EdRooney Reviews

Mystery, Alaska (1999)

It's no MYSTERY

[19 August 1999]

Just in time for the start of the hockey season, MYSTERY, ALASKA comes along with it's tale of small town hockey with big city dreams. Directed by AUSTIN POWERS 1&2's Jay Roach and written by TV kingpin David E Kelley, ALASKA is just the type of film you might expect these two to make without any of the people and ideas involved that made their respected earlier works so memorable. While not a terrible film, MYSTERY is often lacking in so many areas and ideas, it's hard to love it.

Taking place in the small icy town of Mystery, the story concerns a commonwealth who's main concerns are knit caps and who will play in the community's weekly Saturday hockey game. A former resident(THE SIMPSONS's Hank Azaria), who has moved to New York and become a Sports Illustrated reporter, returns with news that the New York Rangers hockey team is coming to Mystery to play the local boys in a nationally broadcast event. Elated by the prospect of notoriety yet wary of the affect the publicity will have on the small community, the town sheriff (L.A. CONFIDENTIAL's Russell Crowe) - a former player himself, and the town judge (Burt Reynolds) join forces to whip the team into shape for the big game.

This being Mr. Kelley's second produced screenplay in three months, MYSTERY, ALASKA suffers from a bizarre comparison to the earlier script LAKE PLACID. While Kelley has a knack for characterization and tone, both scripts fall dangerously close to condescension and plagiarism. Anybody who saw the mildly amusing PLACID will recall Betty White's cringe inducing, profanity-laden dialog. In MYSTERY, we have another scene of an old woman cursing, adding to that a moment where a small child uses the F-word. Obviously, these moments are there to get a laugh. They don't, only coming off as desperate attempts to charm and shock when nothing else works. And as with PLACID, MYSTERY spends an inordinately amount of time on giving each and every character a backstory of somesorts. In PLACID it helped to fill an already skimpy 80 minute running time. In MYSTERY, it pushes the lethargic story to the 120 minute range. If it ain't SLAP SHOT, then I don't need a two hour hockey film. The endless story spiral is tiring and unneeded in both films. MYSTERY even has the gall to end the picture with big things happening to two characters we've barely met. It's hard to get excited when your third cousin gets a promotion, and it's even harder to achieve cinematic goosebumps over characters whom you couldn't even recall names for.

With Jay Roach, it's now clear who really makes the AUSTIN POWERS films so enjoyable, Mike Myers. The unpredictable nature of those successful comedies are long gone in MYSTERY. Working with a talented cast of unrecognized stars (Crowe, Azaria, Reynolds, Mary McCormack, Lolita Davidovich, and Colm Meaney ) and the setting of Alaska, Roach still manages to create a vastly uninteresting film. Flat and without vitality, it's shocking considering the film uses and abuses the same sports film clichés that have worked on me time and again. Roach doesn't seem to have a clue what to do with this film except keep his head down and stick to the script.

I have a deep affection for snow movies (FARGO, the recent JACK FROST, hell even THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) and Roach blows the cold weather setting with dismal and distancing cinematography. Shooting in a stark white environment and then dressing your actors in white outfits probably wasn't the best aesthetic choice Roach could have made. He also cannot seem to get an idea how to shoot the hockey scenes. With frenetic editing and bad camera angles, MYSTERY earns it's name just for trying to figure out who has the puck. Even last minute cameos by Mike Myers (who easily contributes the film's only funny line) and Little Richard cannot save MYSTERY from failing.

It's no secret that the film is formulaic. Released by Disney, MYSTERY often feels like a big bad adult version of THE MIGHTY DUCKS. Boiling it down, these types of films can only end two different ways. Either the team wins the big game or they don't. I was hoping Roach and Kelley could come up with something inventive for a climax, but they don't even bother. It's all one big audience pleasing film that forgot to please the audience.

I really wanted to get into the spirit of MYSTERY, ALASKA, but the filmmakers kept me away. Roach can go back to the psychedelic world in the colorful AUSTIN POWERS films, and Kelley can continue writing heady stuff for THE PRACTICE and the other one million shows he has created. Both men obviously have talent, but this film doesn't help that argument. Coming so soon after John Sayles's thought provoking and decidedly more entertaining Alaska odyssey LIMBO, MYSTERY, ALASKA seems like a slapshot across the face.----------------- 3

Double Jeopardy (1999)

What is : Good

[12 August 1999]

Elizabeth Parsons(Ashley Judd) lives the perfect life. Her husband (Bruce Greenwood "The Sweet Hereafter") is a successful businessman, she has a precocious four year-old boy, and her child's nanny is a caring, loving woman who places the child's needs before hers. Out on a weekend retreat in a boat on a nearby lake, Elizabeth wakes up one quiet night covered in blood, with footsteps leading outside to the water. Her husband is missing and Elizabeth is suspect number one. Sent to jail for the murder of her husband, Elizabeth pleads her innocence and becomes increasingly aware that she might have been framed. Upon parole six years later, Elizabeth begins to track down the suspects who might be able to explain what happened on the boat that night and why she cannot find her son. In pursuit of her is a crusty old parole office (Tommy Lee Jones) who also becomes aware that Elizabeth just might be telling the truth about her innocence.

Directed by noted filmmaker Bruce Beresford, it should be established that even this man has a spotted record. For every brilliant "Driving Miss Daisy", Mr. Beresford has made a "Silent Fall" to bring his ego back into check. He can be a powerfully manipulative director, and as junkily tangy as "Double Jeopardy" is, it's also a return to form for the director after past failures.

You can think of this film as "Fugitive" lite. A thriller who's conventions are nothing new, but approached with a freshness and grace that many other contemporary films cannot seem to muster. Shot with gorgeous widescreen luster and written with some cleverness by Douglas Cook and David Weisberg, "Jeopardy" is the kind of autumn diversion that makes moviegoing so much fun. You can't really tell what's going to happen next, but you know exactly where you're headed.

The screenplay by Douglas and Weisberg gives star Ashley Judd exactly what she needs right now. One of the more naturally gifted performers in her age bracket, Ms. Judd fits perfectly in the role of convicted murder Elizabeth. It would be hard to top her career defining performance in "Ruby In Paradise", and lord only knows she's been floundering ever since. "Jeopardy" puts Judd front and center, right where she belongs. Granted, the film does feature some awfully abrupt plotlines. A small one involving Elizabeth never really fighting the charge of murder, and her subsequent time in jail are handled rather poorly, as if the filmmakers wanted to get going right away, liberally tossing aside narrative to get there. It's to Judd's credit that this familiar material works at all. She's a fine actress, and the right role will make her a superstar.

