Movie Review

(In theaters, May 1999) This film despite what one might infer from the plot (which revolves around a High-School Council presidential race), is too original to be simply considered a “teen movie”. Unfortunately, as with Rushmore, it’s not enough to be original is you want to be enjoyable. Election is -fittingly enough for its chosen sub-genre- a film with identity problems. It’s a tale where the protagonist is not the good guy and the antagonist is not the bad girl. It’s a tragedy with pretensions of comedy seen through the eyes of the loser who thinks he did the right thing. I ended up cheering for Tracy Flick and agreeing with her assertion that “great minds are always brought down by idiots”. As a former High School council president, I experienced a bit of flashback when a candidate voted for the other because “it didn’t seem right to vote for myself”: Been there, done that, won the election. Election, on the other hand, is a mixed bag of elements not fully integrated.

(Second viewing, On TV, May 1999) “Oh, I’ll just re-watch the first fifteen minutes” (…) “Hmmm, I’ll just watch until after Salma Hayek comes in” (…) “Hey, there’s a good action scene coming up after the nude scene” (…) “Gee, what the heck, I’ll watch it all again”. Desperado sits on my Top-100 favorite movies list and re-watching it only highlights why it’s there: The story in itself is ordinary (man goes after bad guy, gets in gunfights, meets girl) but the treatment is superlative. The directing style is wonderfully kinetic, the script pushes everything over the top, Banderas and Hayek make a couple of Beautiful People… Desperado is a modern western with an far-east attitude, a mix of John Wayne and John Woo with a style of its own. If anything, it’s even more interesting the second time around, as you’re able to appreciate the technique even more. (Though the “missiles” effect now looks obvious.) Watch it again.

(Third viewing, On DVD, April 2004) Goodness gracious, I so love this film. The action scenes are low-budget miracles. The character introductions have seldom been more effective. The whole western-meets-Hong Kong-action vibe is delicious. The principal casting is perfect. Salma Hayek has rarely been so drop-dead gorgeous. I’m still pretty annoyed by the let-down ending, but at least the good audio commentary by writer/director Robert Rodriguez helps to explain why it feels like such a cheat. (While a bit less polished than his usual commentaries, Rodriguez’s track is very informative as to the technical making of the film) A smattering of small documentaries complete the special edition DVD package, a must for any action enthusiast.

(On TV, May 1999) A pretty curious made-for-TV movie, structurally speaking. Presented in two two-hour parts, it has the particularity that the first half (A train racing to destruction!) is far more involving than the second one (Denver destroyed by an atomic explosion, the aftermath!). Some easy cutting would not only have brought the movie back to a more manageable 120 minutes, without sacrificing the action sequences. At least three useless “family drama” subplots bring the movie to a grinding halt. The result is a stupid (no points for science or logic, here…) bloated mess that damnably shows the promise of a pretty decent action B-movie.

(In theaters, May 1999) The story of a man’s slow and inevitable descent in insanity and violence. It’s not a feel-good movie; there is no redemption. (Though there’s a car chase) Call me crazy, but I prefer happy endings. On the other hand, the performances are top-notch and the direction surprisingly interesting at a few moments. I also, for some reason, really liked Willem Dafoe’s narration and character. If you’re able to distinguish between enjoyment and appreciation, you’ll find that this is a very good movie, but that you probably won’t watch it again for fun. Not exactly a good date movie. (Oh, and it’s perfectly clear that no one in the production of the movie knows anything about sub-zero winter and snow; just watch Nolte and Defoe try to shovel the garage driveway. Hilarious!)

(On TV, April 1999) The presence of sultry Catherine Zeta-Jones in this movie immediately reminded me of The Mask Of Zorro, and that’s the frame of mind in which The Phantom is best-appreciated. A charmingly quaint adventure story set in the 1930s, this movie adroitly straddles the line between self-awareness and camp and the result is something that is far too sympathetic to dislike. Billy Zane pulls off a role that requires him to parade in a skin-tight purple jumpsuit (!) without embarrassing himself too much. Though inconsistent with its approach to the supernatural (The Phantom isn’t; the villain is) and a bit overlong in its middle part, this movie is a good choice for a family adventure film.

(On TV, April 1999) Very uneven collection of three sketches supposedly about deadly sins. The first one (“Lust”) is promising but ends on a “conclusion” that’s both pointless and senseless. (Hey! Isn’t it supposed to be about a deadly sin?) The second sketch (“Greed”) is not only the longest, but also the best. A sharp satire about the media, it’s worth watching by itself. (Though maybe five minutes overlong.) The third piece (“Anger”) stars the repulsive Andrew Clay, who pretty much sinks whatever value the sketch might have once had.

(In theaters, April 1999) This film won’t win any awards, will probably be forgotten by most viewers one week after seeing it, but still remains adequate entertainment. Though low on hilarity and deficient in charm, it still remains a rather pleasant date movie and should be caught on television. David Spade is misused (too much sweetness, not enough bite), as are the two great French actors Sophie Marceau and the dapper-looking Patrick Bruel (both of whom should have spoken French when talking to each other.) The script could have used another re-write, to remove the annoying final tag, strengthen the sidekick and tighten the middle act. Ironically, the two sequences that remain in mind are musically-oriented, with Spade triumphing with a Neil Diamond song and the final dance montage. Let’s face it; no movie using Dee-Lite’s “Groove is in the Heart” twice is worthless.

