Reviews

(In theaters, January 2003) It’s no secret that I consider Martin Lawrence to be one of the most useless actors working today. While he certainly doesn’t help National Security (an early candidate for “worst-of-year” status), he’s far from being the only thing wrong with this project. Almost always feeling like the result of high-speed crash between two very different projects, National Security doesn’t take a long time to suck. From the first scene onward, the uneasy mix of police drama (complete with a gunned-down partner) and urban comedy (complete with an unending stream of oh-so-witty police brutality jokes) grates more than it amuses. Lawrence’s limitations are more painful than ever: His character is repulsive (Yet irresistible to women? Give me a break: he’s a toad!), never sympathetic, unbearable when attempting to be sensitive and simply loathsome. Not a good foundation for a buddy comedy, especially when buddy Steve Zahn is wasted in a role that seems to belong in another film. The script is variously clichéd, unconvincing, senseless and drawn-out. Yes, the girls are hot and the action has its moments, but the climax is generally unimpressive, and there is a limit to the number of times we can see a car crash through a plate window without becoming jaded. There’s no really gentle way to say it: National Security is a big dumb failure, a trash movie even by the standards of Martin Lawrence films.

(In theaters, January 2003) It’s not a complicated cop story, but it’s told with plenty of style. Sometimes that’s all you need. Jason Patric is suitably understated as the flawed protagonist with plenty to prove, but it’s Ray Liotta who steals the show as a brutal policeman with even more to hide. The opening sequence is a visceral piece of extreme shakycam; the rest of the film is slower, but it builds to a crescendo of emotional exchanges that ought to rivet everyone’s attention. Writer/Director Joe Carnahan is a bit too scattered to be completely effective (his segues in dark humour stand out in a film that otherwise struggles for attention), but he knows how to use a camera. The look is raw, Detroit-winter cold (shot in Toronto), unpleasant and very realistic. Ultimately, this is a simple but compelling cop story, a gritty crime drama of the likes we hadn’t seen in a long while. It’s not for everyone, but fans of the sub-genre will bless the stars for sending a good film their way once in a while.

(On DVD, January 2003) Strong adaptation of Tom Clancy’s novel that actually assumes that the viewers will be able to follow along without too much hand-holding. It works rather well. There are a few mistakes and (only) a few liberties taken from the source material, but the on-screen result manages to be one of the only decent decent techno-thrillers even more than a decade later. Credibility seems to be the name of the game, from the military hardware sequences to the acting of the actors. (Despite a few gratuitously “thrilling” sequences and some unconvincing underwater effects.) Alec Baldwin makes a capable Jack Ryan, and the supporting cast is similarly apt at fulfilling the demands of their characters. Almost immediately absorbing, The Hunt For Red October holds its own for nearly all of its duration, with a slight dip it the conventional last few minutes. Still, good show. The first-generation DVD barely contains the film and the trailer, let alone any extras.

(In theaters, January 2003) The most impressive thing about this film is how it presents a fifties melodrama as a period piece, without once resorting to cheap irony or contemporary arrogance. While the story is simple (a perfect housewife discovers that her husband is gay and then falls in love with a black man), the tone is maintained with a great deal of control. It is possible to be bored and generally unsurprised by the film (which includes all the expected ostracism scenes), but it’s difficult not to respect the care with which it is fashioned. Save from the titling and some editing choices, the film looks and feels as if it could have been made at any time since 1958. Acting is top-notch, but particular attention has to be given to Dennis Haysbert, who finally comes to the forefront after several turns in smaller-scale projects. It’s easy to watch the film and make tongue-in-cheek comments about what’s going on, but writer/director Todd Haynes has something different, and very earnest in mind. One finally realizes that it would just be rude to be ironic in face of such raw sentiment.

(In theaters, January 2003) After The Ring, it’s hard to be generous to run-of-the-mill horror films, but even in normal circumstances, it would be pretty hard to get excited about Darkness Falls. It’s a monster movie like all others, except that it’s too strangely similar to Pitch Black and happens to steal at least one sequence from Requiem For A Dream. Once past the promising prologue, it’s dull, really. A killer tooth fairy? Come on, you can do better than that! A monster that can’t attack in the light? Well don’t give me a film where even pitch darkness is illuminated by what looks like a 40-watts full moon (oh, and with constant lightning). The staging is moronic, the characters are dumb and the dialogues are even dumber. Sure, there are a few oddly affectionate moments of self-aware camp (“Are we going to die?” “Yes.”), but despite the presence of one hot heroine (take note: Emma Caulfield), the rest of the film is completely unremarkable. Maybe it can impress anyone who’s never seen even another horror movie in their life. All the others, however, will yawn rather loudly. A killer tooth fairy. Goodness.