With Tommy Lee Jones, the appearance in this picture is a bit dumbfounding. Quite literally the same Sam Gerard role he played in "The Fugitive" and the spin-off "U.S. Marshals". Jones seems to be slumming for a paycheck in "Jeopardy". I'm at a blank to describe any other reason to why Jones would appear in such a role. He's a unique actor with such a loyal fan base, I can only imagine a nation of fans feeling bored by the actor's work here. This isn't his finest moment.

Besides the obvious "Fugitive" parallels, "Jeopardy" also features a very specific nod to George Sluizer's "The Vanishing". Anybody who saw that film will easily recall the horrific resolution to the picture. While "Jeopardy" doesn't end anywhere near as downbeat as Sluizer's classic, one scene involving a coffin and a familiar camera move will surely drive the audience wild with claustrophobia. It's tough to tell if it's homage or stealing. Either way, it's that kind of moxie that makes "Jeopardy" rise above the conventions and remain a satisfying movie.

Paramount Pictures seems to be the only studio in town to have an incredible knack for churning out decent to great adult-themed fare ("Kiss The Girls", "Payback", "Simple Plan") for the off weekends of the year. "Double Jeopardy" should be yet another mid-priced success story for them. A reasonably competent thriller with a good cast, a watertight script, and a director with a definite affinity for the conventions of the genre. You cannot ask for much more than that.----------- 8/10

The Sixth Sense (1999)

One Willis away from greatness...

[7 August 1999]

"The Sixth Sense"

When Bruce Willis decides to act, it's an important occasion. When slogging through misfires like "Mercury Rising" and pure junk like "Armageddon", Willis never gets a chance to show the more dramatic side to his personality. "Sixth Sense" is the first product of the new Willis-no-guns philosophy that Bruce recently has made public. While it aspires to be "The Exorcist" for 1999, "Sixth Sense" can only muster the atmosphere of an off episode of "X-Files". A downright incomprehensible thriller that is too concerned with mood to care about the laughable story.

The real star of the picture is young Haley Joel Osmet (the easy bio is to say Forrest Jr. in "Forrest Gump"). He plays a young boy named Cole who has the ability to see the dead. The life-challenged repeatedly harass and torture him to a point when the entire world the surrounds Cole views him as a freak. While his mother (gifted Toni Collett) cannot understand the secrets Cole keeps, a child psychiatrist (Willis) finds himself drawn to help the young child. The two set out to crack the mystery of why Cole is the chosen one.

Written and directed by first-timer M. Night Shyamalan, the film has all the trappings of a debut movie. It's careful with every detail, visually flat, and has trouble sustaining interest throughout. What the film does just right is creating some creepy moments. Moments that could have forced the film to take a more disturbing note, thereby making the movie memorable. What Shyamalan does is punctuate each heightened situation with a orchestral bang or any other Dolby scare tactic used by every modern film to grab a scare. I keep wondering why directors do this. Sure, it gets a jolt out of the audience, but it's an easy one that isn't earned. A real horror film shouldn't have to lower itself to get a fright out of the audience. In the end, "Dolby scares" do more harm than good. "Sixth Sense" had the goods to really disrupt the audience, instead it hits all the same notes.

Bruce Willis swearing off action films might be the worst mistake Willis has made. His best work has been in this genre (the "Die Hard" series) and giving it up leaves him with a plethora of father and psychiatrist roles to play for the rest of his career. We meet a kinder, gentler Willis in "Sixth Sense". It's a performance that isn't among the actor's best, yet is far from an embarrassment. Willis plays his character rather muted, never once opening up for the big emotions. You could say that was his character, but I suggest that Willis just doesn't know how to play anyone who doesn't have an urgent situation to take care of. I love Willis, but "Sixth Sense" doesn't require much from the actor except pursed lips and a really obnoxious hairpiece. Ten year old Haley Joel Osment, on the other hand, has a remarkable depth and range for a child his age. It is his acting that grounds "Sense" emotionally. I enjoyed his work here very much, and a simple scene of mother and son bonding in a shopping cart clearly showed the chemistry Osment shared with on-screen mom Collett.

A victim of crass Disney mismarketing, "Sixth Sense" isn't really much more than a light thriller with demonic overtones. Shyamalan's script often goes on wild tangents. Scenes with Willis and his wife (shockingly unused Olivia Williams, seen last in "Rushmore") that are supposed to pay off at the end of the picture are left wide open for questions dealing with simple logic. Another moment in which Osment helps a little dead girl to justice seems from a different movie. The entire film appears to make little sense, yet to question what you're watching is obviously not the point. Shamalyan's script is also without dialog, just characters delivering speeches to each other. It's all tiring after an hour or so.

Like this summer's "Arlington Road", the entire film hinges on a last minute plot twist. A twist that is supposed to knock you off your feet. While I was surprised by the ending, it's such an illogical and implausible plot turn that it's hard not to laugh at it. Coming out of the film I was disappointed in the PG-13 "Sense". The next film to try this plot (Scorsese's next, "Bringing Out The Dead", features a similar idea) should just try to take the material more seriously, give it a chance to creep us out instead of forcing it. "Sixth Sense" is just another forgettable thriller.---------- 3

The Iron Giant (1999)

Disney can bite me

[3 August 1999]

"The Iron Giant"

"Tarzan" brought Disney animation back to working order this summer with it's rich animation, terrific narrative songs, and a specific attention to what made the previous Disney blunders fail both critically and financially. "Tarzan" still played by the tired Disney rules, but they are learning. With Warner Brothers animation, they seem to be taking more risks with their own product. From the cross-promotion antics of the lively "Space Jam" to the noble failure of "Quest For Camelot", The WB has been fighting mightily to grab the animation crown of recognition that sits rusted on top of mount Disney. With "Iron Giant", Bugs and company jump miles ahead of any cartoon competition (except for the "South Park" feature) to create a timeless, and nearly flawless, animated feature.

