MadReviewer Reviews

Feed the Kitty (1952)

One of the Best Films, Long or Short, of All Time. (Yes, I'm Serious.)

[10/10 · 21 September 2001]

"Feed the Kitty" is possibly one of the best stories ever captured on film, whether it be full-length feature or short subject, live-action or animated. In seven minutes, it spins effortlessly between being laugh-out-loud funny, heartbreakingly sad, and tenderly sweet. The relationship between the little kitty Pussyfoot and the gruff guard dog Marc Anthony is magic, infinitely better than some of the relationships in so-called "serious" motion pictures. Pure, unadulterated genius almost seems an inadequate description of "Feed the Kitty" . . . but it'll have to do. It's simply one of the best films ever made. If you ever wanted to know why director Chuck Jones is held in such high regard by the likes of Spielberg, Lucas, and Scorsese (to name just a few), look no further than this little gem. This is absolutely a must-watch piece of animation.

Snatch (2000)

A Glorious, Enthusiastic Mess of a Film

[7/10 · 4 September 2001]

Guy Ritchie's `Snatch' is a highly entertaining crime caper featuring innovative (and often brilliant) direction as well as a horde of memorable, over-the-top characters. The direction and the characters are so good, in fact, that it's quite easy to overlook the threadbare story buried at the bottom of the film. `Snatch' is a great example of a film that excels at flash, flair and extraneous details . . . but has some significant problems with its basic foundation. The end results are still remarkably good, but the flaws – while covered up incredibly well -- are enough to keep `Snatch' from achieving the greatness that it comes so close to grasping. (Or snatching, as the case may be.)

The film begins with underground fight promoter Turkish (Jason Statham), a decent guy running with a bad crowd, agreeing to put one his fighters in a fixed bout for the big-time criminal Brick Top (Alan Ford). Meanwhile, Franky Four Fingers (Del Toro), who has recently stolen an eighty-five carat diamond for his boss Cousin Avi (Farina), has decided to place some bets on Brick Top's fixed fight. Nothing goes even remotely right for anyone, of course, and soon there's a mad search on for the diamond by a number of low-life hoodlums, as well as some problems arising from Turkish's new bare-knuckle brawler, a Gypsy named Mickey (Brad Pitt). . .

`Snatch' is a film that's pure eye candy, which is why it's such a joy to watch. Give Guy Ritchie massive amounts of credit -- the man's quite a director. He's a master at editing scenes together in innovative ways, and putting together otherwise ordinary scenes with ingenious and creative methods. `Snatch' is a veritable how-to handbook on visual directing techniques, and it's almost a downright guilty pleasure watching Mr. Ritchie construct this film into such a vibrant, dazzling-looking finished product. The same must be said for the characters, who seem to have come from a place somewhere between `Dick Tracy' and `Reservoir Dogs' -- each and every character in `Snatch' is a distinct and memorable creation, worthy of starring in their own movie, every if they're only on screen for a few moments. (Cousin Avi, Doug the Head, Frankie Four Fingers, Boris the Blade .. . good gravy, where does Guy Ritchie get these wonderful names?) All the characters in `Snatch' – and the terrific actors playing them -- are simply awesome. If any deserve special mention, though, it's Jason Statham as the beleaguered fight manager Turkish and Vinnie Jones as the villainous Bullet Tooth Tony. (Any mainstream action film producer would be wise to cast Vinnie Jones as the main villain in any upcoming summer blockbuster; it's almost scary how well Mr. Jones can play a cold-blooded killer.) The characters are an utter joy to watch, and they're filmed in such a highly original and entertaining manner that `Snatch' actually stands apart from other standard action films and independent Tarantino wannabes as something worth watching.

The real problem with `Snatch', though, is that for all its wonderful scenes and awesome characters . . . there's simply not enough story to go around. There's two basic storylines for the film, both pretty good -- but even combined, these storylines are barely enough to last an hour. On the commentary track for the DVD of `Snatch', Guy Ritchie states that his goal for the film was to make a lean and mean story -- well, he succeeded at that goal, but the lean, mean story gets completely bogged down from the weight of its overwhelming horde of characters. Despite how good they are, `Snatch' either would've benefited from a reduction of its cast, if only to provide more time to focus on the storylines; or the addition of a third storyline giving some of the characters more to do also could've helped. (It also might've helped if there was more correlation between the two storylines; the relationship between the two is cursory at best. What's going on in one storyline usually has only slight, minor repercussions affecting the other, and most of the time `Snatch' feels like two distinct and separate small films.)

`Snatch' is a terrific joy ride of a film. The only problem is that the ride really doesn't go anywhere. Still, `Snatch' is one of the best-looking films of the year, and even if it's not necessarily the most satisfying of films, it's certainly a heck of a lot of fun. Worth checking out, for sure. Grade: B+

Reindeer Games (2000)

Doomed From The Start By A Questionable Premise

[4/10 · 4 September 2001]

Most action films are based on a somewhat implausible concept. At some point during any given action movie, the audience will be asked to accept that the meek, mild-mannered accountant trapped in an elevator is really a former Green Beret demolitions specialist . . . or that a blonde stripper is fluent in six languages and can crack government computer codes . . . or that no matter how complicated a nuclear device may be, cutting the red wire will always successfully disarm such a weapon. It's part of the action movie territory. In most cases, the action movie rises above its implausibilities and moves forward into a realm of snappy one-liners and wicked, cool-looking violence that serves to entertain.

Unfortunately, `Reindeer Games' is not one of those action films. Without wandering over into spoiler territory . . . let's just say that `Reindeer Games' is crippled from the very start by a vastly implausible concept that is so utterly massive, it nearly boggles the human mind. This concept is not only wildly unbelievable (and stupid), but it unfortunately also happens to be the lynchpin of the film. Each and every decision made by each and every character in `Reindeer Games' is based in some way, shape, or form upon this fatally flawed concept. As such, it's hard to believe anything that the characters do in the film, simply because their decisions are based entirely on some seriously bad ideas. No normal or sane person would accept the things that all the characters in the movie so blindly accept at face value. . . so it's hard to even remotely connect with the events of the film. Even worse – about halfway during `Reindeer Games', a glimmer of hope can be seen, as if some of the characters have some hidden motives that may help explain their idiotic acceptance of the main, flawed premise of the film . .. wrong. The first flawed premise, in a supposedly surprising twist, is replaced by an equally awful and flawed premise, making the film no better than it was before. Accepting flawed and often ludicrous ideas in an action movie is part of the action movie experience, but when the audience is not only asked to accept these hideously bad ideas throughout the entire film, but are bludgeoned over the head with them, as they most certainly are with `Reindeer Games' . . . it adds up to a bad, bad movie.

For those of you still vaguely interested in seeing `Reindeer Games', here's the supposed plot: Rudy Duncan (Ben Affleck), a former car thief just released from prison, decides to impersonate his former cellmate Nick (James Frain) so that he can meet a beautiful woman named Ashley (Charlize Theron), whom Nick had been communicating with via a `prison pen pal' program. `Nick' and Ashley hit everything off just fine, until Ashley's brother Gabriel (Gary Sinise) shows up – turns out he's a gun smuggler looking to pull a heist at a nearby casino that he knows `Nick' used to work at as a security guard. Unable to successfully convince either Gabriel or Ashley that he's not really `Nick', Rudy is forced to become part of a major robbery – and has to find a way out for himself and his new love Ashley before big brother Gabriel decides to `take care' of `Nick' with his semi-automatic assault rifle . . . .

The cast of `Reindeer Games' is pretty good, but even an outstanding cast wouldn't have been able to save this heavily flawed film. Ben Affleck is very good as the reluctant hero Rudy; Gary Sinise is a lot of fun as the scenery-chewing Gabriel; and the lovely Charlize Theron, who seems to be sleepwalking through the first half of the film, actually seems to wake up and redeem herself with some nice stuff in the second half. The actors provide some neat little moments – watch for Affleck's `Pecan Pie Diner' scene, it's excellent – but none of these moments even come close to overcoming the film's very significant flaws. What might've been able to save the film from its flaws is some heavy-duty, jaw-dropping action . . . and that action never materializes. Not once. Oh sure, there's action, but it's very bland and generic, nothing that hasn't already been done in a thousand other action films. Even without the implausible concepts that mortally wound `Reindeer Games' from the very start . . . the film would've been average at best. Throw the amazingly dumb and implausible concepts on top of this average film, and what's left is a disappointing, frustrating, and bland excuse for an action film.

Decent characters, very weak action, and an incredibly stupid plot – that's the best way to sum up `Reindeer Games'. This is the sort of action film that should be collecting a lot of dust on the shelf of your local video store. It provides one or two brief, decent moments . . . but that's it. Overall, not a very good action film at all. Grade: D+

Shrek (2001)

A Hilarious Movie, Though It Has Some Mixed Signals

[7/10 · 31 August 2001]

"Shrek" is a laugh-out-loud, incredibly funny movie that manages to savagely shred the saccharine-sweet Disney film formula throughout most of its scenes. Inexplicably, though, it suddenly embraces that same sweet Disney formula as it draws to a close . . . becoming, in many ways, exactly like the films it professes to mock. "Shrek" tries to straddle the line between savvy adult-based humor and sweet family-friendly humor, usually succeeding, but failing miserably in certain spots. Apparently, the strategy of aiming the film towards both kids and adults worked -- if judging from box-office revenue is any indication, `Shrek' was wildly successful -- but the quality of the film is dropped a notch or two by the occasionally awkward blending of adult satire and child sensibilities. "Shrek" is still a very, very good -- and very, very funny -- film, but it could've either been a classic adult satire or a classic kid's movie, if only the producers of "Shrek" had fully committed to pushing the film in one direction or the other, instead of just compromising to appeal to the masses.

"Shrek" is the story of a lone ogre (aptly named, well, "Shrek" -- and voiced by Mike Myers) whose major goal in life is to live in solitude in his beloved swamp. This goal is somewhat thwarted by the ruler of the kingdom, Lord Farquaad (voiced by John Lithgow), a diminutive, evil tyrant who is forcing all the fairy tale characters in his kingdom to relocate to Shrek's swamp. Shrek, unhappy with this relocation program, makes an offer to Farquaad -- he'll find Lord Farquaad a princess, which will allow Farquaad to get married and become a King. All that Shrek wants in return is his swamp to be made like it was before --empty. Lord Farquaad accepts Shrek's offer -- so, along with his loquacious sidekick Donkey (voice by Eddie Murphy), Shrek begins a quest to find a true damsel in distress -- the lovely Princess Fiona (voiced by Cameron Diaz).

With the possible exception of the "South Park" movie, never has a film managed to so gleefully and successfully tear apart the Disney tradition of animated musicals as well as "Shrek". Scenes are set up in the traditional Disney manner, then shredded with such razor-sharp wit and flair; it's amazingly funny. The humor ranges from over-the-top (Princess Fiona's singing causes a bluebird to explode) to the wickedly subtle (the Magic Mirror's description of Snow White: "She may live with seven men, but don't be fooled . . . she's not easy.") "Shrek" veers wildly between loving reverence and sneering disdain for the traditions of Disney animated films -- the reverent scenes will most likely appeal more to kids, while adults will definitely appreciate those of disdain -- but regardless of the tone, the structure and the direction of "Shrek" is usually incredibly funny. It doesn't hurt that the cast of voices adds immeasurably to the film, either: Mike Myers plays the ogre Shrek with an oddly peculiar but funny amount of patience and practicality (I also suspect he only agreed to the part so he'd have another venue for his outrageous Scottish accent); John Lithgow is perfect as the pompous, overbearing Lord Farquaad; and Cameron Diaz manages to bring just the right amount of outrage and sweetness to Princess Fiona -- I found her to be the best character in the film. Personally, I found Eddie Murphy (as Donkey) to be the most annoying character in the film -- true, he is very funny, and has some of the best lines, but he's a little too much to take at times. The first third of the movie, he was brilliantly funny; the second third of the film, only mildly funny; and by the last third of the film, just irritating. I don't fault Eddie Murphy at all for this, but I do fault directors Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson for not toning the character down.

The main fault with `Shrek', though, lies in the fact that it tries to appeal to two distinct audiences. It's not that such a feat can't be done (Disney's "Aladdin", actually, does this flawlessly), but that "Shrek" juggles between the two audiences so poorly. For example, one of the "big messages" being delivered to children by this film is that appearances don't matter, that people shouldn't be judged by how they look . . . and then a significant amount of time is spent ridiculing Lord Farquaad's small stature. What gives? When the two aspects of a film like this -- the child aspect and the adult aspect -- can exist simultaneously and separately, the results can be wonderful. "Aladdin" is a prime example of this, as are nearly all of the Chuck Jones-directed "Bugs Bunny" cartoons of the early 1950s. When the aspects start contradicting each other, though, it's confusing, and not very funny. As it affects "Shrek", the contradictions aren't enough to significantly drag the film down, but they are quite noticeable, and they do cause the film to stumble. (And another thing . . . okay, a minor rant . . . please, enough with "The Matrix" parodies. They're officially now like all those stupid "I'm so scared" Blair Witch parodies .. . not even remotely funny. Stop beating the dead horse.)

Regardless of the mixed messages, there's no denying that "Shrek" is a very clever, funny movie that will no doubt be entertaining for both children and adults. There will be a few moments, though, when kids will be utterly puzzled by what's occurring in the film . . . and other moments that will have adults gagging from the nauseating sweetness. Still, "Shrek" is very, very good, and in the end, maybe that's all that really matters. It's certainly better than most standard Disney fare, and is still the best animated film of 2001 . . . not too shabby, huh? Grade: B+

Waterworld (1995)

The $200 Million Dollar Roger Corman Film

[6/10 · 30 August 2001]

I'll admit it: I liked "Waterworld" . . . or parts of it, anyway. No, "Waterworld" is not exactly Shakespeare -- for that matter, it's not exactly James Cameron, either -- but it hits a certain "Mad Max/Road Warrior" vibe that's moderately cool, and it provides a handful of decent thrills. Should two hundred million dollars been spent on this flick? Probably not, but I'll ask you this: Does it matter? If you only have to plunk down three bucks to rent a movie, does it really matter what that movie's budget was, provided that you were at least slightly entertained?

