Reviews

(In theaters, October 2001) Martial Arts fans better stand up and cheer for Iron Monkey, one of the most impressive action film I’ve seen so far. The story is simple but not quite simplistic, with characters you can like and a handful of cool scenes that aren’t about fighting. (Watch for the flying paper dance and a cooking demonstration.) Iron Monkey is a contender with Fist Of Legend and Drunken Master II as a kung-fu must-see: while its ratio of set-pieces might be lower, it’s a better-paced film with a good distribution of fights. The end fight alone is an anthology piece, with three fighters balanced on bamboo poles atop a lake of burning fuel, with all the expected complications. It’s a blast, as is most of the film with its often-unsubtle humor. Good great fun, worth picking up on DVD.

(Second viewing, On DVD, January 2003) Goodness, I so do love this film. Action-packed without being excessively violent, sustained without being repetitive, this martial arts film stands as one of the best entries of its genre. The American re-release of the film presents better editing, good sub-titling and a cleaned-up image. As for the story itself, well, it’s a mix of comedy and action, of painless historical drama and underdog philosophy. Simple but not stupid, Iron Monkey is truly unleashed during its fantastic action sequences, which manage to be distinct and frequently awe-inspiring. Don’t miss two non-violent demonstrations of martial arts. It’s an enormously sympathetic film, certainly one of the best Hong Kong martial arts film. Don’t miss it.

(In theaters, October 2001) As a French-Canadian, it’s always a lot of fun to see Hollywood in Montréal and Montréal in Hollywood. After The Jackal and The Whole Nine Yard, here’s The Score, which uses the city to its best potential yet. No Bruce Willis in sight, but the star-power of the film is stellar: Ed Norton, Robert de Niro and Marlon Brando, collectively representing the best actors of three generations. Excited? Don’t be. For one thing, Marlon Brando is an undistinguishable wreck though the whole film. For another, there’s scarcely anything to do during the whole script for the two remaining superstars: The Score is built around a heist, but only one heist. It’s all depressingly linear: Whatever small twists and counter-twists the film possesses can be seen coming well in advance (or simply by watching the trailer) Heck, Angela Basset has, what, only five minutes of screen-time? Oh, the scenery is nice, what with de Niro walking through the City and most actors uttering a French line or two. Some technical details are interesting. But that’s pretty much it. The rest of the film is an exercise in waiting until the end.

(Second viewing, On DVD, February 2002) I wasn’t overly impressed when I saw The Score in theaters, and I’m still not convinced after seeing the special-edition DVD. While it’s not a stupid film, it’s a curiously uninvolving one; despite the considerable acting talent assembled here, (De Niro, Norton, Brando, Bassett) there are no standout performances nor any particularly noteworthy moments. The plot is depressingly linear and without surprises. Montréal stars. The director’s commentary is more concerned about good cinematography, location anecdotes and ad-lib acting than telling us why the film falls so flat. The rest of the DVD is standard material, except for an interesting continuous shot of three ad-libbed takes by Marlon Brando. It’s a satisfactory rental, but not much more.

(In theaters, October 2001) The concept is comedic gold (a California ditz applies herself to become a successful Harvard law student… and succeeds), the trailer makes it appear as if it’s got potential and yet the film is curiously tepid. While the blonde protagonist is supposed to be misunderstood and smart (ie; can do anything if she works at it), there’s scarcely more than a hint of cleverness in her actions. She essentially remains a bubblehead throughout, as her supposed intellectual capacity is never equalled by emotional maturity. A trifle, you’ll say, and yet it’s emblematic of a script that tries to have it multiple ways without really facing any consequence. There is, for instance, a gratuitous sexual harassment subplot that doesn’t quite seem to fit. That’s not even mentioning the legal simplicities that will make you scream “objection!” at the screen. (I do mean this literally.) Oh, it’s a pleasant film all right. It just never does anything more with the concept. Like its protagonist, it’s a superficial motion picture that might hint at greater potential but never really convinces. Non-threatening. The kind of film you rent to show to the whole family, if only because no one is likely to be offended by it.