You just know you're in good hands when director Brad Bird's past credits include a stint as a writer-director on the genius animated show "The Simpsons". That show often goes out of it's way to parody Disney animation and others of it's ilk. Bird knows exactly what trappings to avoid and what emotional buttons to push. It is this knowledge in the end that makes "Giant" so effective.

The story, based on a children's novel entitled "The Iron Man", is set in 1957, just as the cold war was getting warm. Hogarth Hughes is a precocious 10 year-old boy with big dreams trapped in a paranoid society in deep fear of the Red Menace. His single mother (voiced with honey by Jennifer Aniston, who's name is misspelled in the end credits) works long hours to pay the bills, and Hogarth is often left alone and lonely. When an iron robot crash lands on Earth one stormy night, Hogarth discovers the Giant and quickly befriends the dazed and confused robot. Soon after, a government agent (another sneaky Christopher McDonald acting job) learns of the Giant's appearance and sets out to destroy the Giant without ever truly understanding that the robot means no harm.

One of the first things that director Bird gets just perfectly is the tone and color of 1950's America. Now, we've seen this period time and again in movies, just not this accurate. The threat of Russian invasion hangs in the air like an old sock. The kids watch "duck and cover" reels in school. The government, having been burned by Sputnik, experiences the itchiest trigger finger know to man. All the "Leave It To Beaver" type material is represented in this film as well, but for a movie aimed at 10 year-olds? Warner Brothers and Brad Bird deserve much credit for keeping this cartoon more cerebral than any in recent history. This is one good script and story, told with zest and intelligence.

I also applaud the simple notion of keeping the Giant's origins a mystery. We never know where the Giant came from or what it's purpose in the grand scheme of things inevitably is. With every film wasting time spelling things out for the audience, "Iron Giant" asks you to just use your imagination. What a notion.

Using period pastels and detailed architecture, it is the look of this animated feature that truly thrilled me. So used to current Disney animation am I that to see a cartoon in the widescreen format literally makes me weep (even if it ends up being the lame Super 35 format). "Giant" easily is the best looking cartoon to come around in decades. It looks like they spent 3 years on each shot. Bird and crew create a unique looking film that seems to be born of the comics and the animation itself of the day. With five o'clock shadows on the men, deliriously wrinkled faces of the aged, and the scary waistlines of the women, "Giant" is spot-on with it's drawings. I could watch the film time and again just for the animation. It makes up for some iffy drama that occupies the film's 2nd act.

To see a film like "Inspector Gadget", with it's relentless delivery and shameless corporate plugs(I know "Giant" will have a merchandising landslide, but the film never feels like a 90 minute toy commercial), make a killing at the box office, it's imperative that a film like "Iron Giant" be known. We need more story-centric cartoons like this. I'm embarrassed to admit that I felt an outpouring of emotion at the end of the film. It's rare to get an animated feature that engages the crowd with lovable characters without being so calculated. It's even more rare to get an animated film that has no songs to drown the narrative. "Iron Giant" is told clean and true. The bittersweet climax (reminiscent of the traumatizing "Fox And The Hound") left me thrilled with "Iron Giant" even more. This is one good animated film that should finally put Warner Brothers on the map. I strongly recommend it. --------------- 9/10

Detroit Rock City (1999)

Calling Dr. Love

[29 July 1999]

"Detroit Rock City"

Darth Maul, Austin Powers, Tarzan, John Travolta, Julia Roberts, Cartman, James West, and killer sharks... What else would summer 1999 require? KISS. That's what we need. With all the teenager movies stinking up the multiplexes recently, the only relief is a film featuring the Knights In Satan's Service. Recalling "Dazed And Confused" and channeling "Rock N' Roll High School", "Detroit Rock City" is a heaping portion of good fun. Filled to the brim with energy and acted by a cast of clever actors who probably can't even shave yet, this new music-packed comedy might just be what the doctor (Dr. Love, that is) ordered.

KISS fans might not be too happy to hear that the band isn't in the film for more than 5 minutes. Director Adam Rifkin ("The Chase" and the pathetically forced "Dark Backward") and writer Carl V. Dupre have made a film not about KISS, but about four teenagers from 1978 Cleveland who drive to Detroit to see the band in concert. Everything from religiously fanatic mothers (The great Lin Shaye), to money-stealing bullies, and even some Disco lowlifes try to stop our heroes as they trek to see the world's greatest band. Once in Detroit, the friends split up to find opportunities to scam their way into the show. It is also in Detroit where each teen learns a very important lesson about life, and just how much KISS rocks.

Leading the group is Edward Furlong. Last seen in John Waters's "Pecker", Furlong has opened up greatly in the past couple of films. In "Detroit", Furlong gives his best performance to date. I've never seen him so loose on-screen before. Working with James DeBello, Giuseppe Andrews, and probably the most expressive teenage actor working today, Sam Huntington, they each deliver just the right amount of teenage apathy, yet make each one of their characters endearing to the audience. It's enormous fun to watch them on-screen together. You don't come around such a young cast that works so well together too often. Other players include the eternal vamp Shannon Tweed, Natasha Lyonne("Slums Of Beverly Hills") in yet another role that cannot seem to tap into her talents as much as I would like to see, and even a girl fittingly named Beth played by the wonderful Melanie Lynskey("Heavenly Creatures"),

It's quite obvious from the brilliant opening credits that Director Rifkin is out to have some fun. He brings back the 1970's with wonderful widescreen lensing, a dab of split-screen, and a soundtrack crammed with classic rock hits. One after another, the music fills each scene with such vibrant energy. After getting so used to the pre-packaged soundtracks that frequently don't have anything to do with the movies that feature them, it's refreshing to see film and sound live in holy matrimony for once.

The camera swings and moves with alarming speed. The colors pop and squeak. The era is evoked gently and without(much) sarcasm. "Detroit Rock City" is one of the few films that seems to be the product of genuine love for the era and the music. It's a bright film with an enormous amount of good will. Whatever Rifkin has forced upon us before has now been forgotten.

If I had to make once complaint about "Detroit", it's the typical use of drama to justify the movie. You've seen it time and again, the film you love crashing to a halt so the lead character can make some death-to-the-ears speech about freedom, love, or any other mundane belief. It never ceases to stop any film, and it brings the kinetic "Detroit" to it's knees for about 5 minutes. The picture is bright enough to not have to include any dramatic weight whatsoever. It's seems like a screenplay conceit, and probably is. Yet another film that's too self-conscious to really kick back and fire on all cylinders.