(In theaters, January 2003) Hmm. A real-life game show producer (Chuck Barris) writes “an unauthorised autobiography” in which he invents a shadowy secret life for himself: TV executive by day, CIA hired killer by night. The demands and women of both of his life take their toll on him. Sounds fascinating? It ought to have been, but unfortunately the screenwriter (Charlie Kaufman, yes, of Adaptation and Being John Malkovich fame) and director (George Clooney, yes, the actor) adapt the book in a wholly weird and stylised fashion. It could have worked, but the lead character in the tale (Barris, well-played by Sam Rockwell) turns out to be a highly repulsive protagonist. While it’s difficult to fault anyone (least of all Clooney, who exhibits some competency with the camera), the film itself sorts of falls flat. It feels like a series of vignettes rather than a flowing story. Julia Robert’s character, for instance, turns up in four or five scenes, but is supposed to be an important part of Barris’ life. It doesn’t click, and ultimately, neither does the film. The humour quotient is low and the interest level flags intermittently. I wasn’t asking for another True Lies, but at least True Lies managed to hold together all the elements it was given. Make no mistake: Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind is an interesting experiment… but not a completely successful one.

(Second viewing, On DVD, January 2003) Despite the rather extensive (and damnable) liberties taken with the last third of the source material, this film at least managed to remind me why I still think that this particular Tom Clancy novel is my favourite of his. Unlike the other “Jack Ryan” stories, this one is chiefly concerned with corruption from within, with an unlawful series of action taken by Americans. This, in the realistic context of Ryan’s universe, makes the material far more interesting than simply fighting Russians or Terrorists. It helps immensely that Ryan is here faced with an adversary as capable as he is from an intellectual perspective. Harrison Ford is once again too old for the role, but not by much, as his position here is more senior. Alas, the last third of the film is overlong, makes too much use of Ryan as an action hero and loses itself in a multitude of late subplots rather than focus on the resolution. In short, it really screws up the novel for no good reason whatsoever. At least it’s redeemed by a really good last few scenes, where Ryan must decide how much of a boy-scout he truly is. Plus, the rest of the film does an admirable job at presenting a complex issue is a few simple sequences. Worth a look. The first-generation DVD simply presents the movie, plus the trailer.

(In theaters, January 2003) Brilliant at times, unsatisfying at others, Adaptation is a frustrating film that either mishandles a boffo premise, or exploits it in a way that won’t please everyone. Yes, I get the joke, that a screenwriter struggling with an adaptation wrote a script as if written by two screenwriters about the process of two screenwriters adapting a book. (Whew!) Yes, I know where reality and fiction leave off. Yes, I realize that the third act is written by “Donald” the lovable hack. But somehow, the last third also forgets to have fun and for such an amusing premise, it’s surprising to see how much Adaptation takes itself seriously at times. What could have been full of winks to the audience instead feels sloppy and unfocused. It is a deliberate artistic choice, of course, but is it the most appropriate one? Would this have been a better film if “Donald” had written the first two-third, and Charles the rest? What if the dual-personality sub-theme had been explicitly exploited? As someone with (amateur) screenwriting experience, I like anything about the creative process and love even more “wacky” movies, and yet found myself wishing for more, more, more in the latter third of the film: You’re screwing with the audience, Charlie, but why not push it even further? Was the coda truly necessary in light of the “mess up the audience” manifesto? What about the insufficient exploitation of the alternate meaning of “adaptation”? Couldn’t anything more be done with this? Where’s Robert McKee when you need him?

(In theaters, January 2003) One of Niven’s Laws (From SF writer Larry Niven) states “Think before you make the coward’s choice. Old age is not for sissies.” However glamorous or easy it may appear, being old sucks. Being retired is even worse. That seems to be the message of About Schmidt, a profoundly depressing look at a man who comes to realize he’s a complete failure. OK, OK, it’s not as bad as that, and Writer/Director Alexander Payne makes darn sure there’s a ray of hope somewhere. It still doesn’t make the film more enjoyable. This is the type of story built around a series of humiliation vignettes: situations are set up where the only suspense is in knowing how the protagonist will make a fool of himself. Jack Nicholson is good in one of his least Jack-Nicholsonish roles yet. But few are sympathetic in this story, and that includes one of the most obnoxious daughter role in recent memory. Older viewers will probably get much more out of this film than I did; I just couldn’t care less.