Movie Review

(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.

(On TV, March 1999) The biggest problem of this film is that it’s a quasi-parody of action movie clichés (including the infamous outrun-the-explosion idiocy) that takes itself seriously. I hesitate to place the blame on Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson (though Davis plays it so that “Charlie” is actually less interesting/attractive than “Samantha”) so scriptwriter Shane (Lethal Weapon) Black deserves all complaints. Still, there are a few good action sequences… but don’t be surprised to find yourself wishing for a more focused film from the rather good basic premise.

(In theaters, March 1999) This film not only has one of the best titles of the year, but will probably also stand out on my year’s end list as having one of the most convoluted plot I’ve seen recently. It starts out with a rigged poker game and ends up as one riotously funny crime comedy. Bodies pile up like cordwood, but the audience never stops laughing. It’s unfortunate that the thick English accents often distract from the plot (though it’s far worse at the beginning), so the rumors of a Tom-Cruise-produced American remake don’t disturb me as much as they should. While it is true that the characters might have been fleshed-out a bit more -probably beginning by reducing their numbers from the start-, Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels is directed with great flair and benefits from a good soundtrack. (The inclusion of “Payback” is appropriate, given that it shares at least an attitude with the Mel Gibson vehicle.) Aptly described as a meeting between Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction, this film is worth your time.

(Second viewing, On DVD, October 2001) Revisiting this film after two years and director Guy Richie’s second feature –Snatch– is a lot like a short visit to a few rowdy friends. Yes, the film holds up quite well to another viewing. Granted, Snatch is a more polished film and a cooler piece of cinema, but you won’t feel cheated by Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. The directing, editing and complex storyline will manage to astonish you again. The DVD adds the essential subtitles, hurrah! A great crime comedy. You know you want to see it another time.

(On TV, March 1999) What happens when you adapt an original, but murderously slow seventies gothic romance/horror novel to the cinema of the nineties? Something really enjoyable, actually. The comatic prose of the novel is gone, so we’re free to enjoy the relatively fun story of Anne Rice’s vampires. Good production values (influenced by fire fetishism), a high giggle factor and a better-than-average script make this a relatively worthwhile moment to spend. Far more so than reading the novel.

(In theaters, March 1999) Much better than its source material, the French-Canadian film Louis 19. Professional direction (by Ron Howard), competent actors (McConaughey! Landau! Harrelson! Hurley! Hopper!) and a sharp script (until the third act, that is…) make this a pretty slick, kind of enjoyable comedy. Obvious parallels exist between EdTV and The Truman Show, but I believe that if The Truman Show had both the merits and handicaps of brilliance, EdTV might be the most enjoyable of both films. (In any case, the show/audience relationship is best presented in EdTV.) It’s worth a look. If anyone in HollywoodLand wants an idea for EdTV 2, here’s one: Why not replace Ed with someone who’s really smart who really understands from the start the position he’s in?

(In theaters, March 1999) This film isn’t very good, but it’s much more entertaining than what one might expect. A hilariously “modern” adaptation of French 18^th century novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Cruel Intentions benefits from the strength of the original material to stand heads and shoulders above the other rather insipid “teen romance” movies. The film isn’t believable as itself, but acquires an extra dimension when you consider the various tweaks and changes they’ve made to take an old novel and present it to modern audiences. (Eg; Sebastian’s money-driven charm is implausible in itself, but entirely believable when considering the original aristocratic character.) Surprisingly tame for its raunchy potential, it manages a few good moments—like the “Bittersweet Symphony” ending. While Cruel Intentions was hailed as “not a good date movie”, I must report that my two straight-laced female companions did like the film.

(On TV, March 1999) Regular readers of these reviews already know that I’m always in the market for a good techno-thriller, so it’s no surprise if I liked Crimson Tide as much as I did. A good story (from submarine thriller novelist Richard P. Hendrick) and a fine script, plus the always-excellent Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman make this a tense, solid underwater suspense. Obviously a guy’s type of movie (was there even one female after the first ten minutes?), but a good one. Worth a rental on video.

(In theaters, March 1999) Despite the frosty critical consensus, I thought that this was a pretty darn fine B-series action movie. Of course, I’m almost a card-carrying fan of both Chow-Yun Fat and “Marky” Mark Wahlberg -for the music and the acting-, so I’m not exactly objective in the matter. Still, it has a crunchy story, with a few good action scenes (a car chase in which pedestrians get wounded! Imagine that!) and a tone reminiscent to Fat’s previous Hong Kong movies. On the other hand, I must admit that the action scenes aren’t very well directed, the script could be improved and the final battle isn’t very exciting. Still, it’s a good popcorn film if you’re in the mood for some action.