"Waterworld" is the story of the Mariner (Kevin Costner); a tough, grizzled loner who roams the seas of post-apocalyptic Earth. The polar icecaps have melted, flooding the world, and land has become little more than a legend. During his travels between the tiny man-made islands that comprise the remnants of civilization, the Mariner meets a woman named Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and a small girl named Enola (Tina Majorino) who claim to have knowledge -- or at least a cryptic map -- of where to find land. Of course, a rowdy gang of pirates known as the Smokers also are aware of the fact that Helen and Enola have this knowledge; so, under the guidance of their mad leader Deacon (Dennis Hopper), the pirates try to hunt down the two. Faced with his one slim chance of ever finding land falling into the hands of complete madmen, it's up to the Mariner to protect Helen and Enola -- and ultimately, to try and defeat the Smokers -- if he wants to keep his dreams and himself alive . . . .

The premise of "Waterworld" is interesting enough; I like the fact that the film actually tries to show (at least in the opening scenes) how people would survive in a world flooded by salt water. There's some cool flashes of originality in here regarding what the world would be like -- for example, the fact that ordinary dirt has become so valuable as to become the standard of currency -- but unfortunately, that originality gets ignored the second the action starts rolling halfway through the film. Overall, the script isn't terrible -- however, it's quite predictable. For example, the first part of the film is spent explaining painfully how there is no more land, and how it's just a myth . . . gee, wonder what our heroes will find towards the end of the film? A couple of twists spring readily to mind (for example -- there genuinely is no more land, or dry land can be found far beneath the sea in domed cities, like some kind of "Atlantis", perhaps) -- one such twist would've been nice to see. While the story does have its good moments (particularly any scene involving Dennis Hopper), it's too formulaic to be called exciting. Nice? Yes. Exciting? No. The few good scenes are very, very good, but there's a lot more average -- or even dull -- scenes spread out between the sparse fun.

The most puzzling part about "Waterworld", though, is the direction. The film is loaded with action, and I'll give credit where credit is due -- nearly all of the action looks great, especially since all the fights and the action take place out on the water. But for $200 million . . ? It doesn't look THAT good. I know a significant part of the film's budget was spent on floating sets out in the Pacific -- but the camera cuts and shot selections are usually so quick and tight, it's hard to notice the background. There's no long, slow shots basking on the glory of these expensive sets. "Waterworld" is filmed exactly like a typical action movie, which is okay, I guess, but it completely fails to take advantage of its resources. Quite strange, to say the least.

As for the cast . . . it's a mixed bag. Kevin Costner does a very good job as the grizzled Mariner, playing against type as a hardened, almost amoral anti-hero. It goes against the good-guy grain that Costner has typically played in most of his films, and Costner seems to relish the change. Dennis Hopper is terrific as the villainous Deacon; the role is completely over-the-top and absolutely ludicrous at times . . . in short, the part is perfect for Hopper. His lines simply drip with withering sarcasm, making him a quite memorable screen villain. The rest of the cast . . . ehh. Nobody does a horrible job, but nobody's particularly memorable, either.

Should "Waterworld" have been a $200 Million Dollar Dud? Probably not. In a perfect world, "Waterworld" would've been a $20 Million Dollar Sleeper, directed by John Carpenter and starring Rutger Hauer . . . or a $2 Million Dollar Cult Classic, directed by Roger Corman and starring Lorenzo Lamas. However, this isn't a perfect world (as evidenced by the fact that Freddie Prinze, Jr. keeps making movies), so "Waterworld" is forever branded as the bad film with a runaway budget. Too bad. "Waterworld" is by no means a great movie, but it has some entertaining moments, enough to warrant at least a rental . . . and some frequent pushes of the fast forward button. Grade: B-/C+

They Live (1988)

When Bug-Eyed Monsters Become Politicians . . . .

[7/10 · 28 August 2001]

John Carpenter's "They Live" is really a fiendishly clever reworking of the "Bug-Eyed Monsters From Outer Space" movies of the 1950s. Instead of featuring insect-like aliens trying to take over the world, though, "They Live" features aliens that have managed to disguise themselves as human beings . . . and they aren't "trying" to take over world, because they've already succeeded in taking it over. Politicians, newscasters, policemen, business executives -- these are the positions in human society that the aliens have assumed, and as such, they effectively rule the world. It's an offbeat take on a conventional movie formula, and for the most part, it works fairly successfully.

"They Live" is a story about Nada (Roddy Piper), a downtrodden, unemployed construction worker just looking for a job and a little happiness. (Those looking for a shred of subtle subtext in this film will note that Nada's name literally means "nothing".) While wandering aimlessly through some city streets, Nada discovers a strange pair of sunglasses that allow him to see a different world than the one he sees normally: a world blanketed with subliminal messages. Magazines and television ads flash messages like "Obey", "Submit to Authority", and "Conform". Nada is also able to see the true form of all his supposedly human authority figures (policemen, politicians, and the like) -- they are all bug-eyed aliens, dedicated to keeping the human race happy, dumb, and subdued. Nada, who's already tired of being pushed around and told what to do, decides that's there's only one way to take care of this alien menace -- and that's to take matters into his own hands, preferably with an automatic weapon . . .

"They Live" is an interesting, if not always successful, movie because of its ability to take some standard movie formulas and inject some new twists -- and realism -- into them. It's not the typical tale of humans beating back confounded aliens without too many setbacks or difficulties. Instead, there's some real problems -- Nada (and the other resistance fighters he encounters) find that not all of their efforts to fight or defeat the aliens actually work; the aliens actually use all the vast resources at their disposal to their full advantage, instead of constantly being dumbfounded by the human freedom fighters; and so on. (As an example of an original plot twist, I liked the fact that the aliens use the TV networks to portray Nada as a psychotic killer to the public at large after he shoots some aliens; after all, without the benefit of Nada's strange sunglasses, the aliens look like ordinary, everyday human beings . . .) Just when the events of "They Live" look like they're going to become predictable, something happens that completely shifts the film in a brand-new and original direction. This originality is occasionally hit-or-miss -- sometimes, the brand-new and original direction works a lot less effectively than a more predictable direction would've worked -- but "They Live" deserves credit for constantly daring to be different, if nothing else.

The other factor that makes "They Live" such a fun, interesting movie is its hero -- Nada. Instead of making Nada the stereotypical hero of a bug-eyed monster movie -- i.e., the scientist whom nobody believes until it's far too late, or the strong, silent soldier battling grimly against overwhelming odds -- Carpenter makes Nada a complete moron. True, Nada's a well-meaning moron, but that doesn't change the fact that he's about as smart as a bag of rocks . . . and yet he represents humanity's only hope of survival. There's no subtlety when it comes to Nada. If aliens need killing, then he kills aliens. He has no concept of long term planning, or losing a battle in order to win a war -- he's a very violent and very stupid man dedicated to ridding Earth of its disguised alien rulers, and he simply does what he thinks is right in order to accomplish this mission. What adds to this is the fact that his stupidity doesn't confound the aliens -- they recognize Nada for the Neanderthal that he really is, and deal with him in ways that actually make logical sense. (For example, Nada always seems mystified that the aliens can hunt him down after his little alien killing sprees -- he never seems to fully grasp the concept that aliens control the police departments, the military, and so on . . .) It's kind of a backhanded compliment, but Roddy Piper plays Nada beautifully; it's hard to think of too many other actors who could play such a determined moron so well. (As a side note -- it's also interesting to notice how Nada automatically assumes that the bug-eyed aliens are evil. He turns out to be right, of course, but he manages to gun down a decent number of aliens before finding even a shred of proof that his assumptions are correct.)

There's no denying that there are some significant problems with "They Live". The ending is abrupt and makes little sense; the production values are pathetically shoddy; and apart from Roddy Piper, the cast is more or less forgettable. Still, "They Live" is a decent, solid movie that largely succeeds in its quest to provide some original, offbeat entertainment. For that, it deserves a lot of credit. Grade: B . . . for a darn good "B" movie.

Escape from New York (1981)

Not Exactly An "A-Number One" Movie, But Darn Close

[8/10 · 28 August 2001]

"Set in the dark future of 1997 . . ."

Okay, so John Carpenter's post-apocalyptic vision of the future didn't exactly come true, but "Escape From New York" still holds up as a darn fine low-budget sci-fi/action flick. Snake Plissken (as played by Kurt Russell) is still one of the coolest anti-heroes ever to grace the silver screen, and the story still contains some great scenes and dialogue . . . so who cares if parts of it look like low-budget cheese? As long as you can appreciate great low-budget cheese, you'll be fine.

"Escape From New York" is set in the supposedly dark future of 1997, where the island of Manhattan, completely overrun with criminals and terrorists, has been walled off and turned into a Federal prison colony by the United States government. The most vicious and ruthless criminals in America aren't sent to regular prisons anymore . . . they're simply dropped into the walled confines of Manhattan, where they face the choice of being killed by the other criminals living on the island or being killed by government sharpshooters if they try to climb the walls and escape the prison colony. So, New York has been transformed into a lawless hellhole where murderers rule the streets, and from which escape is impossible . . . and exactly where Air Force One has just crash-landed, with the President of the United States (Donald Pleasance) aboard. To rescue the President -- and the President's unknown but valuable cargo -- military man Bob Hauk (Lee Van Cleef) decides to send the best man for the job into the heart of this lawless hellhole. That man is Snake Plissken (Russell), an ex-soldier and former war hero who no longer takes orders from any man -- but who faces execution unless he can bring the President back from New York alive . . ..

"Escape From New York" features a terrific plot as its foundation and a great cast for support. It's the details, though, where the film starts to slip. Some of the details -- both in terms of story and production -- are quite good, others . . . well, they'll make you wince. Director (and script co-writer) John Carpenter is smart enough to keep things simple and to keep everything moving along at a rapid pace; whenever things start moving into the realms of the laughably stupid, something new and cool happens onscreen to wipe that stupidity away. It's a story painted with very broad and vivid strokes; everything seems very cool and makes sense as long as you don't dwell on the details. Carpenter also takes what advantages he can from his low budget and low production values -- almost everything is filmed in the dark, and a lot is filmed indoors; also, everything (props, costumes, etc.) are deliberately given a cheap and dirty look, rather than attempting to make things look good with no money. Not only do these moves let "Escape From New York" look as good as it possibly can, but it also fits the feel of the "gritty, dark future" that already permeates the film.

The characters in "Escape From New York", though, are what really make the film shine. Donald Pleasance is perfectly cast -- and perfectly scummy -- as the President, who is little more than a weasel in a three-piece suit. It's great to watch Pleasance strut around pompously in the beginning of the film -- hey, after all, he's the President of the United States -- and then eventually be reduced to a pathetic, animal-like, gun-wielding thug, no better than any other criminal trapped within the walls of Manhattan. Ernest Borgnine serves up some welcome comic relief as the cheerful Cabbie, who's possibly the only happy person still living in New York. Isaac Hayes, of all people, turns out to be very good as the "A-Number One Duke of New York"; he's not exactly what you'd expect from a movie villain, but he definitely makes the part distinctly his own. Lee Van Cleef is great as the no-nonsense Bob Hauk; he plays Hauk in a low-key but menacing manner that stands out nicely against the over-the-top performances put in by nearly every other actor. But "Escape From New York" is really Snake Plissken's movie, and Kurt Russell is THE reason that Snake Plissken is one of the best movie anti-heroes of all time. Partly borrowing from Clint Eastwood's "Man With No Name" character, Snake Plissken is a man who's going to do whatever he feels is right or necessary, and orders be damned. He doesn't say much -- he usually lets his guns or his fists speak for him -- but when he does speak, he doesn't mince words. It's interesting to note that nearly every other character in "Escape From New York" is a liar of some sort with selfish hidden agendas . . . not Snake. He always speaks his mind, he nearly always speaks the truth, and ironically, he's the most dangerous character in the movie. Kudos to Kurt Russell for making Snake Plissken one of the best sci-fi/action characters of all time. For Snake Plissken alone, it's a genuine pleasure to watch "Escape From New York".

Director John Carpenter will probably never be appreciated for what he is -- the master of the modern B-movie. Along with "Halloween" and "They Live", the film "Escape From New York" stands as one of the greatest modern B-movies ever made. Carpenter's films often look like they have the budget of a high school musical production, but they usually at least manage to be original and entertaining . . . which is something more than a lot of recent $100 million dollar so-called "blockbusters" can claim. (Forget the production values; I'll watch "Escape From New York" over the soulless, spectacularly unoriginal "Tomb Raider" any day of the week.) "Escape From New York" might not be one of the slickest or best-produced action films ever made -- but it is one of the coolest action films, and certainly one of the most memorable ones. It might seem cheesy in places, or a little raw and crude in others . . . but it's got heart, and it's got guts, and in the end, that's what really matters. A great action flick, and one of the best "B" movies ever made. Grade: A-.

Halloween (1978)

The Template For The Modern Slasher Film

[8/10 · 28 August 2001]

John Carpenter's "Halloween" still stands out today as the best horror slasher film of all time, and it's certainly still the standard that all other slasher films copy shamelessly. To be fair, "Halloween" isn't exactly a paragon of originality -- it borrows heavily from Hitchcock's "Psycho", Romero's "Night of the Living Dead", and a number of the later Universal "Frankenstein" flicks, where the Frankenstein monster wandered aimlessly through castle corridors trying to kill people -- but it's the first film to distill all the elements of the slasher genre into a lean, mean core. Other slasher films since "Halloween" have tinkered around with the elements of this core, trying to improve upon it . . . but so far, none of these other contenders and pretenders have come close to succeeding. Despite its distinct low-budget look, "Halloween", by far, is still the most chilling, scary slasher film ever made.

