Movie Review

(On TV, June 1999) In this era of silly big-budget high-profile movies without a shred of redeeming value, there’s something to be said about a silly cheap B-movie that knows exactly what it is. (It does star Jean-Claude Van Damme…) Writer/Director Stephen de Souza isn’t as clever as he thinks he is (and could have done much better anyway), but adults and kids alike can watch Street Fighter without too much embarrassment. A few good one-liners, and some visual gags (like Kylie Minogue’s Cammy progressively evolving from straight-laced British major to blue-latex videogame heroine) pepper this rather enjoyable-in-a-silly-way film. A shame that Raul Julia’s career had to end with this. Oh, and Ming-Na Wen is… er… wow… Is it any wonder I’m developing an Asian fetish?

(Second Viewing, On TV, June 1999) I had first seen this film on video in 1993 or 1994, and kept mostly good memories of this SF drama. It’s a measure of either malleable memory or evolving tastes that a second viewing several years later provoked an almost exactly opposite impression: Many special effects look cheap in this era of computer-generated imagery, the acting is laughably bad, the plot is beyond ludicrous and the dialogue plain silly. The science is so wrong that it’s charitable to suspect that the writer hasn’t got a clue. While some sequences do crank up the tension effectively, they’re almost immediately overshadowed by the remainder of this lousy film. If SF is a genre that provokes speculation, the best that Solar Crisis can do is to make one wonder what the flaming heck were Charlton Heston and Jack Palance doing in this piece of celluloid trash.

(On TV, June 1999) Let’s establish right away that Adam Sandler and I have nothing in common. According to rumor, I read more books in a month than he’s read in his entire life. I flatter myself by thinking myself superior to his intended frat-boy audience. I was unable at first to sit through more than five minutes of Billy Madison. And yet, I found Happy Gilmore to be adequately amusing. Why was this tale of a reluctant golfer trying to do good so funny? Was it the hockey jokes? The non-sequitur humor? The cartoon violence? The (Subway) unrepentant (Subway) product (Subway) placement (including Subway)? Or the fact that I was high on a buzz of chocolate chip cookies? Whatever the reason, I might try to watch Billy Madison again. After a cookie binge. And a lobotomy.

(In theaters, June 1999) This belongs to the “twists and turns” school of black comedy, where the plot and the reversals are far more important than any of the other aspects save, perhaps, for the dark cinematography and intense direction. The genre does have built-in limits, which is where this movie flounders. At least two huge plot holes can be uncovered without effort, and the crucial test of your enjoyment is based of whether you’ll be able to ignore these flaws or not. Otherwise, Goodbye Lover includes the requisite kinky sex, well-paced deaths, cynical law representatives (Ellen Degeneres, in a good role), adulterous characters, psycho killers and sarcastic one-liners. The direction starts out great, then becomes ordinary. Not a first choice for a rental, but a good film to catch on late-night TV.

(In theaters, June 1999) This film has its moments of inspired amusement, though it’s hard to avoid being funny when dealing with a mobster going to a psychologist. Thought perhaps a bit less fun that I had been led to believe, the script is undoubtedly aimed to a more mature audience that the usual comedy. Some weird shifts in register (like the bizarre other wedding ceremony) give us a glimpse of a comedy that could have been less realistic but more hilarious. In any case, Robert De Niro turns in a good mobster performance despite unconvincing sobs, and Billy Crystal is tolerable as the psychiatrist.

(In theaters, May 1999) Gee, what can I say? This film is about review-proof as they come. Still, here are a few random impressions: The visual effects are simply awesome in the purest sense of the term “awesome”. The movie doesn’t take thirty seconds to make scientific errors. I’m feeling vaguely ashamed of my lecherous reaction to Natalie Portman. Jake Lloyd isn’t really annoying, though Jar Jar Binks is. The film is a failure at telling a good, original, independent story. The pod race is very exciting. You’re seen most of the movie elsewhere (including in the other Star Wars stories), sometime even twice in the case of Skywalker-blowing-up-enemy-bases-at-the-end. Was that A> ET, B> a chromed SR-71, C> A Trackball racquet, D> All of the above? I don’t find Darth Maul cool even if George Lucas has spent 2.5$ per man, woman and child in America to make me believe so. It wasn’t worth standing in line for. I can just see hordes of geeks without anything better to do creaming their shorts about the new bits of trivia from the movie; the horror, the wasted time of their lives! I’ll maintain that The Matrix was the coolest movie of Spring 1999, not Star Wars. Your handy guide to know who’s Natalie Portman: her two beauty marks on her cheeks. Me wanna see Samuel L. Jackson in big fight next movie. George Lucas should not only hire professional screenwriters, but also a scientific expert, a military advisor (because his tactics suck) and a director who knows what he’s doing. Immaculate conception? Maybe she was just drunk. “Mito-chloridian”… Is that the sound of rationalization I hear from you, George? Despite everything, Star Wars is loads of fun and will probably make my Top-10 list of 1999. Oh, heck, just go see it; it’s worth your money.

