Chan’s usual standards of goofy action fun, it takes a long while to revv up, meanders with a needlessly complicated plot (which never makes too much sense) and is far less amusing than his other movies. Fortunately, things pick up in the second half, with some dynamic (but not really eye-popping) fighting and stunts. Otherwise, the movie can boast of rather good production values (with special effects) and a less-misogynistic use of actresses. The car chase is fun, with a fun hack on the Diamonds Are Forever two-wheel-driving stunt. Recommended to Chan fans only, and even then at low rental prices.

(On TV, July 1999) This made-for-TV movie will try to make you believe in Stephen Baldwin as a marooned engineer who manages to build an agrarian culture on a desert planet and defend it against The Bad Guys. It has some good moments (the engineer-as-hero, Lisa Bonet, some dialogue), but is overwhelmed by the bad moments we’ve all seen before (the annoying kid, the fights, the ridiculous “sand pirates”, etc…) Not bad, but somewhat boring.

(In theaters, July 1999) I still can’t fathom why critics savaged this film. Not only is it a perfectly respectable kid’s movie, but it’s got enough humor, action, Special Effects and clever wit to hold everyone’s attention for its dynamic 90 minutes. The opening sequence alone is so wickedly over the top that I was clapping in unrestrained admiration barely sixty seconds into the movie. Matthew Broderick plays his role well and Rupert Everett turns in a delicious performance as the megalomaniac. Parodies abound: Robocop, Mission: Impossible, even Godzilla in a scene that had me shrieking with laughter. The special-effects alone are very well-integrated in the story, promising almost a surprise a minute. Directed with competence and written with better-than-average skills, -it’s mostly clean humor too- it would be a mistake to miss Inspector Gadget. Go, go, gadget video!

(On VHS, July 1999) Why did I miss this in theatres? A charming little movie faithfully echoing the Flashdance paradigm (cleverly cited) of ordinary people being transformed by… er… art and personal self-fulfillment. No, but really: A quirky, comic British film that’s just too sympathetic to miss. Some obvious jokes, but also some delightful moments. Perhaps a bit lower on the laugh-o-meter than its reputation has made it to be, but still worthwhile. Never mean-spirited, and always in good taste despite the raunchy potential of the material. Could have used an epilogue, maybe over the end credits. Great soundtrack, of course.

(In theaters, July 1999) I don’t worship Stanley Kubrick and this film won’t change my mind. Long-anticipated and released in the midst of controversy, this is a movie that actually lets people see what they want in it. It is a bore; it is a masterpiece. It’s filled with undressed women; it’s hugely unexciting (The most erotic scene is, curiously, a kiss between two fully-clothed adults). It’s a love story; it’s a conspiracy thriller. It’s beautiful; it’s ugly. It’s too long; it’s too short. It’s easy to see that Eyes Wide Shut is the kind of movie that has it both ways, by being simultaneously an empty disappointment and a multi-layered success. Me, I’m ambivalent: I thought it was too long, focused on the wrong story (the couple rather than the secret society), not as hard-hitting as it could have been and not as well-scripted at it should have been, but also found it beautifully directed, with involving questions, good acting and a half-naked Leelee Sobieski. Oh, pervert that I am…

(In theaters, July 1999) Wildly uneven pseudo-documentary about a small-town beauty pageant that turns really ugly (the pageant, not the movie). Often wickedly funny in a mean-spirited black humor way, with gags that go all the way from slapstick to social satire. The mockumentary approach is unconvincing, with its occasional jump-cuts, multiple camera edits and other contrived techniques. Not as subtle as it should have been. Should have used a narrator-driven approach, like Bob Roberts or Fear Of A Black Hat. Kirsten Dunst is adorable. Goes on for at least ten unnecessary minutes. A marginal rental choice, but a late-night movie treat.

(On TV, July 1999) The lovely Joanna Pacula (The Silence Of The Hams, Virus) continues her streak of being the most watcheable element in otherwise disappointing movies. This straight-to-video SF thriller mixes elements of detective fiction (a Pi, tortured by remorse, accepts a protection contract) with SF gadgets (nano-enhanced unkillable characters) and ends up as a film without the means to accomplish its goals. Though not without potential, Deep Red loses itself in incoherencies, unresolved plot threads and too-convenient developments. Maybe they could have saved on one of the three explosions and hired another writer… Besides Pacula, Michael Biehn (The Terminator) and John De Lancie (Star Trek: TNG) also star.