New Line cut a great trailer for this film. The "Mad" magazine-style poster was also a genius choice. "Detroit Rock City" is silly and sometimes childish, but it never stoops to the constipated laughs of "American Pie" or the plain ugliness of other similar "boy" intensive teenage comedies. "Detroit" is often sharp, always silly, slightly tasteless, but a seriously rocking late summer film that makes up for the usual garbage that litters August. You wanted the best, you got the best.--------- 9/10

Deep Blue Sea (1999)

Not that "Deep", Just fun

[27 July 1999]

"Deep Blue Sea"

With "Die Hard 2", "Cliffhanger", the misunderstood "Cutthroat Island", the underrated "Long Kiss Goodnight" and guilty pleasure (but pretty damn good) "Adventures Of Ford Fairlane", Renny Harlin has proven himself time and again as one of the most visually competent action directors around. I've always stood behind his work, I sincerely love most of his movies. With "Deep Blue Sea", Harlin is in the midst of trying to keep his career going due to the low box office take of his previous films. The result is a movie that's on autopilot. An attempt to reclaim the respect of the studios and the audience with a slam-bang summer film that gets the job done easily, you just won't respect it in the morning.

Maybe the largest problem in "Deep Blue" is the casting. Saffron Burrows and Thomas Jane lead the cast that also includes Samuel L. Jackson, LL Cool J, and Michael Rapaport. Both Burrows and Jane give what can only be described as seriously lacking performances. As the members of a science and research team in a state-of-the-art ocean facility off the coast of Baja, Mexico, the crew is in the midst of a study on sharks. The sharks hold the key to a possible cure for Alzheimer's disease and other brain dysfunctions(explained more thoroughly in the trailer for the film than in the actual film). The scientists have enlarged the brain of the beasts, making them smarter and faster. When a corporate executive (Jackson) arrives for a tour of the facility, the sharks begin an uprising that threatens the crew's very existence. Out in the middle of nowhere, the team tries to survive both the sharks and the sinking structure.

Saffron Burrows is just the wrong choice for the lead scientist role. Her British monotone ruined a bad film ("Wing Commander") and brought down a good one ("The Loss Of Sexual Innocence"). I don't believe she has that much talent besides her beauty, and her lethargic presence here directly conflicts with the high-octane action that surrounds her. Thomas Jane on the other hand, was good in the role of Dirk Diggler's drug-dealing friend in "Boogie Nights". He seemed more alive in 30 minutes of screen time in that film than all 95 minutes of "Deep Blue Sea". I'm a bit surprised that nobody mentioned the lack of enthusiasm during filming. For the lead role, the film needed someone who can burst off the screen with fury and charm. Jane has neither. He leaves the film all wet.

Saying that "Deep Blue Sea" needed better acting might be stretching it a bit. This is a action film with plenty of thrills and many explosions. You cannot expect Shakespeare when you buy a ticket to this. Still, the script credited to three writers is very weak(I assume large parts of the story were cut for time) and the score by Trevor Rabin is the blandest, most perfunctory music to hit the ears in a long time. Hopes were really high for this, but all the bad parts add up quickly.

Harlin's specialty is the action sequence. He's one of the few directors left who knows how to squeeze the audience just right. "Deep Blue" is filled with wonderful suspense sequences and a genuine amount of anxiety. The computer-generated sharks move with alarming speed and dexterity. They keep the patrons on their toes. I cannot remember the last time I heard an audience scream with fear. Harlin milks every moment for the most thrills. I was very tense throughout the film. Rare for a guy as jaded as me.

The comparison to "Jaws" is very unfortunate. Just because the film features sharks doesn't immediately suggest a "Jaws" ripoff. We have had about 10 high school films with interchangeable plots and identical climaxes, yet nobody bats an eye over that. "Deep Blue Sea" stands alone with it's rousing thrills and deeply undernourished script. "Jaws" it ain't.

It's hot and the summer is about 3/4 of the way through. Escapism with "Eyes Wide Shut" or "Blair Witch Project" is impossible. "Deep Blue Sea" feeds the good old need of action, action, and more action. It's summer entertainment in the highest order, and damn it, the thing works. Hopefully Harlin can rebound in the future with better material. For now, this is the best source of thrills for the summer. ---------- 7

Mystery Men (1999)

It's no "Mystery"

[27 July 1999]

"Mystery Men"

When "Mystery Men" was announced for production last year, my heart went sailing into the stars. It's a wonderful thing when Janeane Garofalo and Ben Stiller decide to collaborate, it's even better when they can find a solid cast to back them up. After detailed reports from the set, two lackluster trailers, and the hideous one-sheet, "Mystery Men" finally slumps into theaters. Universal decided to hose down my fanaticism with the worst ad campaign of the year. It's rare to come across a 70 million dollar film that the studio doesn't have a clue how to market. This is the first of many problems with "Mystery Men".

On to the production...

The cast list is impressive: Hank Azaria (one of "The Simpsons" brilliant voices), former Pee-Wee Paul Reubens, William H. Macy, Geoffrey Rush, Stiller and Garofalo, Wes Studi ("Last Of The Mohicans"), Kel Mitchell (Nickelodeon's "Kenan And Kel"), and personal faves Eddie Izzard ("Velvet Goldmine") and Lena Olin ("Romeo Is Bleeding"). Not much can go wrong with this kind of talent. I guess you can never underestimate the power of the first-time director. Kinka Usher come to us from the world of commercials and music videos, doesn't that make you shudder? Has anybody of worth come out of that background? Maybe David Fincher, but Mr. Usher only knows two things in "Mystery Men": low angels and the overuse of a fish-eye lens. Almost every shot in the film alternates between the two choices. While "Mystery" has all the trappings of a rich comic book inspired hit, Usher buries the fun under two layers of clamor and indulgence. While they do have experience and a certain visual gumption, video helmers are slowly and effectively killing modern cinema.

Ben Stiller stars as Mr. Furious, or Roy to his friends. He leads a ragtag group of low-rent superheros with powers not many would consider super. The Blue Raja (Azaria, in one of the film's inspired comic performances) hurls forks and spoons with a English accent. The Shoveler (Macy) quickly dispatches his enemies with the blunt end of a digging tool. The Spleen (Reubens, in the other great acting job) uses his flatulence to bring down evil. It's The Bowler (Garofalo) who provides the best weapon, the skull of her deceased father encased in a golden bowling ball. The group is called into action when resident "Superman" style hero Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear, not as funny as he should be) comes under the evil clutches of supervillain Cassanova Frankenstein (Geoffrey Rush). His intent? To take over Champion City with the help of Mini-Me and Austin's mojo... Oh, wait. I'm getting my parodies mixed up. He's up to something, maybe you can figure it out better than I could.