"Halloween" features a very simple but well-done story: Years ago, on a fateful Halloween night, a young boy named Michael Myers puts on a rubber mask and savagely kills his sister with a butcher's knife. Michael is shipped off to a psychiatric facility, where is diagnosed as a sociopath -- an emotionless killer with no concept of right or wrong. For fifteen years, he's held and studied there . . . until again, on a Halloween night, he manages to escape from captivity. He heads back to his hometown with a new mask and a new knife, ready to begin a brand-new killing spree back in his unsuspecting hometown . . .

Written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill, "Halloween" works so well mainly because it keeps all details to a minimum. No motivation is provided for WHY Michael Myers is a bloodthirsty knife-wielding maniac, but then again, one isn't needed. The film works just fine with the basic fact that Michael Myers is an evil killing machine. The same goes for the teenage characters/victims in "Halloween", particularly the character of Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) -- these characters are developed just enough for the audience to get to know them, and more importantly, get to sympathize with them. Once the audience starts thinking of the characters as genuine, likable people -- BAM. Michael Myers shows up in full-on death mode, making the audience care about what actually happens to these terrorized characters. It's a great technique for building fear and suspense, one that John Carpenter pulls off perfectly . . . . and one that's been lost with more recent slasher films. Nobody cares if the Killer Du Jour of "Generic Slasher Film" starts butchering the unlikable characters, because the audience doesn't care if the unlikable characters die. With "Halloween", the audience cares, which is one of the reasons why it's such a good film.

Another technique used by Carpenter that gets overlooked today is how the story moves along at such a rapid-fire pace. "Halloween" takes place in a single night, with Michael Myers moving and killing at a relentless pace. Sure, the other characters do dumb things -- sometimes, they make it almost entirely too convenient for Michael Myers to slit their throats -- but at least the stupidity is plausible, simply because neither they nor the audience is given time to think about what's happening. The characters don't have time for logic; they're running instead on pure animal instinct, and that instinct is often wrong. Compare that to later drivel like "I Know What You Did Last Summer", where the characters essentially wait around their hometown for weeks, waiting to be picked off by a knife-wielding maniac . . . stupid. Those characters had time to think and to properly assess their situation. The characters in "Halloween" aren't given the luxury of time, making their panic and irrational behavior all the more believable -- and making the film all the more terrifying.

There's other items as well that set "Halloween" apart from all other slasher movies, or at least mark it as an original -- Carpenter's claustrophobic use of Steadicam to give the film a nervous, uneasy edge; the fact that "Halloween" lacks a sense of humor and treats its story with deadly seriousness, unlike the smug, smarmy, slasher films of recent years; or the creepy way that Carpenter has Michael Myers moving through the background of otherwise innocuous scenes. The bottom line, though, is that "Halloween" pulls all the right elements together -- and then assembles them together flawlessly -- to form the perfect slasher film. I'll be honest -- if you don't like the slasher genre, then you probably won't like "Halloween". However, if you do like the slasher genre -- or have never seen a slasher film -- then I highly recommend "Halloween". Without a doubt, it's simply the best film of its kind. Grade: A-

Apt Pupil (1998)

Some Terrific Acting, But A Film That Doesn't Push Things Far Enough

[6/10 · 27 August 2001]

`Apt Pupil', based on the Stephen King novella of the same name, is a wicked little film that delves into an unholy relationship between two evils, one young and hungry, the other old and experienced . . . . and both dangerous. This relationship is what drives the film, and is what ultimately makes `Apt Pupil' a fairly compelling film to watch. The film fails, however, to deliver a satisfying payoff at its conclusion. While there's a lot of patience and care taken to build the story, there's a feeling of incompleteness as `Apt Pupil' eventually grinds towards its ending. `Apt Pupil' takes its audience on a wonderfully acted journey . . . and then stops short of its final destination, as if it couldn't find the final ounce of courage near its end to push beyond good, ordinary film-making and into the realms of film greatness.

`Apt Pupil' is the story of Todd Bowden (Brad Renfro), a seemingly bright, normal, All-American high school student with one secret quirk – he's morbidly fascinated by the Holocaust, viewing it as something dark and cool rather than as something horrifying. He's also incredibly knowledgeable about the Holocaust, which is why he's able to recognize a local old man for what he truly is -- Kurt Dussander (Ian McKellan), a Nazi SS officer wanted for his crimes against humanity. Todd confronts Dussander, telling the old war criminal that he wants to know what happened in the concentration camps – `the stuff they won't tell you in books', as Todd says. Dussander wants nothing to do with this, but faced with having his identity exposed, he is forced to accede to Todd's demands. What follows from there is a malevolent, almost symbiotic relationship that begins to grow and spiral rapidly out of control -- for Todd, it's an introduction into understanding the real face of evil, and for Dussander, it's a reacquaintance with a dark side of his past that he quickly learns to embrace once more. While Todd and Dussander do not necessarily trust one another, they soon realize that they need each other if they want their secrets protected -- namely, Dussander's real identity and Todd's failure to reveal that identity to the proper authorities -- and people are starting to come dangerously close to learning these secrets, such as Todd's parents, and Todd's high school guidance counselor Ed French (David Schwimmer) . . . .

The relationship between Todd and Dussander is the heart of `Apt Pupil', and it's here where the film really shines. Admittedly, the film does open in far too rushed a fashion – it's pretty much Todd immediately confronting Dussander about his true identity; some build-up to such an important moment might've been nice -- but once it stumbles past this rushed opening, it's a joy to watch the cat-and-mouse relationship between Dussander and Todd. Todd thinks he has the upper hand over Dussander, but he literally has no idea about the slumbering evil he's managed to awaken until it's far too late. Meanwhile, Dussander is initially a pitiful man, desperately trying to forget the atrocities he's committed . . . but the pity doesn't last for long. Once Todd forces the old man to acknowledge his past, Dussander realizes that he likes what he used to be – a monster. Both Renfro and McKellan are fascinating to watch as their respective characters; Renfro because he's so chillingly believable, McKellan because he runs the gamut from being a pathetic drunk to a devil reborn. Both characters struggle throughout the film to dominate one another, and that conflict – which, in essence, is the foundation of their twisted relationship – is what sets `Apt Pupil' apart from other films as something worth watching.

The main problem with `Apt Pupil', though, is that besides acting as a wonderful showcase for this evil relationship . . . `Apt Pupil' doesn't really go anywhere. In particular, the character of Todd Bowden doesn't go anywhere. More the fault of the script than of Brad Renfro, Todd never comes across as depraved. He's certainly evil – as some of the acts he commits in the film certainly show – but part of the film is about how monstrously depraved the Holocaust was. Todd is portrayed as a monster, someone who born in a different place and time certainly could have been a Nazi war criminal, but he does nothing to show that monstrous nature. I kept waiting for Todd to commit that one unspeakable act of pure evil that would truly make him Dussander's `Apt Pupil' – and never saw it. Without this unspeakable act, the audience never gets the opportunity to see that Todd really learned anything from Dussander. (Todd's slightly sick and twisted? No kidding! We knew that in the opening credits!) There's a few other things that bring down `Apt Pupil' as well; there's a chance meeting between Dussander and a hospital patient that seems entirely too fortuitous and coincidental; and the casting of David Schwimmer as the guidance counselor is just way, way off the mark.

The ending of the film `Apt Pupil' is markedly different from that of Stephen King's novella. In fact, the novella contains the `unspeakable act of pure evil' that I wanted in the film. Perhaps if I'd been unaware of the existence of the original novella, I wouldn't have felt that the film was missing anything . . . but I doubt it. `Apt Pupil' is a good, solid film that touches on some disturbing issues – but it could've been great, had it chosen to closely examine evil instead of just scratching its surface. `Apt Pupil' is a decent, if somewhat incomplete, movie. Grade: B-

The Others (2001)

Slow, Deliberate, Stylish . . . and Slow, Slow, Slow.

[6/10 · 20 August 2001]

It seems overly simple to classify "The Others" as a cross between classic Hitchcock and "The Sixth Sense" . . . mostly, because that implies "The Others" is a film of that highest caliber. It's certainly not. However, it's not awful, either; instead "The Others" unfortunately falls into the film limbo of being just plain mediocre. "The Others" is a suspense/horror film owing a lot to its predecessors from the 1940s -- it relies on mood, atmosphere, and the casts to create the eerie mood that permeates the film, and never falls back on gratuitous gore to create its horrors. The look and feel of "The Others" is very much that of a vintage Universal film; in fact, if this film had been made in black & white, and if a digital CGI version of Lana Turner could be inserted in Nicole Kidman's place, you would probably swear that this was a forgotten suspense/horror film from that era. It's definitely not a classic -- there's a number of significant issues that add up together to keep "The Others" far, far short of greatness -- but it's an interesting film nonetheless.

"The Others" is, at its heart, a vintage ghost story -- on a small island off the shores of England, there is a forlorn manor house located far away from the trappings of civilization. Living in this isolated house are the elegant Grace (Nicole Kidman) and her two children, Anne (Alakina Mann) and Nicholas (James Bentley). There are strange rules in the house, which Grace cryptically explains to her new servants are important. Each of the fifty doors in the house must be locked before another can be opened. The curtains must always be drawn. While odd, these rules are vital, Grace explains, because Anne and Nicholas are so allergic to the sunlight that they might die if exposed to it. The servants, led by the wise Mrs. Mills (Fionnula Flanagan), accede to these rules . . . but they begin to hears voices. And things going bump in the night. So do Anne and Nicholas. Grace doesn't hear these things, or at least she claims not to, which slowly but surely leads to the questions: Are these new servants creating the disturbances for some sinister purpose? Is troubled Anne creating them? Is Grace? Or does something really lurk within the walls of the manor house, something long-dead, something evil . . .

"The Others" relies on its pacing and direction to create its ominous mood. This reliance is both the film's strength and ultimate downfall. Director Alejandro Amenabar lets the viewer savor each moment of the film, building suspense from scene to scene at a slow and steady pace, dropping subtle hints about what has happened and what's going to happen with a very deft touch . . . he really lets things build slowly. In fact, too slowly. "The Sixth Sense" also moved along at an unhurried pace, but at least that film had the good sense to know that in order to maintain the slow pace, some sort of payoff -- or at least a good scare -- has to be tossed out the audience once in awhile, if only to keep some interest and to prevent the film from spiraling into mind-numbing boredom. "The Others" has no sense of this. An hour into the film, the luxurious pace of "The Others" has become little more than self-indulgent tedium. The process of building tension degenerates into pure impatience. There's only two moments in "The Others" that can genuinely be considered "jump-out-of-your-seat" moments; if there had been three or four more of these moments, the film might've averted its slow, steady crash into monotony. Yes, some of the scenes are extremely impressive, and I was particularly impressed with a lot of the cinematography, as well as the richness of the dialogue . . . but these things only can carry a film so far. They have to lead to some kind of ultimate payoff in order to truly mean anything, and in the case of "The Others", that payoff never comes. It's a nice film with some wicked little touches, a few of which border on pure genius . . . and then the film ends. No build-up to a dramatic resolution -- or, for that matter, a satisfying resolution. For that reason, "The Others" can be appreciated for what it is trying to accomplish, and for the techniques it uses . . . but in no way, shape, or form can the end result be called a success. It's a shame, because it seems as though it wouldn't have taken much to turn "The Others" from a bland film into one that was grippingly tense.

Though billed as the star of this film, Nicole Kidman falls just short of providing the strength that "The Others" needed from its central character -- the film revolves mostly around her character's beliefs and perceptions, and she's simply not up to the task of making those beliefs and perceptions one thousand percent convincing. Personally, I've always found Ms. Kidman to be somewhat of an acting enigma -- she's undeniably talented, but apart from her tour de force performance in "To Die For", she always appears to be struggling to find the right outlet for her talent. There's flashes of brilliance from Ms Kidman in "The Others", but that's it, only flashes -- overall, the performance is uneven. I found myself wondering what the film would've been like had it featured either Julianne Moore or Helena Bonham Carter as its star. Fortunately, there's a "sleeper" star in this film, one I would hope to see in many films in the years to come: Alakina Mann, who plays Grace's young daughter Anne. As Anne, this young actress shows both strength and vulnerability with a powerful range, one rarely seen in young actors and actresses today. She's asked to go head-to-head with Ms. Kidman on a number of occasions in the film, and not only does Ms. Mann hold her own, she shines through like a champion. If nothing else, "The Others" might be worth watching simply to see Alakina Mann's superb performance.

"The Others" probably could never have been made without the success of the equally low-key "Sixth Sense". "The Others", though, while possessing an undeniable sense of style and grace, is a film ultimately without a lot to say . . . or a lot to give to its audience. As such, "The Others" is a film with some interesting qualities, some more enjoyable than others -- but it's ultimately little more than an okay film that goes on way longer than it should. "Interesting" doesn't always mean "good" -- and with "The Others", this is certainly the case. Grade: B-

Species (1995)

"Feces" Would've Been A More Appropriate Title

[3/10 · 7 August 2001]

There's certain films that I like to call "trailer flicks" -- films that look like terrific fun as a ninety-second trailer or preview, but make a rotten ninety-minute movie. "Species" is a terrific example of a trailer flick. Lots of action, lots of science fiction technobabble, alien monster designs by H.R. Giger (of "Alien"), good actors, a drop-dead gorgeous, sexy babe to play a sex-crazed alien . . . what more could a filmgoer (or, at least a sci-fi filmgeek) want? As it turns out, quite a lot, actually. Like a plot. Or a sense of direction. Or an ounce of common sense. Or a clue. "Species" features none of these commodities, which makes it unappealing for the vast majority of filmgoers; it also features precious few moments of excitement, gratuitous violence, and gratuitous nudity, which makes it unappealing for the teenaged male filmgeek audience. Either way, the movie is pure garbage, little more than a "Friday the 13th, Part 5" film with a sci-fi label slapped on its side.

