Reviews

(On TV, April 2002) There have been, um, a lot of conspiracy films released over the past twenty-five years, but even today, the granddaddy of them all, Three Days Of The Condor, still manages to packs some punch. For one thing, it plays everything very straight, as if no one up to that point had ever seen a conspiracy thriller (which they often hadn’t, to think of it). For another, it features Robert Redford as a bookish, but fiercely smart protagonist, who reacts in a way that viewers can only cheer for. Good plot twists follow, mixed with clever manoeuvres from both sides. Though unshakably set in the mid-seventies, this film survives admirably well as a period piece. It concludes on a meanly effective monologue that still resonates a quarter of a century later.

(Second viewing, On Cable TV, July 2020) A second, belated look at Three Days Of The Condor shows that I still like it quite a bit.  I like the basic premise of a hapless analyst managing to stay alive despite a conspiracy gunning for him, and I can’t help but detect a certain self-awareness about its own paranoia.  On the heroes’ side, 1970s-vintage Robert Redford is easily charismatic, and Tina Chen disappears far too soon from the film.  But on the heavy side – wow: Cliff Robertson, Max von Sydow and John Houseman?  Not bad.  And yet, it’s not perfect: The romantic subplot is definitely odd and unconvincing.  Still, this is pretty good – and while the film is paranoid, it’s not entire bleak.  This being said, be careful not to confuse this with comic adventure Condorman.

(In theaters, April 2002) Sword-and-sorcery films are usually terrible beyond words, and The Scorpion King is no exception. Where it manages to be good, though, is in the fun department; despite the awful dialogues and the linear plotting, this film never takes itself too seriously. It’s no Conan, naturally, but it’s much better than trash like Kull The Conqueror. (Some of you may remember that The Scorpion King is supposed to be a “prequel” to The Mummy Returns. If so, forget it, because there isn’t any strong link between the Mummy series and this film. At all.) “The Rock” isn’t much of an actor, and the film wisely avoid asking too much of him, with two shudder-inducing exceptions. Otherwise, well, the battles scenes are well-choreographed, and skilfully edited in a coherent whole that Gladiator didn’t even attain. Even the logical flaws are deftly handled; one particularly glaring mistake is covered by the spectacular entrance of Asian co-star Kelly Hu, wet and naked save for her strategically-placed long hair. The enjoyably multicultural female extras do wonders to distract from the rest of the incoherencies. Beautiful ladies, good battles scenes, swordfights and a smirking tone; what else could you possibly want from a B-movie? It’s exactly the type of movies you will like if you like that type of movies.

(In theaters, April 2002) David Fincher is one of the few dependable directors out there, and Panic Room is another good example of why he’s always worth a look. In this case, like in The Game, he takes a script with a few serious problems and transforms it in a technically polished piece of suspense moviemaking that elevates the material to a mesmerizing level. From a film-geek’s point of view, Panic Room is a lovable demonstration of skill, from an effective simple-but-ominous credit sequence to a boffo “camera-flying-around-the-house” CGI/composite shot to a wonderful mute slow-motion sequence maybe halfway through the film. His camera angles are always effective, the editing is top notch, the spatial location of everything is clearly established and the overall atmosphere of the film is as claustrophobic as it should be. But, ah-ha, what about the humans in the film? Acting-wise, everything works; Jodie Foster is rather bland, but she -as with everyone else- turns in a good performance. The biggest problem with Panic Room, though, is illustrated by the fact that the film’s most sympathetic characters is one of the nominal “villains”. There isn’t much reason to care for the protagonist besides the obvious (they’re female, weak, without weapons and afflicted by an illness) and some promising character traits (like the heroine’s claustrophobia and/or myopia) are forgotten in mid-film. The late appearance of a rather useless character raises far more questions than it settles. Ultimately, though, the intellectual cat-and-mouse game between characters and Fincher’s technical prowess are more than enough to make Panic Room a commendable choice. But it’s too bad that with only a little more script work, this could have been a classic rather than merely a good thriller.

(In theaters, April 2002) It doesn’t take much to make me happy in a theater; just deliver a movie that’s better than I expected. In the case of Murder By Numbers, I expected a so-so thriller, and I got that, plus a solid performance by Sandra Bullock, a complex set of character interactions, hissable villains and a few interesting details of police work. Bullock (who co-produced the film) should get points for playing a darker version of her Miss Congeniality policewoman character, a damaged cop using work as a shield—no, it plays much better than you’d expect. The two antagonists are thoroughly despicable teens who decide to kill for kicks, probably working from a stoned reading of Nietzche’s greatest hits. Other matters, large and small, come to complicate everything, and the result is a nicely entertaining film that’s much better than the conventional trailers would lead you to believe—that is, until the ending, which is every bit as conventional as the trailers suggested. It’s unspectacular but satisfying entertainment.

(Second viewing, On DVD, April 2002) Good, fast, action-packed fun. A wonderful lead-couple in the pure pulp/serials tradition. Bliss! Subsequent viewings tend to lessen the silliness and leave a greater place to the pure enjoyment of the piece. The “ultimate edition” DVD is a keeper, with the usual special-effects clips, a self-deprecating commentary track (discussing difficult extras and how tight editing leads to stupid plot-holes) and oodles of other features.

(In theaters, May 1999) What can I say? You either enter the theatre with adequate expectations or you gnash your teeth during two hours. In the right frame of mind, this can be a wonderful, swashbuckling adventure. Fun for the whole family as most of the death and horror takes place off-screen in a very un-gory way. Don’t expect a horror movie! Brendan Fraser is a good two-fisted action hero, though his characters loses a lot of its initial edge by the end of the movie. It’s not that The Mummy is without flaws (gawd, that script leaves plot-holes all over the place!), but it’s that with most people, they simply won’t matter. Even the uneasy mixture of low-grade horror, adventure and comedy has its charm. The Mummy is just a lot of fun, and the epitome of a good, stupid summer movie.