(In theaters, July 1999) Now that’s what’s a summer action movie is all about. Ignore the bad dialogue. Ignore this curious impression of déjà-vu. Ignore the bargain-basement Frankenstein lesson. Focus. Focus on the wonderfully-written action scenes. Focus on the unrelenting tension. Focus on the superbly coherent editing. Deep Blue Sea, despite its lack of intelligence, is a very clever movie in what counts; the action and the suspense. Scarier than most horror films despite not being billed as a scary movie, Deep Blue Sea redeems all of its significant flaws by been exceedingly good at pleasing the audience. It does what it has to do and does it very, very well. Special mention must be made of a totally unexpected scene that completely took our theatre by surprise. I laughed, I whooped, I gasped, I clapped: What more would I want?

(On TV, July 1999) At its heart, a one-joke sketch stretched out over ninety minutes and thirty minute’s budget: To bolster weapon sales, a capitalist convinces the United States to declare war on Canada. Starring John Candy, Alan Alda and Rhea Perlman, this intermittently funny movie paints far too good a portrait of Canada, though most Canadians will appreciate the effort. A mildly pleasant late-night movie, obviously more interesting to Canadians than Americans… A good double feature with Wag The Dog.

(On TV, July 1999) Long before David Cronenberg’s Existenz, Brainscan -superficially- explored the issues surrounding the nature of reality in an age of Virtual Reality games. Of course, this being a low-brow horror film, the result wasn’t as interesting. Still, there are a few interesting elements, though it progressively gets sillier as it advances. Besides being “all a dream”, Brainscan can’t be bothered to adhere rigidly to the rules it sets for itself, and so we get a senseless script that pretty much boasts of its senselessness. The weak payoff at the end doesn’t redeem the movie. No nudity and few good one-liners make this a marginal choice for late-night TV viewing.

(In theaters, July 1999) This didn’t work for me. Widely over-hyped as being one of the scariest movies ever made, this ultra-low-budget film is a pretty good illustration of how a clever premise can be far more intriguing than the end result. (It’s also a study in how originality and web-savvy marketing can lend itself to a boffo opening-weekend promotional push.) Unfortunately, as I’ve lamented elsewhere, originality must not be confused with entertainment and artistic merit. The Blair Witch Project is, all things considered, a fairly ordinary film that quits before getting really unnerving. (What would I have considered really unnerving? How about the true self-destruction of the trio without resort to artificial means like the witch?) The constant shaking of the handheld camera footage is immensely distracting in theatres. Charges that “this movie stimulate your imagination, you barbarian” are laughable, considering that written horror has been doing that for… oh… more than a hundred years now. While I won’t deny the effect of The Blair Witch Project on many viewers (especially those gullible enough to believe it’s “a true story”), I simply couldn’t muster any lasting feeling about it; I slept well that night. For me, the scariest thing about this film is the prospect of endless rip-offs…

(On TV, July 1999) The last gasp of the “buddy-cop” series of movies produced by Hollywood between 1984 and 1995. The ingredients are simple; two policemen protagonist with opposing personalities, drug dealers as antagonists, sunny weather, big guns and a bunch of action sequences. What makes Bad Boys special isn’t so much the rehashed plot or the Florida locale, but the dynamic direction of Michael Bay and the ineffable charm of Will Smith. Otherwise, the characters of Téa Leoni and Martin Lawrence are annoying, and so are the alleged “comedic” moments. The can-you-possibly-be-more-clichéd demise of the villain is also pretty weak. In summary: Check out the action scenes and fast-forward the rest.

(In theaters, June 1999) This has a very good central idea. The problem is that it has basically just one, and that it is fairly obvious to experienced SF readers. Thirty minutes in the movie -if not earlier-, the astute viewer is way ahead of the characters; fifteen minutes before the end, he can write the remainder of the script himself. Still, The Thirteenth Floor is very well-done, and develops in a way that far more subtle than the usual media-SF histrionics. Plus, the central concept itself is really thought-provoking. Any other year, and The Thirteenth Floor would have garnered raves everywhere. But in 1999, right after Dark City, The Truman Show, The Matrix and Existenz, understated dishes like that taste like leftovers.

(Second viewing, on DVD, June 2009): Generally overshadowed upon release by the showy pyrotechnics of The Matrix and the weirdness of Existenz, this third virtual-reality film of 1999 nonetheless holds up pretty well today: The nature of 1930s Los Angeles is blended with nineties L.A. to produce a glossy piece that plays up drama rather than techno elements. It’s undemanding SF, and it’s perhaps more intriguing because of it. Dramatically, there are a few clichés and a Big Revelation that’s Really Obvious, but no major fatal missteps: The actors do well, the revelations are held in check, and there’s a little bit of sense-of-wonder to top it all off. This isn’t a big or complicated film and however good it is, there’s a limit to how much discussion it can sustain. But it’s still worth a look, and the DVD edition presents a decent amount of deleted scenes, production notes and a decent audio commentary focused on the making of the film.