All knocks aside, "Mystery Men" has it's moments. When the team is finally realized and sets out to fight evil, the film becomes this kinetic ride with lots of laughs and a great sense of parody. Like I said, I'm a sucker for the genius of Stiller and Garofalo. Kinka Usher ends these moments too quickly with endless scenes of preparation and little scenes developing the Cassanova character. I liked Rush quite a bit, anything but to see him in tights and spouting Elizabethan dialog, but cohort in crime Olin barely has any dialog, a crying shame. Usher can't seem to marry the story to the fun. "Mystery" is one of those films that's too interested in it's presentation to care much about story or keeping the silly level up. Every penny is up on-screen (especially in shots when cars drive through the same set about 3 times), but the computer effects look community-college level. Shocking in this day and age when anything is possible.

The climax of the film is another disappointment. Director Usher loses control of the film and it hurdles into an orgy of noise and effects. With a nearly 120 minute running time, "Men" beats you senseless in it's final 25 minutes. The narrative breaks down and you find yourself covering your ears and praying the action will take a break. Save for one hilarious "Six Million Dollar Man" gag, the entire climax is a waste of time and money. Keeping the budget lower might have forced Usher to use his brains to end the film. Instead we get his short-attention span.

I came out sorta liking "Mystery Men", but I'm having trouble remembering the good parts. They had a solid in-jokey script to work with, an amazing cast that will not come around again (unless this does well), and a multi-million dollar palette from which to create a new comic book environment. I can't entirely recommend "Mystery Men", but I can say that the potential is there. That's more than most films have.----------- 5/10

Inspector Gadget (1999)

Go, Go, Gadget Crapfest!

[21 July 1999]

"Inspector Gadget"

Nothing brings about sweaty palms quite like a Disney live action movie event. This time the Mouse has a beloved 80's cartoon to work with and a huge effects budget to bring it to life. I really was hoping for something good, but I knew in the corners of my mind that Disney just can't pull this type of film off anymore. With Walt gone, all this material means to the company is Happy Meals and video sales. "Gadget" is an outrage of giant magnitude. The latest in a string of Disney live action family films with no class and no respect to the viewer.

If anything is inspired about "Inspector", it might be the casting of Matthew Broderick as our multi-gadgeted hero. Broderick still has the right amount of fresh faced charm and honest personality for the role. I doubt anybody else could have been a better choice to play the character, but then again I can't see anyone else taking the part after reading the script. The plot is basic, evil Claw(Rupert Everett in an embarrassing performance) vs. good Gadget. They also take the time to show us the origins of the characters, something the show never did. I would like to know why, in each of these cartoon or comic based movies, do we need to show the character foundations. "Gadget" would have been a lot more satisfying if they just dropped us in on the action and skipped the needless back story.

Distressing, almost hilariously so, is the use of Gadget's "thought balloons" for three key moments. It's no secret that this film tested very poorly and was continuously edited down to the current bare bones running time of 80 minutes. What was deleted was basically every inch of narrative(check out the Evil Joely Fisher, in purple latex, that comes out of nowhere and then leaves even quicker) and character, leaving only the action and more action aspects of the movie intact. I submit that this might be the first film that could legally be diagnosed with ADD. But back to the thought balloons... Some scenes that were cut are back in the film in spilt-second memories that Gadget has about plotlines that were excised. Each contain effects that I know Disney ordered back in due to the high cost of creating them. In the middle of all the noise we get Gadget remembering more noise. It's weird to describe it, it's even weirder to see it.

Since this is Disney flick, the filmmakers also include heaps of product placement. To those who found the gratuitous "Austin Powers 2" beer plug distasteful should stay away from the "Gadget" McDonalds, Skittles, Coke products, Tommy clothes(see below), and most blatantly, the Yahoo Internet corporation plugs. I've come to expect this behavior, but the discretion in which the placements are being presented is getting faint.

With the use of a huge budget the film does have the unique virtue of fully fleshing out the Inspector's gadgets. I'm trying hard not to be a sour puss, so I will heartily admit that the special effects are great. They colorfully display Gadget's trinkets more realistically than I could have imagined. The filmmakers deserve credit for the creation, but they ruin it with Gadget constantly in the midst of mayhem. There should've been more opportunities for Gadget to breathe, for the audience to get used to madness. No such luck. "Gadget" runs at full steam from opening credits to closing credits.

Almost sacrilegiously, the filmmakers have also decided to tamper with the essence of "Gadget". Niece Penny (sharply played by Michelle Tractenberg, in full Tommy Hillfiger gear) and canine Brain were, in the cartoon, the real reason Gadget got out of trouble. The real inspectors behind the Gadget. In this film, the two are quickly introduced and then quickly forgotten. The film relies on Gadget alone to solve the crime. He bumbles has way across town while Brain and Penny sit and watch. By taking out the essential charm, why did they even bother to make the film? Oh yeah, to sell toys.

"Inspector Gadget" is the bain of current children's cinema. The nation complains about violence and the impact on children, all the while blaming movies aimed at adults. The real enemy are these frenetic kid's films with nothing redemptive about them. "Gadget" is a one-note weapon of mass distraction aimed at kids all over the country. Take my advice and go, go, go to a different movie.--------- 1

Jakob the Liar (1999)

The whole truth...

[19 July 1999]

"Jakob The Liar"

Coming so soon after Roberto Benigni's "Life Of Beautiful", I'm not sure the cinematic world can bear another Holocaust fable. Benigni's film was a wonderful and tender tale of a father's love for his son during that horrific period in history. It treated the Jewish Holocaust with respect, yet retained a light comedic tone. It's a balance that very difficult to pull off. "Jakob The Liar" is similar in many ways. Filmed in 1997, the movie is finally being released. It's timing couldn't be worse, only because this new film cannot hold a candle to Benigni's triumph.