(On TV, April 2002) Long, but good, but looong thriller that is far simpler than you might expect if you strip away all the convoluted mechanics to set up the end situation. There are some memorable moments. (Can you still go to the dentist without thinking of this film?) Good usage of New York scenery. Effective villains. Maybe a bit too manipulative. Still, a good piece. Hasn’t aged very well, though.

(In theaters, April 2002) I wasn’t a big fan of the original Joseph Finder novel, and as far as movies go, High Crimes is roughly of the same level of quality; strictly middle-of-the-pack, and maybe even a bit lower than that. The biggest problem, of course, is that the “big twist” of the film can be seen hours in advance. It doesn’t help that the central casting (Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman, both rather good) is instantly reminiscent of other featureless thrillers. Multiple changes to the book’s storyline help to simplify the action, and to speed up the narrative. Whatever can be said about the hum-drum nature of High Crimes, at least it usually moves quickly, and is over almost before you start asking yourself good questions about what’s happening. The final twist isn’t as gloriously insane as in the book, but the film’s coda is far more satisfying than the way the novel ends. For audiences unfamiliar with the source novel, though, High Crimes remains an average stock thriller, nothing worth getting excited about. For times where you positively have to watch a thriller and you haven’t seen that one…

(In theaters, April 2002) Sometimes, the problem with cinema is that you have to pad a film in order to make it marketable. There is not much of a commercial outlet for 45-minutes-long films outside of anthology TV shows, and even then it’s a gamble. The sad result is all too often a thinly-plotted film stretched over at least 80 minutes, dressed-up with a lot of “atmosphere”. Frailty is a lot like that; not exactly bad, but so long and deliberate that you’ll have ample opportunity to ask yourself what happens next, which logically leads to the “twist” conclusion well before the end of the movie. Technically, at least, it’s rather good. The acting is fine, especially from the two young boys, and the direction -by co-star Bill Paxton- is serviceable. However thin the story is, it’s neither silly nor stupid which already gives it an advantage over most of the other horror films out there. Interesting, and maybe even more so when played in 2x fast-forward.

(In theaters, April 2002) There’s a really good reason why dark comedies don’t enjoy much success at the box-office: For every successful Get Shorty or Pulp Fiction, there are dozen of film that don’t understand that violent death with winks don’t necessarily equal big laughs. In Death To Smoochy‘s case, someone forgot that it makes more than a sappy plot with murders and swear words to be funny, and ultimately, there are maybe three laughs in the whole film. Oh, the narrative foundation is promising; corrupt kid shows, the Irish mob, dwarves, a huge purple rhino, ice-skating and a kid’s show host groupie. What makes everything fall apart is the dry and dour tone in which everything is handled: It’s as if an accountant got hold of a Simpsons episode and tailored it to cut all the laughs. What doesn’t help is the sheer irritating nature of nearly everyone in the film, from a pestilent Robin Williams (even though he should get accolades for moving away from his amiable screen presence of late) to a grating brain-damaged ex-boxer. True, Edward Norton, Catherine Keener and New York are as good as ever. But the whole film surrounding them is tedious and annoying. The finale is especially vexing, as it forgets its own nature in favour of an all-sweet finish. A lot of wasted potential for this one…

(In theaters, April 2002) A line of dialogue in this film essentially states that “it’s a terrible thing to let children play with such wondrous technology”, and that pretty much sums up my own feelings about Clockstoppers. When such cool effects as virtual cameras are used to prop up an average teen science-fiction film, well, there is a tangible impression of waste. It’s not as if it’s a bad film, mind you: Jesse Bradford does a good job as the lead (though he’s not nearly as cool as in Bring It On) and Paula Garcés is fine to look at (though older than her character by nearly a decade, to the delight of post-teen males in the audience). It’s just that the script makes no attempt at being anything more than simply a science-fiction film for teens. Some of the antics are juvenile, the romance feels contrived and artificial, the enemies are too caricatured to be believable and, well, everything seems so intentionally aimed for teens that it loses the rest of the audience. The “logic” of hypertime is shakily established, and then carelessly broken time and time again. (The DJing sequence is particularly painful to watch) Naturally, the special effects are a lot of fun (though you can see most of them in the trailer) and done with a certain amount of skill. Too bad that they serve such a forgettable script.

(In theaters, April 2002) The trailers will try to sell you a black-versus-white story of a poor family man being unjustly tormented by a rich young lawyer. But that’s not quite the story of Changing Lanes, which proves to be more complex than that. Our young rich lawyer (Ben Affleck, in a rather good role) proves to be the protagonist with the most to learn. Our middle-aged family man (Samuel L. Jackson, also quite good) turns to be a walking ball of barely-repressed anger. Neither is particularly sympathetic, and that proves to be one of the film’s weaknesses. Changing Lanes proves to be curiously tepid, as the quasi-juvenile war of dirty tricks between both rages on for a full day. The awful coincidences propelling the plot forward, the contrived situations manipulated by the screen writer and the all-too-sugary conclusion are also sore points. On the plus side, though, there’s a great confrontation between Affleck and Sidney Poitier, an unconventional battle of characters and an attempt at social reflection on the meaning of civilized behaviour. Unfortunately, the film stumbles as many times as it advances, and the end result is merely so-so.