Movie Review

(On VHS, July 1998) Incredibly convincing account of a U-boat submarine patrol in the middle of WW2, Das Boot ranks as one of the finest war movie I’ve seen. Mesmerizing, suspenseful, touching in its sincerity, Das Boot should be seen at least once. My “Director’s Cut” widescreen version was in German, with English subtitles. It works. This should be experienced on as big a screen as possible, with the best sound system you can afford to put together. It’s a bit longish in spots, but uses most of its long stretches to build suspense or develop characters. Don’t miss it. Makes a perfect double-feature for Saving Private Ryan.

(In theaters, July 1998) It gave me a headache, it frequently didn’t make any sense, had some of the goofiest science ever and the worst editing I’ve seen lately, but Armageddon was definitely a perfect summer blockbuster. It’s the second “something’s going to smash into the Earth!” movie of 1998, but whereas Deep Impact was okay drama, Armageddon is slam-bang action. The goofs are innumerable and I could probably prepare a good hour-long seminar on “Physics Armageddon writers should have studied”, but you’re unlikely to be bothered with it: just consider it a caricature. Okay acting, spectacular Special Effects, adequate characters… Complete nonsense, but it delivers. One truly enjoyable brainless audiovisual stunner, just perfect for the 4^th of July. I just wish for an extended director’s cut where they’ll use shots lasting more than three seconds.

(Second viewing, On TV, February 2001) Watching this on a TV screen with three year’s worth of hindsight is an instructive experience. Stripped of the hype and of the audiovisual pummelling prepared by director Michael Bay, the film proves to be better and worse than remembered. For one thing, despite all his problems with coherent editing, it’s difficult not to be impressed with the dynamism of Bay’s direction: moving cameras, beautiful framing, interesting setups, wonderful colors. Indeed, the first half-hour of Armageddon is a top-notch, A+ thrill ride, with what may be the most extravagant action scene yet put to film (the destruction of New York, with its orgy of exploding cars). It’s in the latter part of the film that things don’t go as well. While the script works well as a comedic action film, it never takes off when it attempts to build love scenes (the infamous “animal crackers” bit), drama (“That salesman is your father!”) or heroic sacrifice ([spoiler]) The last half-hour is not only far too long and repetitive, but the editing problems get worse (it’s virtually impossible to have a clear idea of what’s happening) and the script problems also deteriorate in unintentional ridiculousness that clashes more and more with the heroic tone of the film. At least no dollar has been spared to bring us the pictures (some of which only last a flash or two) and most often than not, the pictures are worth looking at, while they’re still on the screen.

(In theaters, June 1998) “The best movie of the decade”? Not really. “One of the better Hollywood films in a while?” Probably. Penned by Andrew Nicol (of the excellent Gattaca, which shares many similarities with The Truman Show), this lighthearted (but darkish) socio-fiction is a surprisingly good vehicle for Jim Carrey (who had more or less prepared for this role with last year’s Liar Liar). The concept is about as high as they come (a man finds out that his whole life is a TV show) and so it’s no surprise that the movie isn’t as good as we would imagine it to be. Several aspects of the script, and the way it chose to resolve some issues, are especially disappointing and fall apart under closer scrutiny. But no matter: The Truman Show, like Gattaca, works better when considered as a loose metaphor rather than an literal work. It’s not close to being perfect, but it’s still recommended viewing. And the closing scene is almost perfect, although most viewers won’t realize that ultimately, the joke is about them.

(In theaters, June 1998) I do not like what I’ve read of Elmore Leonard, but he’s currently Hollywood’s darling author (with Get Shorty, Jackie Brown and Out Of Sight). His stories are slight tales of small-time crooks and overcomplicated heists. So, it’s a surprise to find out that while Out Of Sight keeps these flaws, it’s still better-constructed than most of the other movies I’ve seen this year. George Clooney is better than usual as the male protagonist and Jennifer Lopez is as good as his counterpart. Nice use of non-linear storytelling makes this a movie a notch over the rest. The last act is the best one, the comedic content being cranked up and the action being more focused. As for myself, I find my reaction to Out Of Sight to be an ominous sign of my cinematic preferences: While I can say that it’s one of the best movies I’ve seen this year so far, I think it would have been a better choice on video… I like my movies-at-the-theatre to be loud, explosive, Special Effects-filled and quick-paced.