(On DVD, October 2001) Sometimes, you don’t know what you’re missing until you see it. In this case, it’s a colonial-time grand adventure starring bigger-than-life protagonists, deliciously evil antagonists and miles of lush green forest. Granted, the film takes a while to revv up, but it’s obvious from the onset that this is going to be a beautiful piece of work. Indeed, looking at the large-scale war set-pieces, it’s worth remembering that this was made at a time where CGI extensions weren’t available. Some shots will take your breath away the old-fashioned way, from a mirror-perfect bridge crossing to a deliciously choreographed ambush rising-crane-view. The film really becomes compelling during its last half-hour, with splendid fight sequences that truly showcase the green environment of the action and the actors themselves. Wes Studi gets particular points for a great evil character that will completely make you forget about Mystery Men‘s “Sphinx”. The first-generation “Director’s Cut” DVD has no extras worth mentioning.

(In theaters, October 2001) There’s nothing wrong with a good old “guy movie” once in a while. As long as you remember not to peer too closely at character motivation, logic or philosophical underpinnings. The Last Castle is set in a military prison filled with hard-edged convicts. In comes rockin’ Robert Redford (showing fully well why he deserved superstar status for so long), who sets out to give respect back to this assorted bunch of murderers, drug traffickers and rapists. Rah-rah-rah! This, of course, doesn’t sit very well with overbearing prison warden James Gandolfini, who immediately sets out to participate in a pissing match with our protagonist. It’s all a bit juvenile, but if you’re swept along with the absorbing script, it won’t matter a lot. Nor will the magically appearing weapons (a frickin’ trebuchet? How did they build that secretly?) or the plot contrivances, such as when a small fight conveniently sucks all guards out of a cafeteria. It all builds to a chest-thumping climax in which duty, honor, patriotism and blowing stuff all come to a meaningful end. (There’s one amazing action shot.) It’s sort of like The Shawshank Redemption with an exploding helicopter. I might sound snide and sarcastic, but I really liked the film as is, though the various emotional levels bothered me more and more once I had the chance to think about them. In any case, The Last Castle is a decent prison flick, a worthwhile rental whenever you want a guys’ movie night.

(In theaters, October 2001) “Teen thrillers” are, nowadays, little more than marketing exercises, usually casting young stars from TV shows in order to service an unimaginative script helmed by a barely-competent director. The clearance shelves of every video store are filled with the results: I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, The In Crowd, Antitrust, etc… In this context comes Joy Ride, a teen thriller that’s not without similarities with other members of the breed, but that at least manages to be better than average. Not a lot of that quality comes from the acting, though: Paul Walker is fine but bland and Leelee Sobieski looks cute but bored, though Steve Zahn continues to excel in otherwise average roles (see Out Of Sight, etc.) The first half of Joy Ride is strictly routine, as two idiot teens make a mistake and pay for it. The fun begins as the tale twists slightly and then some more; nothing to make the jaded viewer scream out “Genius!”, but enough to keep the tension going effectively. That tension, carefully milked by a director who knows what he’s doing, is ultimately what keeps the film from sliding into silliness as the going-ons get progressively more unlikely. Once again, the unseen antagonist proves to be nearly-omniscient and quasi-omnipotent against all common sense. There’s not much identification with the characters, but at least the film succeeds in keeping our interest. As suggested previously, that alone places it as an above-average teen thriller.

(In theaters, October 2001) It is a false dichotomy to separate art and entertainment, but it’s true to say that a very personal work of art can work very well on some people and not at all on others. That’s the case with Ghost World, a film of unarguable artistic ambition that simply didn’t appeal too much to me, much like Rushmore or American Beauty. It’s not a bad film per se, but I found myself strangely unaffected by it all. At some point, I really thought the film has something to say about how cheap cynicism is nothing but artificial detachment—but that might be a case of imposing my own pet peeves on another work. Suffice to say that I’m neither a teenage girl not a middle-aged geek (yet), so any appeal a relationship between these two archetypes might have didn’t reach me. The non-conclusive nature of the ending also bothered my neat Cartesian mind. While some individual scenes are hilarious (the cinema stint, for instance), the rest of the film is more uncomfortable than interesting. At least Thora Birch’s performance is less annoying than in Dungeons & Dragons.