The convoluted mess that passes itself off as a story in "Species" actually starts off with a slightly interesting premise: Radio telescopes pick up signals from deep space that, when translated properly, reveal a formula for an alien DNA string that can be combined with human DNA. This DNA combination, in theory, should produce a hybrid creature that has both human and alien characteristics, allowing humans to learn about this alien species in a manner that is at least slightly familiar ground. The premise, though, quickly devolves into schlock as the alien hybrid -- named "Sil" (Natasha Henstridge) -- quickly develops and matures into a blonde bombshell capable of posing as a Penthouse centerfold. She also develops a need to breed with human males -- turns out that her progeny, of course, will turn into vicious alien killers that want to destroy humankind. Scientists figure out a little too late that Sil is basically bad news for mankind, so she is able to escape from them without much difficulty, and it is left up to Professor Xavier Fitch (Ben Kingsley) and his motley crew of scientists and soldier to either capture or destroy Sil before she can mutate into her true, disgusting, alien form – and is able to set in motion the destruction of the Earth . . .

"Species" is predictable to a fault, and offers no insight into any of the potential (and few) interesting ideas it offers. Who are the alien beings? Where do they come from? Why do they care about humanity at all, and why do they want the human race wiped out of existence? Because alien beings are bad -- at least that's the only explanation offered. Sil, the alien hybrid, also offers some true glimmers of interest. At one point in the film, when confronted with her destructive nature, she asks her creators "What am I?" in a somewhat pitiful manner -- her need to mate and destroy is driven by instinct, not by conscious thought, and even she recognizes the horror lurking inside her. A savvier film would've explored this idea further; "Species" instead chooses to focus on deep, insightful things like Sil removing her bra in slow motion, blood, and big explosions. By the time our supposedly smart heroes are chasing Sil through a dark labyrinth of sewers, it's obvious that "Species" has nothing to offer apart from the message offered in the first ten minutes -- alien beings are bad.

The direction of "Species" is obscenely lazy -- most of the supposed thrills generated by the film involve Sil jumping out of the darkness and attacking things. This works maybe once or twice, but after the first dozen or so times, it stops being even remotely scary. Director Roger Donaldson's solution to this problem is so simply start adding blood and gore to these scenes, which again works once or twice . . . and then gets boring fast. Unfortunately, everything gets permanently boring somewhere around the halfway mark of the film. "Species" is a film that thinks it's enough to just show up with cool-looking monsters and special effects . . . wrong. It's called suspense, and it's sorely missing from this film. You'd think that a film borrowing from the look and designs of "Alien" would at least have the decency to check out how Ridley Scott made "Alien" a masterpiece of suspense.

The acting? Not much can be said about it, apart from it's mediocre at best, awful at worst. It's hard to knock Natasha Henstridge for a role that merely asks that she become eye candy for the first half of the film -- she does exactly that, and nothing more. I hope she was paid well. As for Ben Kingsley . . . I'm a big fan of his in other films, but he simply mails in a performance here. He actually looks bored in his scenes. I can't say I blame him, given how bad this flick is, but still, c'mon, a little effort, please? The rest of the cast is completely forgettable, which is probably a good thing. I wouldn't want to be remembered as a featured actor in "Species", either.

"Species" is a film that aspires for big-budget greatness. Unfortunately, it's crap that even Roger Corman wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. There's worse sci-fi films than "Species" -- namely, "Species 2" -- but not many. Unless you want to deliberately waste an hour and a half of your life, don't bother with this movie. Grade: D

The Score (2001)

Some Incredible Acting, But . . . .

[6/10 · 6 August 2001]

Want proof that great acting can rise above the quality of a script? Look no further than "The Score". This film, which features a pedestrian screenplay riddled with predictable movie cliches, is still fun to watch . .. but mostly because of its stars. Edward Norton, Robert DeNiro, and Marlon Brando take this dead-on-arrival film and turn it into something decent. It won't be nominated for any awards, but "The Score" manages to succeed where so many other supposed 2001 summer blockbusters have failed -- "The Score" is entertaining.

"The Score" is about an accomplished thief named Nick (Robert DeNiro), who's looking to leave his life of crime and wants to go straight. His fence -- and friend -- Max (Marlon Brando) gives Nick an opportunity to commit one last score -- steal a $30 million dollar scepter from a heavily guarded vault in Montreal. With his take from this job, Nick would be able to retire and live in peace with his girlfriend Diane (Angela Bassett) . . . but there's a catch. (What a surprise, huh?) In order to steal the scepter, Nick must work with the cocky young thief Jack (Edward Norton), who is the only person who can provide Nick with access to the vault. Nick, who normally works alone, is forced to put his trust in Jack -- and Jack isn't exactly the most trustworthy of souls . . . .

"The Score" is one of the most conventional movies ever written. The second that Nick announces to Max that he'll be retiring after this one last job – that he'll be going straight from now on – the floodgates of movie cliches are thrown wide open. (A movie about a criminal's last job? WOW! Hey, that's never been done before . . . yes, these words are dripping with the proverbial sarcasm.) An older man saddled with a younger partner, tense sequences involving digital countdowns . . . the elements of the film are nothing new. Even the `surprises' and `plot twists' in the film come across as stale, simply because they've been used verbatim in dozens of other thrillers and action films. The only genuine surprise might be the ending, just because the film is wrapped up with such surprising speed. After watching `The Score', you might find yourself scratching your head and wondering, `Gee . . . is that all?'

Despite its banal nature, though, `The Score' still manages to entertain, if only because its cast and its director lend their best efforts towards giving life to this tired material. Director Frank Oz takes `The Score' in a direction rarely seen in modern film thrillers – instead of jacking up the testosterone and the volume of the film, and turning the film into an orgy of quick camera cuts and bizarre camera angles, Oz instead lets `The Score' move along at a leisurely, unhurried pace. Moving at the slower pace lets some smaller moments unfold (watch the background for the way certain characters float in and out of a scene) – it's refreshing to see scenes build at a gradual pace instead of having them jammed whole down the throat. Certainly, not every thriller or action film should have this laid-back approach, but it's a genuine pleasure to see every once in a while. Under Oz's careful, calm direction, watching `The Score' becomes like sipping at a glass of favorite wine – the taste is very familiar, but it's excellent nonetheless.

The flavor of this `wine', though, comes from Marlon Brando, Robert DeNiro, and Edward Norton . . . and they're outstanding. Marlon Brando is only featured in a few scenes in this film, but he manages to steal every one that he's in. Considering that he's usually on screen with either DeNiro, Norton, or both, that's no small task. If anything, I found myself marveling at Brando, and wondering why the man doesn't do more films – he's still so talented, it's almost obscene. DeNiro and Norton both do a great job with their respective roles as well. They both give their characters little nuances and subtleties that make even the most innocuous scenes stand out. In evaluating performances, I usually ask myself, `Could other actors have played that part as well? Or played it better?' Well, with `The Score', I think there's only one or two in Hollywood who could've played the parts of Max and Jack as well as DeNiro and Norton . . . and there's no one who could've played them better. `The Score' is a out-and-out clinic on outstanding acting, and for that alone it's worth watching.

`The Score' isn't a great film, but it does contain some great performances, and it's presented in an unusual enough manner to provide some genuine entertainment. Just don't be surprised if this trite, worn-out story seems familiar. Grade: B-

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Not As Good As The Original, But Still Reasonably Entertaining

[7/10 · 6 August 2001]

Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" is not a remake of the original version of the film, but rather a "re-imagining" or different take of that original material. Wise move. The original "Apes" is a film that still holds its own as an all-time sci-fi classic; pretty much any attempt to remake it faithfully would wind up like Gus Van Sant's remake of Hitchcock's "Psycho". . . a pale imitation of greatness. By "reimagining" the original film, Burton gives himself the opportunity to start with the established mythology of the "Apes" series, as well as the ability to travel in a new direction with that mythology. The end result? The new "Planet of the Apes" is nothing Earth-shattering (pardon the pun) -- in ten or twenty years, it won't be looked at with the same reverence or respect as the original "Apes" -- but it's still good, and brings enough new ideas to the table to make a reasonably entertaining film.

The story, which ranges in spots from good to barely mediocre, possesses some serious gaps of logic and suffers from an awkward opening. The first fifteen minutes of the film makes little sense, and lurches along aimlessly for awhile until it stumbles into the heart of its story. (Examples of some nonsense: Couldn't chimp-piloted ships simply be controlled by computers? Would highly experimental exploration pods be able to launch from a space station just by one rogue pilot punching in a two-second launch sequence?) The opening of the film admittedly does make more sense by the end of the film, but it's still not very good. It appears as though the writers thought of a solid middle and ending for their version of "Planet of the Apes" . . . but had no idea how to get the story past the opening credits to that middle and ending. The weak beginning seems like their best attempt to get the story moving to those points. As for the rest of the story, it contains a lot of good, even original elements, but some points are glossed over in a rather hurried fashion -- there's little effort made to explore some plot threads, and some of the explanations as to how and why things happen in the film are either weak or come completely out of left field. The story's excellent . . . for a second draft. I've read that Twentieth Century Fox rushed this new version of "Planet of the Apes" into production. Too bad. The story and script could've been excellent -- and more important, solid throughout -- with some more work.

Despite the uneven story, though, director Tim Burton does a nice job, given the script he has to work with. If nothing else, Burton has a knack for giving films an eccentric look, and his version of "Planet of the Apes" benefits greatly from his eccentric touch. He evokes a lot of the weird imagery of the original films (the weird scarecrows, the desolate landscapes) without ever blatantly stealing from them. He also does a great job when it comes to focusing on the smaller, quieter moments in the movie -- for example, there's a macabre scene where a child ape puts her pet human in its cage for the night that manages to be disturbing and funny at the same time. Burton, though, doesn't appear to have a clear idea of the overall tone of the movie. In "Planet of the Apes", he goes for a blend of action, comedy, and seriousness . . . but the blend doesn't always work. Some of the humor seems out of place, and the action often seems stilted, as if Burton didn't know what to do with the apes apart from having them leap around menacingly. The film is one of Burton's better efforts, but much like the script, the direction contains a few distinct weak spots.

As for the actors . . . again, it's a mixed bag. The apes comprise the stronger half of the cast, which makes sense, since the apes are the weirder of the two groups - and Tim Burton specializes in weird. In regards to the human characters, Burton would've been better off making the humans in his version of "Planet of the Apes" more like the humans in the original film - mute. Apart from the protagonist Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlberg), none of them add anything of import to the film anyway. The highlights of the individual actors come from mostly from the main characters. Tim Roth nails the part of villainous General Thade perfectly - he's one of the best sci-fi screen villains to appear on screen in quite awhile. Wahlberg plays Captain Leo Davidson in a manner similar to Heston in the original film; he's a man who's not terribly interested in contemplating how he arrived at a planet ruled by intelligent apes . . . he just knows he wants to leave. Fast. He's a pragmatic hero, one who reluctantly tries to help others in distress, but doesn't want to die in the process. Also worth mentioning is Paul Giamatti, who provides some much-needed comic relief as the peculiar orangutan slaver Limbo. On the other side of the acting coin, the biggest disappointment came from Helena Bonham Carter as Ari. Given the poor quality of her character in the screenplay, she does what she can for her character, but all she really does for the whole film is to go around being nice to humans. Period. Some reasons as to WHY Ari feels so passionately about helping humans would've been nice.

Tim Burton's `Planet of the Apes' is an action movie that manages to take some of the influences of the original `Apes' films, and then creates something eccentric and new. Does it always work? No, although in general, the good outweighs the bad. Is it better than the original? Absolutely not. In a summer filled with blockbuster duds, though, there's something to be said for a film that provides some thrills and some fun, and the new `Planet of Apes' does exactly that. Overall, it's an enjoyable film; it's just not a spectacular one. Grade: B

L.A. Confidential (1997)

Film Noir Revisited -- And Man, Is It Sweet, Daddy-O

[9/10 · 6 August 2001]

Film noir is a style that's usually difficult to pull off. Invariably, any movie done in the film noir style features flawed characters that are frequently unlikable; shadowy crosses, double-crosses, and triple-crosses that can make the story difficult to follow; and an unhappy ending that ultimately seems unsatisfying. "L.A. Confidential", which can only be defined as a film noir mystery, meets all of the required criteria above . .. and yet it's still one hell of a compelling, fascinating movie. "L.A. Confidential" takes a lot of difficult material and blends it all together seamlessly. For that alone, the film should be noteworthy; the fact that the story is outstanding and the acting is exceptional pushes "L.A. Confidential" into the realms of the truly great.

"L. A. Confidential" is a gritty, stylish film patterned after the mysteries and crime drama films of the 1940s and 1950s, particularly those of Humphrey Bogart and Alan Ladd. Containing a dizzying number of plots, subplots, and enough red herrings to choke a horse, the storylines and characters are slowly woven together to create one single dark and beautiful film. It begins with some gruesome killings -- which are dubbed by the press as "The Nite Owl Murders" -- and Ed Exley (Guy Pearce), a no-nonsense police detective, is assigned to the case. Ed's reluctant partner is flashy Sergeant Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey), a vain cop who sees himself more as part of the entertainment business than the police force. After some questionably ethical police work, Vincennes believes that he has wrapped up murders, but Detective Bud White (Russell Crowe) -- a cop usually better known for his fists than for his sleuthing ability -- discovers that there may be more to the "Nite Owl Murders" than meets the eye, and may involve some of L.A.'s highest ranking officials. As the case truly begins to unravel, it becomes obvious that only the unlikely teaming of White, Exley and Vincennes can hope to ever discover the truth about what really happened.