(On TV, June 1998) Guys organize party, guys meet girls, guys get in trouble, guys get happy ending and girls. Now that the plot has been given away, let’s just say that House Party is a notch over the average entry in this genre mainly due to a certain innocent fun that’s present both in the actors, and in the making of this movie. Far from every joke works, but those who do, do. Since it’s a musical, it’s no wonder that the movie’s highlight comes at mid-point during a delightful dance sequence and a good-natured rapping contest. (The French translation I saw had at least the good taste to leave the rapping in the original English version!) Good-natured, mostly harmless fun.

(On TV, June 1998) Take possibly the best action director on the planet at the time (John Woo). Take one of the blandest action “star” of the moment (Jean-Claude Van Damme). Take one of the most routinely average B-movie action script possible. Mix’em up together and you get Hard Target, possibly the most beautifully directed action B-movie ever. It’s far beyond ludicrous, it doesn’t have any surprises, it’s impossibly outlandish, but even then the directing is so compelling that it elevates the whole to a watchable state. Woo couldn’t make it any good, but he could make it impressive. A portentous fore-runner to Broken Arrow, and the superlative Face/Off.

(On TV, June 1998) My sister was almost speechless when she realized that I was watching Grease for the first time. “It’s a classic!” she finally said. “It’s a movie that defined a generation!” Well, maybe not, but it has a certain naive charm. Never mind that their fifties is a complete figment of their imagination, Grease is fun to watch, especially with a young John Travolta (and an equally-young Jeff Conaway, of Babylon-5 fame) The songs aren’t that good, but there are at least two memorably snappy tunes (“Summer Nights” and “We go Together”). Mercifully, the French version I saw had the good sense to keep the musical numbers in their original English version.

(On VHS, June 1998) Before coming to America and directing Hard Target, Broken Arrow and Face/Off (each much better than the previous), John Woo was already a famous movie-maker in his native Hong Kong. There, he wrote are directed several action movies that are now coming over to North American video stores. The Killer is reportedly one of his best efforts. The film might seem a bit unpolished by Hollywood standards, but still contains a native energy that is amazing to watch. The gun battles are even more over the top than almost any other movie. The story, while not perfect, works. In its own way, The Killer is as preposterous as any Jackie Chan movie, but made dramatic rather than comedic. A quirky choice, but memorable.

(On TV, June 1998) This was actually the second time I saw the movie. The first time, I saw only the latter half of the movie, during which a hostage situation happens. This time around, I saw all the development. My conclusion is that it’s a pretty good hostage comedy, but that the first hour can be safely skipped. Otherwise, you get a movie that goes awry at mid-point. Robin Williams is okay. Oh, and the girls are pretty cute.

(In theaters, May 1998) After the usual “fun but dumb” thrill left by most movies, it’s refreshing to see a movie that let you use your mind at full gear throughout its running time. Unfortunately, The Spanish Prisoner isn’t half as smart as it would want us to believe… but we almost have to feel grateful for the attempt. This multiple-twists story is about an inventor who suddenly finds his life much more “interesting” after he invents a substantially profitable industrial process. He make friends, who might or might not be friends, and his company now might or might not want to give him full recognition. But don’t worry; as in The Usual Suspects, everything you think you know is wrong. The problem with tightly-plotted movies of this type is that they run the very real risk of being too complicated for their own good. And that’s exactly the problem of The Spanish Prisoner: Upon careful examination, several parts of the intricately crafted plot fall apart. Simply put, the chain of event in the movie could only have happened in a movie. Characters have to make dumb decisions, and commit even dumber acts. The movie simply rings false, an impression compounded by the unlikely dialogue. And of course, once you finally realize that this is the kind of twisty-turvy movie where no one is who s/he appears to be, you can safely predict the course of the plot by using inverse logic. Still, the acting’s good (especially Steve Martin, if you can believe it), the plot is entertaining and even though the plot is in its own way as preposterous as Godzilla‘s, at least it’s an intellectually ambitious failure. Definitely worth a video rental.