Robin Williams stars as Jakob, a lonely widower stuck in a Jewish Ghetto in 1945. Trying to maintain a life while the horrors of the German atrocities surround him, he survives with the help of his humor and his small circle of friends. When Jakob is stopped past curfew one night, he hears a report on the radio of Russian Forces getting closer to liberating the death camps. Excited at the good news, Jakob reports the intelligence to his friends, suggesting that this information came from a radio he owns. The inhabitants of the ghetto become excited at the news and pressure Jakob for more. Without ever really owning a radio, Jakob begins to falsely create stories to please the ghetto. By doing this, Jakob lifts the morale of the ghetto but also places the entire population in danger from the German army. Also in the mix is a ten year-old girl who has escaped from a train in route to a death camp and has managed to fall into Jakob's care.

Sufficed to say, Robin Williams is coming off his most critically lambasted year. The double punch of the woefully underrated "What Dreams May Come" and the misunderstood "Patch Adams" has set back the actor quite a bit in the eyes of the critical community. With audiences, Williams can do no wrong. Both "Dreams" and "Patch" were extremely successful. They've come to expect the same dramatic yet sillyheart performance from Williams. "Jakob" doesn't ask a lot of Mr. Williams's core audience. I like Robin, but "Jakob" just isn't the role for him. The performance is way too similar to ones that have come before. His pained dramatic look while trying to make the whole world happy is very admirable, but he needs to stop making these movies (Robin Williams and his wife produced this film for their Blue Wolf Productions, so it really is their fault). Mr. Williams is beyond gifted. He has enough range and instincts to soar high in original roles. It's too bad he always stoops to the "Save the world" message films instead of challenging work.

Director Peter Kassovitz makes a strong impression with the look of "Jakob The Liar". The dirty, muddy, run down feel of a Jewish Ghetto towards the end of the war is very palpable in the movie. I cannot recall (even "Schindler's List") a holocaust movie that made you feel like you were part of the experience. It's parts frightening and remarkable. The camera weaves through the work day of the prisoners and you feel like one of them. The supporting cast of great actors like Liev Schreiber, Alan Arkin, and Bob Balaban also contribute to the overall mood with their extremely believable camaraderie.

When "Jakob" begins to break down, the whole film falls apart. The Germans suspect a radio is on the premises and the entire movie suddenly becomes a myriad of clichés. The PG-13 rating is also stretched a bit with graphic scenes of torture and mayhem. "Jakob" was a fine film when the focus was kept small and personal. I didn't need screenwriting 101 to tell me that a tragic climax would make the film more satisfying. It's a crying shame that Williams and Kassovitz needed to drag the audience through the typical dramatic routine, even more depressing since the ending is practically shot for shot the same as "Life Is Beautiful". Keeping the story in check should have been the first priority.

"Jakob The Liar" is the first holocaust film in which I feel the story didn't need to be told. While I can easily recommend the first 70 minutes of the film, the aftertaste suggests that the ending ruined things beyond repair. The holocaust is a delicate thing, and "Jakob" isn't offensive, it's just too late. ------------- 6

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

A Bit Nearsighted

[17 July 1999]

"Eyes Wide Shut"

Unfortunately, I am of the school where Stanley Kubrick is just another director. A man who makes movies like most other filmmakers around. Independent, free do do anything he likes, the 100 take man... What Stanley Kubrick has always represented to me is power and madness. A perfectionist who is beloved for a trait that any kingdom would crumble under. I've spent many years trying to like his work. I feel like an outsider. For his last film "Eyes Wide Shut", I have the opportunity to see one of his pictures in the theater. That's something that has never happened before.

Mr. Kubrick has chosen Tom Cruise to lead us this time. A ferociously gifted actor, he seems the natural choice to play Doctor Bill Harford, a man who's wife(a shockingly capable Nicole Kidman) reveals a secret desire for another man one night whiled stoned on marijuana. In a fit of jealous rage, the Doctor hits the streets of New York in search of his long hidden desires and wishes. What he finds startles him. A world of lust that he never really accepted in his private world. It turns him on and threatens his life at the same time. It's also a world he must confront to understand the bond of his marriage. I can sincerely say that this is Kubrick's most low key film ever.

Being Cruise's story, we see everything from his angle of discovery and delight. I was amused by his scenes with a hooker (Vinessa Shaw) and a flirtatious hotel employee (Alan Cumming). I enjoyed most of the first half of the film. "Sweet", I thought to myself, "I finally like a Stanley Kubrick movie!"

The one thing Kubrick does like no other director is to make his films glide effortlessly. "Eyes Wide Shut" is probably the most well put together movie of the year. The production design is absolutely flawless. Each location that Cruise finds himself in is another chance to glimpse a well thought out world. The use of colors and film grain make a nice addition to the texture of the piece. Kubrick also prefers a stedicam glide through a scene than to cuts. Amen! The actors are better served with one-take shots instead of the usual chop-chop mentality. Technically, "Eyes Wide Shut" is a marvel. The best looking Kubrick film out of the bunch.

It is around the infamous "orgy" scene that the seams start popping out of nowhere. The Doctor finds himself sneaking into a ritualistic orgy complete with high priest and absurdly staged "sex". It's the scene that climaxes the Doctor's story. Trouble is, when you look down at your watch, the film still has an hour to go. The orgy scene kills the movie on two levels. First being that - forgive me - it blows the film's wad. We get a full glimpse at the depravity and gluttony that the movie hinted at before(for the record, the digitally added figures that were added to cover nudity to avoid the NC-17 do hurt the scene greatly). Second thing is, since we have no idea what this orgy is about, it's hard to feel the danger that the Doctor is supposedly in. The movie works overtime to suggest that this moment has changed the Doctor forever. I never felt that. It came off as more of a goof than a life-threatening situation. And some orgy, about 10 people having sex while 400 look on. I've seen more bodies in heat in a July line outside the Old Country Buffet.

Since the film has nowhere to go after this, we get an hour of forced intrigue and bad acting by Sydney Pollack. Now I want to stress that I did understand, get, comprehend "Eyes Wide Shut". It has many layers (the critics keep telling me this), and I'm not a true film lover if I cannot appreciate the film on it's deep emotional levels. But I can't. Kubrick's creation is visually dazzling but is far from pure cinematic brilliance. Other directors could take this material and make the same dead-weight film as well. The only thing that separates this from other movies is all the behind-the-scenes action. If Wes Anderson had his actors do 100 takes of a scene, who cares. But when Kubrick does this, IT'S GENIUS! His films are original. They just aren't all that good.