Based on the James Ellroy novel of the same name, "L.A. Confidential" perfectly captures the look and feel of the sweaty, sleazy underbelly of 1950s Los Angeles. Mirroring the events of the film, everything on screen has a slightly dirty look to it, as if nothing can be entirely clean or free of guilt. Even the language used is perfect -- the presence of the character Sid Hudgens (Danny DeVito) really brings to the forefront a distinct Fifties-ish feel to things with his weekly gossip column, where everything is `on the Q-T and strictly hush-hush'. And the stories themselves are marvelous as well, each starting out from an isolated spot in the film, but eventually winding and coiling together to form one single powerhouse of a plot. Some of the machinations by which these stories and plot wrap together seem slightly forced; but for the most part, it's pulled off so masterfully that these minor blemishes really don't matter.

Director Curtis Hanson does a terrific job of evoking the film noir feel without seeming like he's just mindlessly copying it. The deliberate pacing of the film, the way certain shots are framed in shadow, the manner in which ominous events are foretold . . . everything helps to add to the story one way or another; there's precious little that seems like a waste of time or takes away from the film. Equally impressive is just how the film is pieced together - there's a lot of stories and even more information for the audience to digest in `L.A. Confidential'. However, it's all laid out in a sequence that's relatively simple to understand; Hanson also knows where to let the characters tell the story, and where to let the actual visuals of the film tell the story. `L.A. Confidential' is a film that easily could've been little more than a convoluted mess in other hands; in Curtis Hanson's hands, though, it's a gem of a film.

And the acting . . . wow, where to begin? (With the main characters, I suppose . . .) Kevin Spacey is great as Jack Vincennes, the cynical cop "on the take" who does a terrific job of letting the world know how much he doesn't give a damn about anything . . . but when push comes to shove, he reluctantly cares about a lot, perhaps even too much. Not many actors could pull off the part of Vincennes, but Kevin Spacey makes it look easy. Russell Crowe is equally great as detective Bud White, who for much of the movie is little more than a pit bull in human form. However, Bud proves to be far more dangerous when he actually starts combining his mind with his muscle. Finally, Guy Pearce complements the other main characters in grand style as the arrogant, self-righteous, by-the-book Lieutenant Ed Exley. It's a nice touch in the film that he only starts to become likeable -- and a better cop -- when he starts bending the rules and becoming more unethical in his approach to policework; it's also interesting to notice that as he becomes less and less moral, Vincennes and White start becoming more and more moral. Exley's a little more subtle than the other two main characters, but he's equally as good as they are, and Guy Pearce deserves a lot of credit for his work in this film.

Even the minor characters are great; however, the most impressive minor character is James Cromwell as Captain Dudley Smith. This man is EVIL. Ruthless and cold, Cromwell effortlessly turns in a tour du force performance as a despicable, cold-hearted villain. I'll admit I was shocked to see him pull off the role so well; I had a mental picture of Mr. Cromwell as the gentle farmer in "Babe" before watching "L.A. Confidential". . . . wow. James Cromwell definitely has incredible talent and range.

`L.A. Confidential' has a distinct dark side to it; it's certainly not a film for everyone. It is, however, an undeniably sharp, clever, and stylish film, one that won't easily be forgotten . . . and will probably demand being watched more than once. One of the best films of 1997. Grade: A

Die Hard (1988)

The Perfect Modern Action Film

[9/10 · 31 July 2001]

"Die Hard" is the prototype type for the modern action film. Since it's also one of the best action films ever made, that happens to be a very good thing. "Die Hard" is lean, mean, and doesn't contain a single second of wasted screen time. The direction, the action, the story, the acting . . . every aspect of this film comes close to big-budget action movie perfection. Since "Die Hard" was first released in 1988, it's difficult to think of a blockbuster action film that doesn't follow the basic structure and format of "Die Hard" . . . or, for that matter, is better than "Die Hard".

"Die Hard" is about John McClane (Bruce Willis, in one of his all-time best film performances), a basically good, honest New York cop with a penchant for annoying authority figures. Traveling to Los Angeles in a last ditch attempt to patch things up with his estranged wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia), John McClane suddenly finds himself involved in a hostage situation. Terrorists, led by the enigmatic Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman), have taken over the office building in which Holly is working, and with Gruber holding the upper hand over the LAPD and FBI forces in Los Angeles, it's up to John McClane to save the day . . . .

Kudos should be given to both director John McTiernan and screenwriters Jeb Stuart and Steven DeSouza -- the film is tight, electrifying, and clever, which is something few action films can ever claim. The story isn't completely believable, but it's believable enough, and it manages to move along at a quick enough pace to where the most glaring plotholes can easily be glossed over. There's also enough twists and wrinkles thrown into the story to keep the audience guessing as to what's going to happen next . . . and the surprises don't come out of left field, but are actually clever and well thought-out. (The fact that McClane often relies on his brains instead of his bullets to get out of his predicaments is also a big plus.) Simply put, "Die Hard" is one of the smartest and savviest action screenplays ever written. McTiernan holds up his end of the film admirably as well -- he uses the claustrophobic nature of the office building to great effect (particularly in any scene involving an elevator shaft), and he keeps the film rolling at a rollercoaster pace, building up the anticipation of the audience before unleashing the action. A lot of recent action films just fly along at a mindless, breakneck pace, without ever allowing the story to breathe or the suspense to build . . . unlike those films, "Die Hard" knows how to maximize the impact of each and every scene, and that's why it stands out so clearly from them all. With "Die Hard", John McTiernan puts on a perfect clinic as to how to pace an action movie.

As for the acting, it's darn near close to perfect. Bruce Willis is awesome as John McClane. As played by Willis, McClane's a smartass with a distinct disdain for being given orders . . . but McClane's also clever, and knows how to keep cool under pressure. There's more to McClane than the stereotypical tough guy hero. Fortunately, the role was given to Bruce Willis, who infuses McClane with the perfect mix of cocky arrogance and stone-cold heroism. The fact that Willis plays McClane as a man often in disbelief of his own situation, and who struggles in his fight against bad guys instead of just killing bad guys with ease, like most stereotypical action heroes -- well, not only does it make the character much more believable, it's darn brilliant. (The fact that Willis also knows how to deliver a deadpan one-liner better than anybody else in Hollywood makes the character all the better.) There's only a handful of movies where both character and actor are a completely perfect match; Bruce Willis as John McClane is one such perfect match.

Also worthy of mention is Alan Rickman's performance as the villain Hans Gruber. The Machiavellian Gruber would've been an easy villain to turn into little more than a scenery-chewing Bond villain . . . fortunately, Rickman doesn't travel the easy route. Gruber, as played by Rickman, is cold and calculating, and actually acts smart, instead of merely claiming to be smart and then being thoroughly outwitted by the hero. He always appears to have an ace hidden up his sleeve, and is so convincing at giving this impression, it's hard to tell throughout the film whether he or McClane truly have the upper hand. Other actors probably could've played Gruber fairly well, but Rickman makes Gruber one of the all-time great villains. As for the rest of the cast, they're all pretty good. Bonnie Bedelia does a nice job as John's soon-to-be-ex-wife Holly -- she plays her with enough smarts and feistiness to break the usual "damsel in distress" mold. It's also worth mentioning that Paul Gleason, who plays the obstinate police chief Robinson, pretty much sets up the modern action movie stereotype of the authority figure who refuses to heed the advice of the maverick hero. The character is stupid to a fault, and he's wonderful because of it.

"Die Hard" is a terrific example of what happens when all the pieces of a film fall together perfectly. There simply are no weak spots or dull moments in the film. Is "Die Hard" one of the best overall movies ever made? Probably not. But it's undeniably one of the best action movies ever made, and it just might well be the perfect modern action film. Grade: A

Captain Blood (1935)

An Enjoyable Film -- And One of Errol Flynn's Best Performances

[7/10 · 31 July 2001]

A prime example of the nearly-forgotten swashbuckling epic, "Captain Blood" is a darn entertaining, fun film that is unfortunately saddled with the production values of 1930s film-making. "Captain Blood" is not the best pirate movie of its time, nor is it the best Errol Flynn film . . . but it's still extremely good, and it contains one of Errol Flynn's best performances. If nothing else, it's a great example of a breed of movies that are no longer made -- but maybe they should be.

"Captain Blood" is basically a Robin Hood revenge-type story -- Errol Flynn plays Dr. Peter Blood, an English physician unjustly convicted of treason and sentenced to slavery in the West Indies. Relying on only courage and brains, he escapes from his captors and becomes the legendary pirate known as Captain Blood, a brilliant swordsman and seaman whose crew is comprised of several of his fellow former slaves. Olivia de Havilland plays Arabella Bishop, the dashing pirate captain's romantic interest (and niece of the evil plantation owner and slaver, Colonel Bishop, who is played by Lionel Atwill). Sparks fly between Captain Blood and Arabella as their tempestuous relationship builds, and the conflict between Blood and builds as well as the pirate captain and his crew start to not only believe that they can fight Colonel Bishop, but they can win . . . .

The story itself is very simplistic, almost to the point where it hurts the film. This is more a product of the time in which "Captain Blood" was made rather than the specific script; most films of this era tend to be a little lean on plot. Still, there's never any back story in "Captain Blood", never any reasons given as to why characters are who they are, or why they do certain things. Every scrap of dialogue in "Captain Blood" is just enough to propel the characters into the next scene . . . and nothing more. The story itself zips along from beginning to end in a crystal clear line -- no detours, no side stories, nothing else of interest but the main story. For the most part, this works -- and because the basic story is very good, it doesn't hurt the film too much -- but fleshing out both story and dialogue, even to a small extent, could've pushed a very good story into the realms of greatness. (However, there are a few inexcusable bad moments; the supposedly 'serious' scene where Blood learns that all his fellow rebels just 'happen' to be former sailors in the Royal Navy is just laughably unbelievable and stupid.)

The direction and production value of "Captain Blood" are also uneven -- again, most of this can be excused by the era in which the film was made . .. but not all of it. Most of the film was shot on sound stages, including the scenes where Blood and his crew are sailing the high seas. Some of it works -- but there's several scenes where it's painfully obvious that the "background" is little more than a painted sheet. The action sequences vary from excellent to fair -- the swordfighting, somewhat surprisingly, is on a par with today's films, and the fights between soldiers and pirates hold up nicely as well. As for the scenes involving Captain Blood's ship . . . well, what can you say? They're clearly models, but ILM wasn't exactly around to pick up the effects budget. I found it slightly disappointing, though, that some of the direction and selected shots during the action was so flat -- director Michael Curtiz (who also directed Casablanca) is one of the more stylish directors of the time, but in "Captain Blood", a few of the scenes that should've been gripping are instead are closer to dull. In fact, without Errol Flynn's flash and flair for the heroic, some of the best moments might've been boring. In a roundabout way, "Captain Blood" is definitely a tribute to Flynn's undeniable talents; he elevates this film from something that would've been mildly fun into some quite memorable.

Equally impressive -- and, again, transcending all story and production weaknesses -- is the magnificent on-screen chemistry between Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. "Captain Blood" is the first of their many films together, and there's a certain screen magic between the two the second they first meet. The playful banter, the genuine affection, the caustic wit and the fiery on/off relationship between the two . . . well, it's nothing short of amazing. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a modern equivalent of their on-screen chemistry; it's truly breathtaking to watch. It's also good enough to make otherwise insipid, boring dialogue sound good, and enough to make good dialogue unforgettably great. Most of the actors in "Captain Blood" are good but basically forgettable; fortunately, Flynn and de Havilland are far from forgettable. Without their phenomenal performances, I don't think "Captain Blood" would be a particularly well-remembered film today.

All in all, "Captain Blood" is still quite an enjoyable, if dated, film. Well worth watching, especially for the scenes between Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. Also, if you've never seen an Errol Flynn film before, I'd definitely recommend both "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and this film. "Captain Blood" , while definitely a throwback to an older age of moviemaking, is still a cut above most of the action films being made today. Grade: B+.

Swordfish (2001)

Some Really Cool Scenes, But Overall, A Convoluted Mess

[5/10 · 23 July 2001]

`Swordfish' is a film most likely made by rich action movie fans for not-so-rich action movie fans. `Swordfish' features all the right elements of a terrific action film – cutting-edge special effects, jaw-dropping car chases, lots o' blazing guns, gorgeous babes, and tense races against time that invariably involve a countdown from a digital clock. However, for whatever reason, when added together these elements don't add up to a particularly good overall movie. `Swordfish' contains a lot of undeniably great scenes, but as an overall movie . . . it's okay. Not exactly a dog, but not exactly good, either.

The convoluted plot of `Swordfish' boils down to this: Mystery man Gabriel Shear (John Travolta) and his drop-dead gorgeous sidekick Ginger Knowles (Halle Berry) recruit former computer whiz Stan Jobson (Hugh Jackman) to break into a top secret government computer in order to access files on something called `Operation: Swordfish'. FBI Agent A.D. Roberts (Don Cheadle), who has been keeping tabs on Stan's activities, becomes aware of the mysterious Gabriel's plans and begins a dogged attempt to stop him. Throughout all this, hints about Gabriel's `true' identity keep cropping up, leaving his mercenary programmer Stan to keep wondering who he's really working for: maybe a criminal mastermind, maybe a corrupt government agent – or perhaps something worse.

The opening of `Swordfish' is one of the best opening scenes of any action movie ever filmed: the set-up is brilliant (not to mention wicked cool), the dialogue crackles with razor-sharp wit, the use of freeze-motion photography is spectacular, and it pulls no punches whatsoever. It even makes some subtle and not-so-subtle references to the Al Pacino film `Dog Day Afternoon', which is so eerily appropriate that it's perfect (although I found myself wondering how many people watching the film would even have heard of `Dog Day Afternoon', let alone know what it was about). It's so high-energy, you get the feeling you're in for one of the best action films of all time. Trouble is, the rest of the film can't even remotely sustain such energy, so `Swordfish' begins to quickly slide downwards into pure mediocrity. It never hits the point where it becomes unwatchably bad, but it never reaches the heights of the opening scenes again, either.