(In theaters, October 2001) It’s obvious early on that this won’t be simply a forgettable slasher film: For one thing, it focuses on a historically-accurate representation of the grisly “Jack the Ripper” murders of 1888. For another, the visual polish of the production with its blood-red skies, suggestive violence and gritty realism takes it a full step above the cookie-cutter approach taken by so many horror films. Alas, the film tricks us into paying attention only to betray its initial promise by a ho-hum story hampered by several annoying details. Johnny Depp, for instance, is rather good as inspector Abberline, but he doesn’t achieve anything spectacular with it. It’s a Chocolat impact with a Sleepy Hollow character; he’s easily upstaged by Robbie Coltrane. (But then again, Coltrane does that to everyone). Heather Graham is pretty, too flawlessly pretty compared to the other prostitutes in the film. The film shows obvious signs of adaptation difficulties: The psychic visions of Abberline are entirely superfluous, and the signature line of the film (“Some will say I gave rise to the twentieth century”) makes no sense if you don’t know about the original graphic novel. It doesn’t help, either, that the suspect is obvious early on and that the final “twist” is painfully drawn-out. A shame, really, because the rest is pretty good. You won’t confuse the directing style with Tim Burton’s because Burton is far more polished, but it’s distinctive nonetheless. An interesting rental, especially if you’re interested in Ripper lore.

(In theaters, October 2001) Bring in the editor! Meshing crime adventures and romantic comedies require skill, wit and complete mastery of the AVID editing suite. Unfortunately, the filmmakers went for “atmospheric” rather than “snappy”, and the result is a film marred by a leisurely middle section that sucks away the energy of the rest of the film. It’s not as if our protagonists aren’t appealing: Bruce Willis rocks as a cool criminal, Billy Bob Thornton is hilarious as a neurotic partner-in-crime and Cate Blanchett makes me swoon every time she dons a red wig. But the screenwriters try to cram too much of a romantic ménage-à-trois drama in too little crime comedy and the result screeches to halt as soon as our trio talks romance rather than rob banks. The non-chronological structure is initially interesting, but not much is ultimately done with it. It doesn’t help that the ending is telegraphed well in advanced. Once in a while you have a great scene, like the self-convincing paralysis. Hey, it’s not a bad film, just an unsatisfying one. It won’t be remembered six months after its video release.

(On DVD, October 2001) In a society where children have to be protected from anything not light and fluffy at all costs, this sequel to the good first Babe film was quickly mis-marketed and buried. Certainly, the confusion can be understood: This sequel is much darker and meaner than its predecessor, to the point where it can be extremely uncomfortable to sit through. But don’t worry; it’s a fable, and everything will come out all right at the end. Meanwhile, you’re free to enjoy the fantastic design work and the zippy direction. Maybe a bit too bleak to be unqualified fun -minus the usual penalties for using monkeys- but still interesting.

(In theaters, October 2001) The late nineties have seen a plague of classics adapted as teen movies, most of them comedies (10 Things I Hate About You, Clueless, etc…) with the occasional drama (Cruel Intentions). Interestingly enough, most of these films have been decent. The latest entry in the subgenre, “O”, is a re-working of Othello set in a high school. Completed in 1999 but held back two years in the studio’s vaults after the Columbine tragedy, “O” is an interesting reworking of a die-hard Shakespearian tragedy that pulls few punches, and ends in the expected bloodbath. Josh Hartnett is chilling as the amoral Iago/Hugo beautifully manipulating the rest of the cast like puppets. There’s a certain perverse satisfaction in seeing such a merciless character at work and Hartnett twists the knife even more by playing Hugo as someone who can’t even derive any satisfaction in destroying everyone’s lives. In any case, the end result is fascinating in part because of the great adaptation work (war as basketball: genius!), but it’ll certainly hold your interest on its own.