(In theaters, April 1999) I didn’t expect much from this film, and was thus pleasantly entertained by this slight, sharp, funny film. A succession of three interlinked tales, Go overcomes the shadows of both its teen target audience and its Pulp Fictionish approach to plot by producing a film that is entertaining from start to finish. Some great sequences (The Macarena, the thinking cat, the car chase) pepper a good script and the directing is up to the task. My chief complaint -and it took me some time to realize what it was- is that by the end of the film, you get the impression that none of the rather obnoxious characters had been changed by the events of the movie; they will remember the events of the film no differently than us, as an entertaining diversion…. Still, this caveat aside, Go is a pretty darn good choice for video rental. Go!

(Second viewing, On DVD, November 2000) One of the best teen-comedies of 1999, Go‘s inconsequential nature grates upon a second viewing. As the audio commentary explains, the goal of the film is to “show young people doing stupid things and getting away with it.” While the stupid things are still as entertaining as before, their ultimate lack of impact is unsatisfying. The DVD includes many deleted scenes (some good, some not) and three music videos, the best of the bunch being for Philip Steir’s remix of Steppenwolf’s “Magic Carpet Ride”. (Steir being a studio musician, the clip is presented as a deleted scene, as the characters from the Las Vegas segment impersonate a featured band.) Still worth a viewing, if only for the good writing, unusual characters and time-shifting structure.

(On TV, April 1999) Everyone is forever marked by the music of their teen years and as luck had it, I ended up being fifteen in 1990. Which probably helps a lot to appreciate Fear Of A Black Hat, an absolutely riotous (!) mock-documentary about the rise, fall, breakup and reunion of a black gangsta-type rap group. Skewering targets from Vanilla Ice, M.C. Hammer, Salt-n-Pepa (and, retroactively, the Spice Girls!), C&C Music Factory, etc… Fear Of A Black Hat is nothing short of hilarious. The best parts of the movies are undoubtedly the mock MTV videos. Though weak in its latter third and making an inconsistent use of the documentary approach, Fear Of A Black Hat is one of the funniest films I’ve seen recently and most assuredly one of the top musical comedies of the nineties. Do yourself a favor and look for this one.

(Second viewing, On DVD, July 2006) Everyone’s got their own little favourite films, and this is one of mine. A rap mockumentary solidly modelled after the classic Spinal Tap, this takes on the rap industry of the early nineties. Like Spinal Tap, it’s a lost less funny now after fifteen year’s worth of self-parodying hip-hop… but it’s still worth a look. Good music, fast jokes, clever writing and loose acting make this a treat for everyone, though fans of old-school rap will get a lot more out of it. The long-awaited DVD release offers a bunch of extras, some of which are fantastic (don’t miss writer/director Rusty Cundieff’s absorbing audio commentary, or the compilation of music videos from the film) and some of which are lame (you could miss the “reunion” audio interviews, at least if it wasn’t for the cute interviewer). Fans of the film will be pleased by the DVD; I certainly was, and my expectations were high.

(On TV, April 1999) Curiously tame spoof of erotic thrillers (Fatal Attraction and Basic Instinct, mostly, obviously) best caught on TV, not rented: Even though constantly amusing, it’s not exactly hilarious and fails to make the most of its opportunities. Armand Assante is quite good, though the remainder of the cast fades in the background. Put it at a level above Robin Hood: Men In Tights, equal with The Silence Of The Hams but below any of the early Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker films such as Airplane!, Top Secret! and Hot Shots!.

(On TV, April 1999) Many critics are prompt to blast even the finest martial arts movies, but they haven’t recalibrated their bad-movie standards with films like Blackbelt. It’s hard to know even where to begin in an enumeration of faults. The concept (rock singer, threatened by psycho, hires bodyguard) is cliché, the acting is… er… unconvincing (the opening generic takes the time to list martial arts credentials after the relevant names), the treatment of women is repulsive, the editing is awful, the choreography isn’t impressive, the sets look incredibly cheap (including a battle in a warehouse of… empty boxes?) and the script is strictly on autopilot. Watch something else. This isn’t even worth your time.

(In theaters, March 1999) It takes less than five minutes to realize that one will go crazy trying to evaluate Wing Commander as good Science-Fiction in the purest terms. But even considering it as B-grade MST3K material isn’t as satisfying as one might expect. The script is generally quite poor, with particular awfulness being reserved for two howlingly funny “dramatic” scenes. It takes nearly ever war/space cliché and throws them together, going far beyond the usual “sounds in space” blunders. Even worse; I realized halfway through that the movie was boring. Even the space battles and fancy special effects don’t arouse interest. The directing is average, the acting is average, the special effects aren’t that special… Wing Commander only poses one question: What did we SF fans do to get a genre with movies like this?

(In theaters, March 1999) It’s unfortunate that Rushmore‘s biggest claim to excellence are the things it doesn’t do rather than what is actually shown on-screen. Granted, it takes genius nowadays to make an original coming-of-age film, but doing so doesn’t ensure success. The star of Rushmore is its protagonist Max, a brilliant (?) student who can’t be categorized with easy clichés but doesn’t necessarily deserve unqualified sympathy from the audience. (Why does he keep on pursuing the teacher when the Asian girl is so much hotter?) The script itself is fairly good, but oscillates between the absurd and the realistic in a way that tantalizes audiences with the promise of a far funnier film.

(On TV, March 1999) This conspiracy thriller has a good reputation among film buffs, but it doesn’t really deserve it. The problem is not so much the typically-dark seventies ending, but the lack of satisfaction given by the film. We never adequately find out what’s the matter with the Parallax corporation, or get explanations for some of the most outlandish events. If you add the slooow pacing and the inconsistent directing, the result isn’t really impressive.