As far the overall story itself . . . well, if you take each individual scene and watch them on all on their own merits, they're all pretty cool. (Note: `cool' doesn't always mean `good', but it usually means `fun'). String them all together and watch them all at once, though, and it becomes painful how little sense `Swordfish' makes. What's said and done in one scene blatantly contradicts the story and plot in another scene, plot threads are arbitrarily dropped and forgotten, critical information explaining parts of the story seems to be pulled from out of nowhere when characters are stuck in a jam . . . there's no sense of cohesion to the film at all. It's as though the writers of this film had a brainstorming meeting, wrote down as many cool ideas for an action film as they could think of, and then crammed every single one of those ideas into the script without giving the slightest amount of thought as to whether or not those ideas would actually work together in the same film. `Swordfish' is a mishmash of some cool images and some very cool dialogue that fail to ultimately blend together into a cool film. (And a side rant regarding the storyline – there's a whole subplot involving Hugh Jackman's character Stan and his fight to get custody of his daughter that's utterly ludicrous and unnecessary to the story. Memo to the scriptwriters – it doesn't matter if Stan's a convicted white-collar criminal; there's no way a judge would let the kid's mother have sole custody rights if the mother is a known porn star making porn movies in the house where the kid is supposed to live!!!! Talk about beyond dumb . . .)

Dominic Sena does a decent job with the direction of the film – `Swordfish' moves along with the cheerful breakneck pace of a runaway rollercoaster – but he doesn't do anything to particularly distinguish himself from the rest of the Bruckheimer pack (Michael Bay, Simon West, et al.) There's nothing wrong with this; it just would've been neat to see what `Swordfish' would've been like if directed by someone bring a little extra to the table. The effects, the pacing, and the choice of some of the shots are undeniably cool, though, so it's safe to say that Sena has most likely entrenched himself as a top action director for some time with `Swordfish'.

The characters? Travolta's in his element as Gabriel Shear – the man's a shadow (figuratively, anyway) of what he used to be, but if you need someone to play a hip, arrogant, pop-culture spewing villain, Travolta's your man. The guy chews the scenery with relish as the Machiavellian Gabriel; he's clearly in his element in this film and loving every second of it. In a way, it's a shame – I think John Travolta is capable of much better than this – but he gives the part of Gabriel in `Swordfish' everything it needs and then some. Hugh Jackman is good, if not exactly great, as Stan the hacker; the deficiencies of his part, though, seem to be more the script than Jackman himself. Halle Berry . . . Wow. With a capital W. The part of Ginger Knowles doesn't exactly call for Oscar-winning talent, but it does call for an amazingly beautiful woman who knows how to show off her assets, and Ms. Berry does exactly what the part requires to perfection. The only disappointment to the cast is Don Cheadle, and it's not that he does a bad job, it's just that he's so obscenely talented compared to the rest of the cast and the weak script he's forced to work with, it's laughable. Cheadle's simply too good for the part of A.D. Roberts. He's clearly slumming in this movie; the producers of `Swordfish' almost would've been better off with a much less talented actor playing Don Cheadle's part. Every scene that Cheadle's in, he simply outshines every other actor to the point where it's embarrassing.

Is `Swordfish' great? Certainly not. Does it have some a few moments? Yes, with emphasis on `a few'. For that reason alone, it's probably worth renting . . . but only if you're in the mood for forgettable, mindless fun. Grade: C/C+

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

More About the Journey than the Destination

[8/10 · 23 July 2001]

`Shadow of the Vampire' is one of those odd films that is completely and utterly predictable . . . and yet it's fascinating nonetheless. Anyone watching this film will know within the first twenty minutes more or less what will happen and how the film will end. It doesn't matter. `Shadow of the Vampire' is proof that sometimes the journey is far more important – and enjoyable – than the destination.

An extremely fictional look at the making of the real silent film classic `Nosferatu', `Shadow of the Vampire' is about the quest of German film director F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich) to make a perfect horror film. Rebuffed in his attempts to purchase the rights to Bram Stoker's `Dracula', Murnau nevertheless decides to make a horror film about the vampire `Count Orlock', one which he will film on location in the Transylvania region instead of in Germany. Once there, Murnau explains to his production crew that his new film – `Nosferatu' – will star a brilliant method actor named Max Schreck (Willam Dafoe) as Count Orlock. According to Murnau, Schreck is a consummate `method actor' – in fact, the mysterious man is so immersed in his `role' as a vampire that no one will be allow to see him out of his make-up, and filming is only to take place at night. Reluctantly, the crew (and Murnau's financial backers) agree to these unorthodox filming requirements, but as production of `Nosferatu' gets underway, members of the film crew start to either fall ill or completely vanish altogether. Murnau realizes that in order to finish his masterpiece, he'll have to do it fast. Otherwise, the `method actor' known as Max Schreck – who is, in fact, a real vampire – may feed on his entire production crew, and there may be nobody left alive to finish the film . . .

Because the actual film `Nosferatu' is real (and, incidentally, outstanding), and because `Shadow of the Vampire' is faithful to `Nosferatu' to a large degree (except, well, for the part about Max Schreck being a real vampire), `Shadow of the Vampire' is by nature predictable. There's no doubt as to whether or not the film will be completed, or whether or not other members of the cast will drive a stake through `Schreck's' heart before the film is completed. The events of the film are known, and are predictable, so there's little suspense in guessing what will happen next. What isn't known is HOW things will happen. `Shadow of the Vampire' is very much a film of details. Learning why `Schreck' agreed to be in the film, learning why Murnau is so obsessed with perfection, learning why Greta (Catherine McCormack) is specifically chosen to be the leading lady in `Nosferatu' – these details, while not always crucial to the outcome of the film, are what make `Shadow of the Vampire' a very engaging, compelling story.

The performances – at least the majority of them – are nothing short of brilliant. Willam Dafoe IS Max Schreck in this film. Not for one second does he look or act like anything even remotely human. He takes a difficult role – a monster who only dimly remembers what is was once like to be human – and plays it with such natural ease, it's nothing short of astonishing. At times, Dafoe actually turns Schreck into a sad, pitiful creature, which is even more impressive considering that at other times Schreck is little more than a savage killing machine. Dafoe is just amazing to watch in this film. Malkovich is impressive as well as the obsessed director Murnau, who's more than willing to make deals with the devil – or, in this case, with a vampire – in order to realize his artistic visions. In a way, Murnau and `Max Schreck' are uncomfortably similar characters; both are dependent creatures who have lost contact with normal human relationships. Catherine McCormack is perfect as Greta, a stage diva who looks at film work as beneath contempt; the fate that awaits her character is perhaps gruesome . .. but after watching her interact with the other characters, it's hardly surprising. The only character who I found slightly disappointing was Cary Elwes as the cinematographer Fritz Wagner – for whatever reason, he just didn't seem to properly fit into the film. His lines seemed forced, and he seemed completely out of sync with the rest of the cast. Every time he appeared onscreen, he seemed so absolutely out of place that it became distracting. Perhaps this was more an instance of every other actor sliding so effortlessly into their roles, rather than an instance of hideous miscasting . . . but I doubt it.

As for the look of the film – well, it evokes the dark, somber feel of a silent horror film perfectly. Everything is either dark and littered with longing shadows, or hints in some ways at something quite disturbing. There's very little in terms of pure gore (although the gore that does occur is quite spectacular), but the eerie mood set by `Shadow of the Vampire' is darn near perfect. Storywise – well, again, there's no real surprises or Keyser Soze moments, but the writing is still good. There's a lot of neat parallels made between the so-called `normal' characters and the vampire who walks among them; is there really much difference between a man who craves fame at any cost and a vampire who craves blood at any cost? `Shadow of the Vampire' is a movie that relishes the small details, and the details are so good, it's relatively easily to forgive the obscene predictability of the plot. The only complaint I had was the ending, which seemed somewhat convoluted . . . but it fit the film, and I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything that would be much better.

`Shadow of the Vampire' is a hard film to pigeonhole into a single category – at times, it's a dark comedy; at other times, it's a tragic film; and at still other times, it lives up to its heritage and becomes a truly gripping, disturbing horror film. What's undeniable, though, is that `Shadow of the Vampire' is a smart, savvy film that is phenomenal to watch. It's an offbeat, moody film that may not contain enough gore or action for fans of modern horror . . . but the story's pretty good, and most of the characters (and the actors) are so good, especially Willam Dafoe, that it's outstanding nonetheless. Highly recommended. Grade: A-

Jurassic Park III (2001)

One Simple Word: Horrible

[3/10 · 23 July 2001]

`Jurassic Park III' is bad. Very bad. So bad, in fact, that there's little, if anything, that can be salvaged out of this rancid film that could remotely be considered good. Sure, it'll make its money . . . in fact, it'll probably make enough to ensure a `JP4' (shudder) . . . but if you're considering going to see this movie, I'd strongly advise you not to go. In fact, I'll beg you not to go. Please. This is easily one of the worst films released in 2001.

The ill-advised plot of `JP3' is as follows: Doctor Alan Grant (Sam Neill), desperate for funding on a dinosaur dig, accepts a strange offer from a wealthy couple, Paul and Amanda Kirby (William H. Macy and Tea Leoni) - take them on an aerial tour of the original Jurassic Park island, and receive unlimited funding for his research efforts. Since he only expects to have to fly over the island, he's abruptly surprised when his plane actually lands on the island. It turns out that the couple's fourteen-year old son Eric (Trevor Morgan) is lost somewhere on the island, and they need to find and rescue their precious child. Of course, the plane gets wasted by dinosaurs shortly after touchdown, so now Dr. Grant, the Kirbys, and the rest of the plane's crew must fight for survival as they find themselves being hunted by the ravenous dinosaurs, who, according to Dr. Grant, may be smarter than most scientists ever thought possible . ..

On paper, this might have seemed like a good idea, but on screen, it's utterly preposterous and stupid. The story is so thin, it's almost embarrassing. Every line uttered in this film is essential to moving along the main plot. It sounds like the actors were given Cliff's Notes instead of a script. While there's something to be said for economy in dialogue, `JP3' pushed it to the point of being ridiculous. (The line `Did you hear something?' - which must have been uttered at least five times during this film - is apparently code for `A dinosaur will be jumping out of the shadows in the next ten seconds.') There's no real reason given to care about anyone in this film; the fact that they're trapped with vicious dinosaurs is apparently supposed to be reason enough. Since the characters are stupid enough to bring most of their miseries upon themselves, though, it's difficult to feel sorry for them.

The behavior of the characters is ludicrous. `Jurassic Park Island' is apparently infamous for being filled with vicious, man-eating dinosaurs - so, what does Amanda (Tea Leoni) do the instant the plane lands on the island? She goes stomping into the wilderness - away from the rest of the group - armed with ONLY A BULLHORN, SCREAMING HER SON'S NAME AND SIGNALLING EVERY DINOSAUR ON THE ISLAND THAT A HUMAN SNACK HAS ARRIVED!!! There's at least two dozen other examples of this scattered throughout the film, examples of pure, abject stupidity on the part of the characters. Dr. Grant keeps muttering at various points during the movie (just in case the audience missed it the first six thousand times it gets mentioned) that the dinosaurs must be smart . . . well, yes and no, Dr Grant. The dinosaurs in this film are indeed relatively smart in comparison to the humans in this film, but only because the humans are such thick-skulled dimwits. Brain-damaged field mice would be considered smart in comparison to the humans in this film.

Even in terms of just being a fun, dumb movie, `JP3' fails appallingly . . . all thanks to director Joe Johnston. It's hard to imagine that somebody with a big budget and ILM-created dinosaurs could possibly make a boring movie . . . but Joe Johnston does just that. Flat, dull, and unimaginative describe the action scenes involving the dinosaurs in `JP3'. (And the scenes without the dinosaurs are pure Sominex.) Dinosaurs pretty much just waltz into the appropriate scenes and start attacking people - there's virtually no attempt to build tension or to try to deliver maximum tension or impact with the creatures. It's as though the audience is supposed to just sit back and marvel at how impressive-looking the dinosaurs are, and that should be exciting enough . . . here's a newsflash, Mr. Johnston. It's not. For a big budget, special effects-laden film, this is possibly one of the least visually impressive movies ever made.

I genuinely feel sorry for Sam Neill and William H. Macy - on screen, they almost look apologetic for the terrible lines they have to deliver. They try to put in some good performances, and they must be given credit for trying . . . but considering the garbage they're working with, it's no surprise that they can't pull it off. As for Tea Leoni . . . good gravy, who told her she could act? Every line she utters is pure crap - hammy, unbelievable, and delivered with such uncertainty, I became convinced she was reading off of a badly shaking TelePrompter. I've seen worse performances . . . but they're usually in `direct to video' releases. Did nobody else audition for this part? Horrendous.

`Jurassic Park' and `The Lost World' weren't exactly great films, but they were fun and entertaining, and possessed a certain sense of wonder and fear that made them worth watching. `JP3' possesses none of the above positive criteria. It does, however, possess the ability to inspire loathing and nausea from its abysmal direction and pitifully sparse, rotten screenplay. To put it mildly, `JP3' stinks like an overflowing port-o-john. The movie's a bad, bad joke. Grade: D-

Traffic (2000)

The Real Best Film of 2000

[9/10 · 16 July 2001]

A dazzlingly complex film, `Traffic' takes a hard, unflinching look at the so-called `war on drugs' that is perfectly clear and uncompromising. Director Steven Soderbergh takes the various viewpoints of the drug culture -- the users, the dealers, the police, and the politicians -- and weaves their differing stories together into a single story that is both deep in its ideas but very simple to understand. In terms of story, direction, and characters, `Traffic' is easily Soderbergh's best film to date, and one of the best films made in recent years, period.