"Eyes Wide Shut" is a cold, distant movie. A film that many will love, but many more will leave the theater wondering what to think. While with powerful moments, the final product is a very languid piece that will serve as the perfect example to what Stanley Kubrick could do with a million feet of celluloid.------------ 5

Lake Placid (1999)

Afterwhile, Crocodile...

[14 July 1999]

This is just what summer 1999 needed, a big giant killer crocodile horror film. In the grand tradition of Roger Corman, "Lake Placid" is a B-grade horror comedy with plenty of thrills but little bite. It seems somebody forgot to put the typical manic zest in this script. What's left is mildly exciting, but horribly lacking.

Bridget Fonda stars as a New York paleontologist sent to Maine to investigate the mysterious appearance of a 150 year-old crocodile in a nearby lake. She enlists the help of the local sheriff (talented Brendan Gleeson), a Fish And Wildlife representative (Bill Pullman, in full Bill Pullman mode), and an eccentric crocodile hunter (the always creepy and hideous Oliver Platt). Together they try to figure out just what to do with the reptile that seems to have a taste for human blood.

Working from a script by noted TV legend David E. Kelley("The Practice", "Ally McBeal"), director Steve Miner seems to have a firm grasp of this genre after last year's effective but lethargic horror flick "Halloween : H20". Mr. Miner knows how to fully milk an audience for every emotion. "Lake Placid" is filled to the gills with false "dolby" scares and a healthy dose of bloodshed. In the midst of a PG-13 revolution, "Placid" is pleasingly R-rated. It's gory, devilishly so. I enjoyed Mr. Miner's decision to go to the extreme with the visuals. Filmed with breathtaking clarity by Daryn Okada, "Placid" is fun just to watch. In the middle of deep forests and a shimmering body of water, this film is refreshingly airy and lacks the claustrophobia that hinders other films of this genre.

After 1998's "Simple Plan", it's a pleasure to report that Bridget Fonda is finally back to real acting. Her newfound energy and a surprising gift for comedy make this performance in "Placid" even better than I could imagine. She owns the frame every time with her understated performance and wonderful reaction shots. With Bull Pullman, they make the best two croc hunters around. As I said, Oliver Platt is not my favorite actor. Mr. Kelley's script is smothered with one-liners. Almost every other line is a joke of somesorts. The movie seems to rely on Mr. Platt's unfortunate comic timing for most of the gags. His back and forth with Brendan Gleeson is frenetic, but it rarely is funny. The same could be said of the entire movie. It tries hard, but comedy should not have been pushed to the foreground in the movie.

The crocodile scenes are the best part of the movie. At 85 minutes, the film uses the reptile only sporadically. The Stan Winston creation is majestic, seamlessly blending with the computer-generated creature that takes over when the croc is in full motion. A standout of the film is a neat scene of the croc attacking a bear on dry land. That kind of momentum should have been "Lake Placid", not the "I Love Lucy" wackiness.

While pleasing, "Lake Placid" is a throwaway movie. You'll forget it 10 minutes after you see it. Mr. Miner and Mr. Kelley seemed to have missed the full opportunity for fun and mayhem that this type of flick can generate. A last minute plot twist involving a second crocodile is shockingly given no attention. Had it been developed a bit more - along with the rest of the movie - "Lake Placid" could have been a seriously delicious cinematic treat.------------ 7

The Astronaut's Wife (1999)

Out Of Orbit

[14 July 1999]

Charlize Theron stars as Jillian Armacost, loving wife of Commander Spencer Armacost(Johnny Depp), NASA astronaut. On a routine mission to repair a satellite in space, Spencer is struck by an unclassifiable lifeform and loses contact with Earth for two minutes. Upon returning, the astronaut remembers nothing, quits NASA, and takes his newly impregnated wife to New York to take a executive job as a jet designer. Sensing something odd in her husband, Jillian tries to figure out what happened in the two missing minutes and why the twins she carries inside her are so important to her mysterious spouse.

In his directorial debut, Rand Ravich has created a film with parts greater than the whole. Working with his own script, the film is a very curious mixture of setup and intrigue. At around 100 minutes, the film is about 95% setup, 5% payoff. It builds very slowly, often annoyingly so. You can sense the creepy feeling that I'm sure Mr. Ravich was hoping for. With acclaimed cinematographer Allen Daviau ("E.T") at his side, Ravich comes up with a very interesting approach to filming this complex script. There are a multitude of great shots to be seen, many a lot more creative than the film itself. Often, I enjoyed looking at "Astronaut's Wife" more that I did listening to it.

What this material needed was a stronger female lead. Charlize Theron has proven time and again that she's just not experienced enough for some of the roles she takes. "Wife" needs an actor that can bring a rainbow of complex emotions to the table. Ms. Theron cannot do this. She's not old enough, and she hasn't the experience. I'm also a bit miffed that Theron chose this project so soon after the miserable "Devil's Advocate". The two films are similar in more ways than one and Theron is the weakest link in both. She's just not proven, I don't care how beautiful she is.

Johnny Depp has the easier role. Playing with a thick southern accent, Mr. Depp isn't too compelling as the strange invader. He's such a talent, a real actor, but after 1998's "Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas" I fear Mr. Depp has lost his way. "Wife" asks Johnny Depp to play suave menace. All he seems to be doing is bored aggravation. It's not his best performance. Stranger still, but pleasingly so, is Clea DuVall in a small role as Jillian's sister. After "The Faculty" and "She's All That", Ms. DuVall finally plays a role that suits her age. She's got style and talent to burn and "Wife" is a good sign that promise will be kept.

When the film is over, you might ask yourself "What was all that?". It's tough to shake that nagging feeling that "Astronaut's Wife" doesn't add up to much. While to literalize the menace for the climax of the film would be a waste of time, the film ends on a much more troubling ambiguous note. I'm all for letting the audience make their own decisions about the deeper meaning of scenes in films, but "Astronaut's Wife" would have been better served had the film paid more attention to the story than the visuals. Too much of the movie's more nuanced moments are left to actors that cannot translate the power through their limited means.