(Second viewing, On DVD, April 2002) Upon initial release, I was cautiously positive about “Episode I”; good eye candy can compensate for many flaws in my own evaluation scale, and it was hard to argue against another dose of Star Wars goodness. Granted, it doesn’t recapture any of the original trilogy’s magic; George Lucas won’t take that kind of chances any more, and won’t allow better craftsmen than he to improve his silly ideas. On DVD, The Phantom Menace isn’t much more fun, but neither is it much worse. In fact, the added supplemental material is so plentiful that it transforms a marginal SF movie in a recommended purchase. From the audio commentary to the unusually candid making-of (without even discussing the special effects vignettes), this DVD edition is a treasure trove of glimpses in uber-technological filmmaking. It’s fascinating material for fans and techno-geeks like me. (Don’t feel any shame, though, if you start laughing out loud during the segments where they praise Lucas’ writing abilities.) Make no mistake; the film is as dull as it was originally, but unlike in the theater, you can fast-forward through most of Jar-Jar’s scenes.

(In theaters, May 1999) A typical Jackie Chan film. You either like or you don’t. Though not a particularly good Chan movie -too much forced humor, lack of pacing, overlong scenes- Twin Dragons nevertheless serves a hefty portion of kung-fu action and physical comedy. Just ignore the sacrilegious lack of bloopers at the end, and the really bad special effects in two scenes (a shame, considering that the remainder of the “twin” effects are very well handled.)

(On TV, May 1999) No masterpiece here, but a rather satisfying action/police martial arts movie. Brandon Lee is likeable and has a good rapport with his fellow policeman co-star Dolph Lundgren. (Tia Carrere also appears, though she does nothing more substantial than being the damsel in distress) A few good action set-pieces, some fun lines, ludicrous plot if measured against real-world aspects—but clearly not meant to be. The fighting sequences could have benefited from lengthier editing. Not worth renting, but worth catching on the late-night show.

(On TV, May 1999) It would be easy to dismiss this film on its artificial dialogue, unrepentant didacticism and sometime-ridiculous scenes, but it’s actually not too bad considering the time in which it was produced. Interesting special effects for the time and a message that just can’t be out of fashion: “The stars or nothing!”

(On TV, May 1999) Now that is a bad movie. I am no fan of the series, but even the excessive original instalment had some wit and twisted charm. The second movie was half-good, half-bad, but the third one is just plain awful. Handled with all the emotional subtlety of a jackhammer in the face, this film feels more like an extended episode of the terrible TV show than something that managed to swindle money from moviegoers’ pockets. Of a certain occasional value as MST3K material, but more often too depressingly pathetic to be laughable.

(In theaters, May 1999) I normally enjoy Hong Kong action movies a lot, but for some reason, Black Mask left me wanting something more polished. Never mind the silly story and lousy dialogue: the action scenes are what counts, and the fact is that they’re not terribly well-shot. In terms of editing, director Daniel Lee is actually worse than the excessive short-cutter Michael Bay, and the result is a fury of sound and action that doesn’t let us time to appreciate Jet Li’s martial prowess, or form a coherent picture of what’s supposed to happen on-screen. The excessive usage of blood also diminishes the enjoyment I was looking for. Still, it’s a dynamic picture, and Françoise Yip is always worth a look. The hip-hop music is an interesting dubbing choice. Jet Li otherwise rocks.

(In theaters, May 1999) This film manages, despite the rather distasteful subject matter and inevitable conclusion, to be entertaining, funny and even poignant. Everyone shines in their respective roles. The script deservedly won an Oscar, and transforms what could have been a ponderous tale of impending death into something far more interesting than it could have been.

(In theaters, May 1999) That wacky Canadian Cronenberg strikes again with an average “What is Reality?” tale made more memorable by the use of biological “technology” and some scenes rather suggestive of anal sex. No, really. Two actresses shine, what with Jennifer Jason Leigh (As a champ game designer with a lovely hairdo! In a tight blue miniskirt!) and Sarah “Raaah!” Polley. While rather slow in its first hour, Existenz picks up and ends with a really enjoyable last five minutes. Some may be disappointed with its The Usual Suspects-type ending, but I came out of the theatre with a big goofy grin on my face, and any movie that manages that can’t be half-bad.

(In theaters, May 1999) Now here’s a splendid example of a good potential turned into barely adequate material. Where to start…? Catherine Zeta-Jones may be breathtakingly beautiful, but she plays her character like a spoiled child and seldom appears believable in any of her incarnations. Sean Connery is his dapper self, so darn cool that we can only wonder why he keeps playing into these awful films. Ving Rhames is wasted. The script -filled with awful dialogue- smells a lot like a first unedited draft. The editing is weak, avoiding to film a car chase but choosing to spend almost a full minute on Zeta-Jones’ gymnastics. There are plot holes big enough to drive a train car through. The ending is weak. The age differential between the two leads borders on the laughable. (My sister suggested that Baker should have been MacDonald’s long-lost daughter, which would have been interesting. She -my sister- has a future in screenwriting.) Only the heist sequences are rather good, if you exclude the extremely convenient escapes. The overall result is muddled enough to avoid recommendation.