`Traffic' takes a look at the world of drugs through the stories and lives of different characters. Some are loosely connected to one another; some are not. There is the story of Javier Rodriguez (Benicio Del Toro), a Mexican policeman struggling to keep his distance from the corruption that seems to follow him everywhere; there is the story of Ray Castro (Luis Guzman) and Montel Gordon (Don Cheadle), two DEA agents trying to turn the low-level drug dealer Eduardo Ruiz (Miguel Ferrer) against his drug cartel boss; there's the story of Helena Ayala (Catherine Zeta-Jones), the unsuspecting wife of the drug cartel boss who suddenly learns who her husband really is and what he does for a living; and then there's the new head of the DEA, Robert Wakefield (Michael Douglas), a man so wrapped up in his mission to stop the war on drug, he fails to notice that his own daughter Caroline (Erika Christensen) is becoming addicted to crack. Much like in the real world, the events of each story directly or indirectly affect the events of the others, leaving all the characters to consider their roles in the drug culture . . . and what, if anything, they can do to change those roles.

In terms of story, `Traffic' is absolutely brilliant. I'm still amazed that the film could cover so many plotlines and dozens of characters so effortlessly. Each story -- whether it's Helena assuming the role of her drug-dealing husband, or Robert canceling DEA meetings so he can deal with his drug-addicted daughter -- is powerful and brutally honest. `Traffic' isn't afraid to look at tough or uncomfortable issues. `Traffic', somewhat surprisingly, never preaches, either -- while it's safe to say that the message of the film is essentially anti-drug, it never comes out and outright says that message. A lesser film would've had some grandiose speech imbedded somewhere in the film denouncing the use of drugs -- not `Traffic'. It's wise enough to let the viewer take what messages they want from the film, without ever preaching. (A minor quibble -- did Michael Douglas' character really have to be the new drug czar of the United States? The fact that he was the top law enforcement drug official in the U.S., and that his daughter was addicted to drug . . . well, it seemed a little too far-fetched, and a little too movie-like. If Mr. Douglas had been playing ONE of the top drug officials in the federal government, instead of THE top official, I would've found his character to be infinitely more believable.)

Soderbergh's also at the top of his game with his direction of `Traffic'. The film is virtually filmed entirely with hand-held camera, giving each and every scene an up-close-and-personal feel. There's also a distinct lack of background music, which lets the viewer feel like they're eavesdropping on real-life scenes, and not just watching a movie. These techniques make for a very personal, intense experience. Soderbergh also uses a technique he's used in some of his other films (Out of Sight, Erin Brockovich) -- certain scenes are filtered a specific color, to heighten a mood or a sense of awareness of what's about to happen. The scenes in Mexico featuring the Mexican detective Javier, for example, are all filmed in a very bright, almost disorienting yellow. It's a technique that can be irritating at times, but for the most part, it serves a bold purpose that truly adds to the film.

As for the characters, and the acting . . . jeez, `Traffic' is without a doubt one of the best-cast films of all time. I mean it. There are no weak links, no poorly written characters, and no badly played characters. Each and every character adds something significant to the story in `Traffic', and each and every actor is outstanding. Kudos must go to possibly one of the best ensemble casts of all time. Three actors in particular stand out, though -- Benicio Del Toro (who won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance), Don Cheadle (who was actually slightly better than the brilliant performance of Mr. Del Toro, IMHO), and Catherine Zeta-Jones. I'm normally loathe to use the word `flawless' when describing a film, but the casting of `Traffic' was indeed flawless.

`Traffic', with its unflinching look at drug use in America today, can be uncomfortable at times to watch. It certainly can't be termed a `happy' or a `feel-good' film. That doesn't change the fact that it is an amazing, thought-provoking, powerful film -- and without a doubt the best film released in the year 2000. I can't recommend this film enough. Grade: A

GoldenEye (1995)

Brosnan Makes A Great Bond, But . . .

[7/10 · 10 July 2001]

Dmitri Mishkin: "How shall we kill you?"

Bond: "What - no small talk? No chit-chat? That's the problem with the world these days - no one takes the time to conduct the proper sinister interrogation."

This exchange in `Goldeneye' probably best sums up the Pierce Brosnan era of 007 – this isn't your father's 007 anymore. Sure, `Goldeneye' features a lot of the obligatory trappings of every James Bond movie made since 1963's `Goldfinger': elaborate chase scenes, gadgets, a bad girl with a name laced with sexual innuendo, and a megalomaniacal villain obsessed with taking over the world. However, there's also a new attempt to bring 007 into the modern world. As played by Pierce Brosnan, James Bond is still the cold, calculating, womanizing spy he's always been, but the arrogance has been tempered with a bit of self-awareness . . . and even a little remorse. Brosnan is also the first Bond to even slightly recognize how absurd some of the situations he's involved in really are – hey, he couldn't chastise the villain for failing to reveal his grandiose plan for world domination if he didn't recognize this. Brosnan's Bond is a more adult, somber hero than his predecessors – while this makes for a more well-rounded, three dimensional, believable character, it's debatable as to whether or not this makes for better Bond. More on that in a second.

But as for the film `Goldeneye' – pretty darn good, if not great. Wisely avoiding the `Thunderball' template that so many Bond films seem to blindly follow (submarines and nuclear missiles), `Goldeneye' instead starts with a vacationing James Bond (Brosnan), who meets the lovely but deadly Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen, in one of the best Bond `bad girl' performances of all time). Xenia is part of a Russian mafia team trying to steal an experimental helicopter that is insulated against all forms of electronic jamming – Bond, of course, tries to stop her, but not before getting a little frisky with her first. Xenia succeeds, leading Bond to investigate why she would want to steal that specific helicopter – and he uncovers a plot involving the space satellite `Goldeneye', capable of unleashing electromagnetic pulses that can completely disrupt all electronic transmissions and functions anywhere in the world. Xenia is just part of a larger plan, one involving some rogue Russian military officers – and a rogue, evil ex-British Secret Service agent, 006 (Sean Bean). Whoever controls the Goldeneye satellite can conceivably control the world, so once again, it's up to James Bond to save the world . . .

The action contained in `Goldeneye' is admittedly spectacular. (In fact, the action sequences of all the Brosnan Bond movies are impressive.) The opening sequence involving a free-fall off a perilously high cliff without a parachute is simply awesome, and later segments get the adrenaline racing as well. The story is also pretty darn good – while not exactly Shakespeare, it covers all the standard Bond elements fairly well. There's a lot of razor-sharp dialogue between the characters, the plot is fairly original, the story crackles along at a good pace, and the ludicrous plot holes are kept to a bare minimum. The main (and only) gripe with both the story and the action . . . well, it just doesn't have the feel of a 007 film. Take out Pierce Brosnan and the references to the British Secret Service, insert Bruce Willis, and `Goldeneye' could be a generic action film. There's small touches missing from both action and story that keep `Goldeneye' from having the true feel of a Bond film – it's missing things like the hilarious golfing scene from `Goldfinger', or the final confrontation of `Man With the Golden Gun'. It's not a major gripe, but `Goldeneye' is simply too generic, as if someone took a standard action screenplay, inserted a few names like 007, M, and Q, and thought that was enough to make a classic Bond movie. It's enough to make a pretty good Bond movie, I guess, but the formula falls short of being great – or being a classic.

As for the cast – first rate, for the most part. As mentioned before, Famke Janssen practically steals the film as Xenia Onatopp, a sadomasochistic sex kitten from hell. Equal parts camp and vicious brutality, Janssen makes Xenia one of the most memorable Bond characters in quite a long time. The `good girl' of the film – Natalya Simonova (played by Izabella Scorupco) is excellent as well – while not exactly believable as one of the world's best computer programmers, she shows enough charm, wit and style to be more than simple arm candy for 007. Sean Bean is pretty good as the rogue agent 006, but the character is so quiet and deadly serious that he almost fades into the background at times. A little more over-the-top outrage would've made 006 a better Bond villain. Special mention must be made of Desmond Llewelyn, who never, ever disappointed as Q, and Dame Judi Dench as the `new' M . . . it's definitely a guilty pleasure to see an actress of her esteemed caliber slumming in a Bond flick and loving every minute of it. And Pierce Brosnan – well, he's one of the best Bonds ever (second only to Sean Connery). Debonair, cold, and confident, Brosnan effortlessly exudes a lot of the qualities that make 007 great . . . and have been missing for quite a while. The only issue I have with Brosnan as Bond is the change towards the introspective, fallible, `21st century' Bond – but that's not Brosnan's fault. Still, part of the `charm' of 007 is his complete ruthlessness (and if don't think Bond is ruthless, watch the first few Sean Connery 007 films again), and the introduction of self-introspection and doubt takes away from the established character. Change can be good at times, but this one isn't. A minor quibble, to be sure . . . but it's there nonetheless, and it's held Brosnan back from possibly being the best 007 of all time.

Overall, `Goldeneye' is a quality film that's packed with action and is also a lot of fun. If you're a die-hard Bond fan (like myself), you'll probably walk away from it a wee bit disappointed, but for the most part, it's still undeniably entertaining. One of the better Bond films, and to date, possibly Pierce Brosnan's best Bond film. Grade: B+

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Emotionally Hollow and Insulting

[5/10 · 1 June 2001]

Over the past couple of years, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Michael Bay have proven themselves to be extremely adept at creating `popcorn movies' - good, solid action films that probably aren't going to win any Oscars, but are undeniably entertaining. The secret to making these sorts of films (`The Rock', `Armageddon') seems to be to hype up the action and to not take things terribly seriously. Unfortunately, Bruckheimer and Bay took the same cavalier attitude in making `Pearl Harbor', a film whose very subject matter demands a certain amount of respect. By its very nature, `Pearl Harbor' should've been a film that made the audience ponder the absolute senseless horror of war . . . instead, it's a popcorn movie. The fact that the attack on Pearl Harbor is treated with so little respect is not only disappointing, it's downright insulting. SPOILERS ALERT Like `Titanic', the film `Pearl Harbor' uses a romance between fictional characters to help tell a true story. Not a bad idea, except the romance in `Pearl Harbor' is so wooden and forced, watching it is like having a salad fork stuck in your eye. (For those of you who thought the romance in `Titanic' was bad . . . heh, heh, wait 'til you see `Pearl Harbor'!) The film starts with two childhood friends from Tennessee named Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck) and Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett). After the obligatory opening childhood sequence to demonstrate how tight these two guys really are, we get to see them enter the Army Air Corps and both fall in love - gee, who could've seen this coming? - with the same pretty young nurse, Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale). Evelyn first chooses Rafe as her love interest, but when he's reported dead, Danny gets his chance. The reports of Rafe's death turn out to be greatly exaggerated, and he of course returns to find Evelyn . . . in Pearl Harbor, mere hours before the start of the bombing.

Forgetting the actual bombing for a second, the romance is so witless it's funny. I kept expecting to see Crow and Tom Servo from MST3K pop in the corner of the movie screen. Lines like "I'm gonna give Danny my whole heart, but I don't think I'll ever look at another sunset without thinking of you" scream Tori Spelling TV-Movie-Of-The-Week . . . the fact that they're in a big-budget movie like this is hysterical. The problem is, the romance is so uninteresting that it's impossible to care about either Rafe, Danny, or Evelyn - so when the bombs start falling on Pearl Harbor, their fate really doesn't matter. This lack of emotional investment in any of these characters turns large sections of the film into something that can only be watched with clinical detachment instead of with genuine feeling, and the fact that it doesn't really matter if the main characters live or die makes the movie, very, very boring. As Rafe, Ben Affleck continues to demonstrate that he's little more than a good-looking store mannequin. Kate Beckinsale, who's normally quite a good actress, puts in an equally wooden performance as Evelyn, as does Josh Hartnett as Danny. Considering that these three are the leads of the film, that's just pathetic.

As for the bombing of Pearl Harbor itself - well, even if you're willing to ignore the many historical inaccuracies, the bombing is handled with such inept direction that it's embarrassing. Despite the fact that it technically looks very good, it's constructed in a manner that suggests adolescent glee, not somber reality. The battle scenes of `Saving Private Ryan' were designed to evoke horror. The sinking scenes in `Titanic' managed to evoke similar feelings of dread. In `Pearl Harbor', there's nothing but cartoonish violence. There's an attitude of `look how cool this is!' throughout the bombing that's completely inappropriate. For example, during the destruction of the USS Arizona in the film, Michael Bay cuts to the reaction of a cook as a bomb strikes the ship . . . the cook gives a Buckwheat-esque reaction that belongs in a `Three Stooges' short. When I saw this in the theater, the audience, for the most part, laughed heartily at the cook's reaction. I'll only pose this question: Should anything at all about the destruction of the USS Arizona, where thousands died in senseless slaughter, be something to laugh at? The actual bombing of Pearl Harbor seems to be little more to Bruckheimer and Bay than an excuse to make an action movie and to blow things up. They rarely give the actual bombing - and its survivors - the respect they deserve, and their few attempts to actually do so are heavy-handed and pandering in nature. In another director's hands, the story still would've been awful, but at least the tone of the film might've been on the mark. Hopefully, Bay will never get another change to butcher a serious subject like this again, and will stick to stuff like `The Rock' from now on.

Are there positives in this film? There's some, I guess, but not enough to make `Peal Harbor' good. Despite Michael Bay's mishandling of the tone of battle sequences, they are technically brilliant, and the effects work is outstanding. (However, I get the feeling Bay should be paying out some cash to James Cameron, Terrence Malick, and Steven Spielberg for so shamelessly ripping shots from their films. Bay is apparently turning into a new version of Brian DePalma - a technically brilliant director with no style of his own.) Cuba Gooding Jr's performance as Dorie Miller is great . . . for the ten minutes he's actually in the movie. It's nice, but he either needed to be a more significant character or cut from the film entirely. Ditto the smaller roles of model James King as Nurse Betty, and Dan Ackroyd as Thurman - they're excellent, but underused. Even though their performances are great, the overall film might've been better if losing the scenes using their characters meant trimming an hour off this already bloated film. The only small role that was both outstanding and critical to the film was Jon Voight as FDR - he was inspiring to watch, and was one of the few important characters who didn't seem to be sleepwalking through the film.

If `Pearl Harbor' was a film about a completely fictional subject - like `Armageddon' - it would still be incredibly dull and mediocre, bordering on bad. The fact that it deals with an important historical event brimming with true stories of heroism and tragedy makes the film `Pearl Harbor' even worse. It's an insulting film that's not worth renting, let alone watching in the theater. Grade: C-

You Only Live Twice (1967)

Not Quite "Goldfinger", But Still A Great James Bond Film

[8/10 · 1 June 2001]

While not the `perfect' James Bond film (that honor belongs without question to `Goldfinger'), `You Only Live Twice' is perhaps the most clever Bond film ever made. Crackling with razor-sharp dialogue, thrilling action, and some unpredictable twists, `You Only Live Twice' should be required viewing for the current producers of the Bond franchise – it proves that it is possible to meet all the typical requirements of a 007 film and still be original. Only the abrupt, off-key ending of `You Only Live Twice' keeps the film from being an all-time classic . . . still, it's undeniably a great movie, and one of the best Bond films of all time.

The film is about how James Bond saves the world . . . oh, you knew that already? Fine. `You Only Live Twice' begins as an American spaceship is snatched out of outer space by a mysterious craft. The American government blames the Soviet Union for the disappearance. The Soviets, of course, deny their involvement. As the two nuclear superpowers begin an escalation towards nuclear war, the British Secret Service investigates the possibility that a third party may deliberately be trying to provoke a confrontation between the U.S. and the USSR, a third party located somewhere in Japan. The British Secret Service puts their best man on the mission – Bond. James Bond (Sean Connery).

With apologies to the wonderful work that Pierce Brosnan has done in the most recent Bond films, Sean Connery IS James Bond. Period. No one else since Connery has mastered his air of cold, suave arrogance. `You Only Live Twice' is a perfect example of the way-cool attributes Connery brought to the Bond character. In `You Only Live Twice', Bond seems acutely aware of the fact that he is the best spy in the world, but he never brings attention to that fact – he just assumes other people know it. Connery also plays Bond as a spy first and foremost, but he's also sure to make Bond a ladies' man and a man of culture. There's a neat little scene in the film where after fighting and vanquishing a villain's muscle-bound goon, Bond celebrates his small victory by helping himself to a drink from the villain's bar . . . and then promptly insults the villain's taste in vodka. The script also makes subtle mention of Bond's well-to-do upbringing and his education – small things like this have been sorely missed in recent Bond films, and it'd be nice to see such moments resurface, if only in a small way. The bottom line is, Connery plays Bond in such a way that he manages to be ruthless, arrogant . . . and incredibly charming. It's difficult to pull such a combination off, but Connery does it so effortlessly, it's simply amazing.

The script for `You Only Live Twice' was written by Roald Dahl of `Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' fame, and he infuses the film with a wit that's rarely been seen since in a Bond movie. The dialogue between 007 and Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell) absolutely sizzles with tension and wicked sexual innuendo; the acid remarks by Q (Desmond Llewelyn) to Bond about his latest and greatest gadgets are at their all-time best; and the interplay between Bond and the various villains and femme fatales – the evil Mr. Osato (Teru Shimada), the sexy and seductive Helga Brandt (Karin Dor), and especially SPECTRE leader Ernst Blofeld (Donald Pleasance) –are all wonderful. (`Oh, the things I do for England,' Bond mutters under his breath as he seduces Helga Brandt.) The plot, for the most part is pretty good, too – most of it actually makes sense, and it's infused with enough unexpected twists to keep things pretty lively through most of the film. The only weakness of the story, in fact, is its ending – it's not bad, but it simply screeches unexpectedly to a grinding halt, as if either the producers suddenly ran out of money, or as if Mr. Dahl simply ran out of ideas and wanted to wrap things up fast. The ending isn't awful, but considering how sharp and energetic everything else had been in `You Only Live Twice' up to its grand climax, it's slightly disappointing.

The action sequences in `You Only Live Twice' are so-so – they probably looked great when the film was first released, but they don't hold up well to the test of time. The car chases and fights all look painfully staged – granted, they are staged, but most modern films manage to make the audience forget that little nugget of truth. For example, there's a scene where a helicopter drops a huge industrial sized-magnet onto a car, and lifts it high into the air. However, the film keeps cutting to a stock shot of Bond as this unfolds, so you never actually see the car get lifted – one minute, it's rolling on the ground; the next minute, it's in the air (and nowhere near the road it was just lifted from). Nit-picking, to be sure, but it's a clumsy sort of camera cut you usually only see in direct-to-video releases today. If you take the action sequences for what they are – the best late 1960s film-making had to offer – they're fine, but they simply look mediocre at best decades later.

Finally, a side note to any fans of the `Austin Powers' series of films – this is THE Bond film from which Mike Myers took most of his Bond influences. Dr. Evil's underground bases are scarily close to the underground SPECTRE base in `You Only Live Twice', and as for Dr. Evil . . . well, Dr. Evil is the Donald Pleasance version of Ernest Blofeld. Mike Myers manages to capture every single one of Pleasance's quirks as Dr. Evil, from the costume and the facial scar right on down to Pleasance's weird shuffling walk and the odd way he pronounces `magma'. Dr. Evil is literally Pleasance channeled through Mike Myers' body, pure and simple, which is absolutely hysterical to watch – as well as a tad bit disturbing. Watch `You Only Live Twice', and then go watch the `Austin Powers' films . . . you'll definitely know what Mike Myers' favorite James Bond film must be.

`You Only Live Twice' comes very close to rivaling `Goldfinger' as the best 007 movie ever made. As it is, it's still one of the better Bond movies, it's possibly the most cleverly written Bond movie, and it's still extremely enjoyable. Grade: A-

Con Air (1997)

A Good Movie That Got Bogged Down With Greed

[6/10 · 22 May 2001]

`Con Air' more or less defines the term `popcorn movie' – it's an action film designed strictly to entertain. The film's emphasis is on flash, flair, and adrenaline, with a smattering of humor and story spread throughout for good measure. Not exactly the most lofty of goals, but the desire to entertain is quite sincere, and `Con Air' does largely succeed in the entertainment department.

Where `Con Air' falls apart, however, is the grandiose, grandstanding way in which it tells its story. Subtlety is a word that is impossible to use in describing this film. `Con Air' is a firm believer in the concept that more must be better – ten explosions must be better than one; three psychotic villains must be better than two; and so on. The `bigger is better' approach never truly turns the film into an utter mess, but it does bog it down to a certain extent – what could've been a fantastic action movie becomes, well, just better than average. A leaner and meaner `Con Air' could've been a classic.

`Con Air' is the story of good-guy Cameron Poe (Nicolas Cage), an Army Ranger unjustly tossed in prison for eight long years for protecting his family from a drunken, knife-wielding maniac. Finally paroled, Poe is placed on a converted troop transport plane that will take him home to his family. However, also on board the plane is a roster of psychotic criminals vaguely reminiscent of the Legion of Doom from the old `Superfriends' cartoon. There's Cyrus the Virus (John Malkovich), an articulate, thoughtful madman with a penchant for automatic weapons; Diamond Dog (Ving Rhames), a black militant and Cyrus' trusted lieutenant (or so Cyrus thinks, at any rate); Johnny 23 (Danny Trejo), a serial rapist; Garland Greene (Steve Buscemi), a serial killer in the Hannibal Lecter vein who is treated as the resident prison celebrity; and a good half-dozen other colorful characters to flesh out this flying rogues' gallery of nightmare criminals. Under Cyrus' direction, the criminals take control of the plane, and it's up to the beleaguered Poe to save the day, with some help from good-guy U.S. Marshal Larkin (John Cusack) on the ground, who's seemingly the only person in U.S. law enforcement capable of deciphering Poe's brief and cryptic messages to the authorities.

The film moves along at a brisk pace, cheerfully glossing over its own improbabilities. `Con Air' is definitely the kind of film that only works if you don't stop to think about it, and director Simon West keeps things going quick enough to keep most of the ludicrous plot holes mercifully brief. He manages to cut from one story arc to another with a certain amount of skill, keeping each arc from completely snowballing into something unmanageable. However, the juggling act wears thin by the end of the movie – there's simply too much to try to balance. It's not particularly Simon West's fault (although he does have an annoying penchant for overusing the slow-motion explosion filmed from five different angles, a lá `The A-Team'), but more a by-product of the script. The second half of the film has forced moments, where the only purpose of the action scenes seems to be to completely outdo the action scenes in the first half. These scenes are undeniably cool looking, but they're filler, and filler can only take a movie so far. A good third of the film – story, action scenes, you name it – could've easily been excised from the film, and not only would it never be missed, `Con Air' would actually be vastly improved.

Even the characters, while entertaining, wind up just overwhelming the film. The villain Diamond Dog, as played by Ving Rhames, is charismatic, menacing, and a truly inspired movie bad guy . . . and he's also completely gratuitous. As Cyrus the Virus, John Malkovich is also charismatic, menacing, and a truly inspired movie bad guy . . . just like Diamond Dog. The movie simply doesn't have room for both villains (and it definitely doesn't have room for the Lecter-inspired Garland Green, who Steve Buscemi turns into an odd sort of comic relief, but otherwise serves no purpose in the film.) ONE villain would've been plenty. Ditto the heroes: Cage is good, Cusack is good, but c'mon, pick ONE. Like the rest of the film, the characters become too much, and wind up becoming pure overkill.

In many ways, `Con Air' looks like the results of a Hollywood brainstorming meeting gone haywire, where a thousand ideas are slapped down onto a notepad. . . but these ideas don't necessarily mesh well together. Most of the ideas in `Con Air' are surprisingly decent, there's just too many of them. (How many times have you heard that about an action movie?)

Overall, `Con Air' is okay, and if you're in the mood for fun, mindless action, it gets the job done. Personally, I'd recommend watching `The Rock' instead –it's by far the best of the recent spate of Bruckheimer action flicks – but `Con Air', for all its excesses, has its own good moments, too. Grade: B-

Se7en (1995)

Modern Horror At Its Best

[9/10 · 18 May 2001]

`Se7en' is all about harsh style and gruesome substance – while it's probably not a film for everyone (particularly the squeamish), it is one of the most moody, memorable films made in recent years. A sense of absolute dread pervades each and every scene, either from the powerful words and deeds of the characters or from the dreary sets and atmosphere created by director David Fincher. There's a quote from the film `The Crow' that goes, `It can't rain all the time' . . . well, in the world of `Se7en', it can – and it does.

`Se7en' is the story of world-weary police detective William Somerset (Morgan Freeman), a man who's probably seen more terror and sadness in his lifetime than any man should ever be forced to see. Partnered with the young cop David Mills (Brad Pitt), Somerset is assigned to find the serial killer known only as John Doe. The horrific crimes of Doe are patterned after the Seven Deadly Sins – for Gluttony, one victim was literally forced to eat until his internal organs exploded; for another, Greed, the victim is forced to cut an actual pound of flesh away from his own body. John Doe is a highly literate, intelligent killer; but so is Somerset, and an astounding game of cat-and-mouse filled with unexpected twists ensues as the hunt for Doe gets underway.

Andrew Kevin Walker's script for `Se7en' is absolutely dazzling. It's smart and powerful, and doesn't pull any punches – the bodies, maimed and tortured, inexorably begin to pile up in graphic fashion, and Somerset and Mills aren't allowed to minimize the horrors they're forced to find. Each new corpse brings a true feeling of revulsion . . . and of dread, as the realization hits that another body will be forthcoming unless John Doe is found. The story is filled with misdirection and red herrings; just as the audience starts to think that the unfolding events of the film are starting to become predictable, the film lurches further into the unknown darkness, keeping the edge of uneasiness that pervades `Se7en' fresh . . . and constant. Kudos also to David Fincher's stylish direction – this may be Fincher's best film to date. The entire look of the film is dark and gloomy, almost a suicidal form of 1940s film noir, evoking a despairing atmosphere that never relents or shows a glimmer of optimism. Combine that with Fincher's knack for turning even the most mundane scene into a nailbiter – `Se7en' features a scene with Somerset and Mills standing together in an empty field, and yet the scene is still incredibly tense – and `Se7en' becomes an exceptionally powerful, disturbing film that's difficult to turn away from.

The cast? Also excellent. Pitt is perfect as the cocky young detective Mills, mixing together the right amount of bravado and testosterone at the start of the film, and then later tempering that swagger with cynicism – and fear – as the movie progresses forward. In a way, Mills is a surrogate for the audience; he starts out thinking that he knows exactly what's going to happen but as events slowly unfold before his horrified eyes, it starts to dawn on Mills that he is mentally unprepared he is for a maniac like John Doe. Pitt handles the decline of Mills from overconfident to completely paranoid with great skill. The killer John Doe (I won't reveal his name here; the actor's uncredited in the film, so I won't mention it either on the off chance that you haven't read it elsewhere) is simply great. He's a quiet, intense figure who is Machiavellian with his calculated words and actions. Many other actors might've just mimicked Hannibal Lecter to portray John Doe . . . but the awesome performance in `Se7en' of the uncredited actor is actually better – and more unsettling – than Lecter himself. The best performance of the film, however, may belong to Morgan Freeman as Somerset. Freeman is perhaps the only person capable to tracking down John Doe, simply because he has seen so much sadness and horror before. Nothing Doe does, no matter how vile, is able to derail the detective's efforts. As Somerset, Freeman imbues the character with a certain tired, weary attitude . . . but still lying somewhere beneath that attitude is hope, and that small glimmer of hope, along with the wisdom of experience, is what prevents `Se7en' from spiraling into complete despair. Somerset's hope, small as it is, becomes the audience's hope as well.

With the possible exception of the very end of the film – for all its daring audacity, Fincher chooses to play it a little too safe at the film's conclusion – `Se7en' proves to be an uncompromising tour de force of modern horror. If you're not easily bothered by graphic horror and gore, then go watch this film. You certainly won't be disappointed. Grade: A