The best way to enjoy "Astronaut's Wife" is to lower your expectations when entering the theater. Consider this review a signal flare. New Line Cinema will try as hard as they can to sell this is something more accessible than it really is. This is bound to disappoint many who enter the theater expecting excitement and chills. It isn't a bad film, just a curiously empty creation that doesn't gel the way other films of the same cloth do so easily. A thriller without the thrills, a suspense flick without the suspense. ------------- 5

American Pie (1999)

None for me, please

[11 July 1999]

With "Ten Things I Hate About You", "She's All That", "Idle Hands", "Cruel Intentions", "Carrie 2", and "Never Been Kissed", I'm very tired of teenage movies with bad teenage actors trying to make disastrous teenage performances with lame teenage dialog and bad thirty year old directors. I'm up to my ears in this crap and it keeps making money. "American Pie" isn't ground breaking material. In fact, out of all the examples above, this film is the best reason to fully examine why exactly this material is so beloved by the 17-21 year old film audience.

Screenwriter Adam Herz and director Paul Weitz fashion "American Pie" as this year's "Porky's". A movie about four high school seniors who vow to lose their virginity before prom. Each one will woo a fellow student to varying results, each will engage in completely unfunny comedic shenanigans that left my screening audience with tears in their eyes. I had a lump of coal in my stomach.

It's rare to come across a comedy that on the outside has really nothing wrong with it. It tries to be funny. It's gross-out gags are appropriately gross (but damn them for outright stealing the laxative gag, so soon at least, from "Dumb And Dumber"). It also features the grotesquely gratuitous nudity that I adore from a sex comedy. After "Pie" was served, I was left with the feeling that the audience was had too easily. If this move would have been half as clever as it could have been, we would be witness to the biggest teenage comic gem since Ferris took the day off.

The script is a loose concoction of distressingly elementary teenage drama intermixed with bawdy gags involving bodily secretions in beer, foreign exchange students (actress Shannon Elizabeth will be forgiven when she badmouths this performance in the future), self "love", and the typical set-pieces that come around whenever a "movie" keg is tapped. The entire film reeks of disrespect to females, but I will surely be creamed by everybody for bringing that up. I'll just leave my criticisms to the simple "It's just isn't funny". None of it. When Austin Powers drinks a cup of liquefied stool or the South Park kids swear without remorse, both films have plenty of ingenuity up their sleeves (in South Park's case, brilliant musical numbers). We can count on hysterical visual gags or rip-roaring lines to back up the questionable material. "American Pie" can't do this. It isn't written with care or respect to the audience. Director Paul Weitz doesn't help the proceedings by making "Pie" the most aesthetically bland film of the year. That's surprising considering "Blair Witch Project" is shot with a camcorder and "South Park" is a creation of construction paper and glue. It's a long shot, but some style might have made the bad medicine go down easier.

The cast of "American Pie" isn't anything to write home about. Chris Kline was memorable in April's "Election" as the dimwitted jock with the heart of gold. Here he plays... the dimwitted jock with the heart of gold. Those scoring at home, scratch him off the list of ones to watch. Personal faves Natasha Lyonne and Tara Reid are asked to do nothing more that be the "girls" of the film. If they needed the money badly, that would explain their presence. Both actresses have done better previously. Here's to the hope that they make rent this month and get back to films that exploit their respective talents more precision. Again I blame Paul Weitz's blasted direction. All that is expected of this cast is reaction and shock, not acting. Even comedy needs talented actors. That's why Eugene Levy ("SCTV") makes the only favorable impression here. He's a comedy legend and he doesn't have to break a sweat to make a joke click. The rest of the cast could learn a thing or two.

"American Pie" is like catnip for teens. It's outrageous, it's naughty, and the boys are cute. There's always that feeling when I don't like a certain comedy that I didn't quite get it. I don't feel that here. "Pie" is a bad film. A comedy that forgot the jokes and remembered the nonsense.---------------- 2

Arlington Road (1999)

Down that simple "Road"

[11 July 1999]

The idea of a slick Hollywood thriller is a tricky thing. The film wants to give the audience the thrills they were promised, but yet the artists involved also want to give the audience something of substance. A carefully realized thought or topical plotline that can give the otherwise lightweight film so much dramatic weight. "Arlington Road" is the perfect example of this type of movie. A movie that tries to balance both thrills and thought on the same platter.

Michael Faraday (Jeff Bridges) is a professor who teaches a course in terrorism at a local college. When he rescues a neighbor's child from death one afternoon, Michael begins to get to know the mysterious nearby residents(Tim Robbins, Joan Cusack), letting them into his life and into the life of his child and girlfriend (Hope Davis). When Michael begins to suspect the couple of possible militia involvement, he unknowingly sets off a chain reaction of events that will change his life forever.

Director Mark Pellington is a veteran of music videos (Pearl Jam's "Jeremy") and one other feature, 1997's ultra thin "Going All The Way". His style is very specific: throw the camera around a bit, light the whole thing with a $1.99 flashlight - who cares if this artistic choice hinders the scene - and most importantly, get great actors to spew out incredibly bad lines of dialog but still are able to retain a certain amount of credibility. This is a very junky thriller with lots of potential but Pellington is not a very good director and "Arlington Road" is about half of a great film. While tension-filled, the film doesn't ever really take off the way most of us would love to see. The film remains too grounded in it's own pretentious delivery to ever breathe freely.

Jeff Bridges is coming off playing the most career-defining role he has ever played, that of Jeff Lebowski in the Coen Brother's "The Big Lebowski"(but you can call him "The Dude"). It was a brilliant performance, cementing Bridges's reputation as the best of his breed. A real middle American actor with range to spare and talent to burn. "Arlington" asks Bridges to turn his trademark wild-eyed paranoia bit into a full scale performance. Nobody can play skepticism like Bridges. Nobody. It comes as no wonder to tell you that Jeff Bridges is the one thing that keeps you glued to the screen in "Arlington". All the twists and turns in the world cannot save a inherently bad film. Bridges makes you want to see what the outcome of this highly implausible thriller is going to be. At turns heartbreaking (in scenes involving Michael's recollection of his dead wife) and deeply disturbing (the discovery of the dying boy that opens the film), Bridges's performance is spot-on the entire film.

The rest of the cast is less successful. I admire Tim Robbins more for his directing lately than his acting. The film doesn't give Robbins much more to do except look menacing. It's not one of his superior performances. Joan Cusack is also wasted in a role that is way beneath what she is capable of. What she does do with her small character leaves a mark, but so much more should have been accomplished with her. I blame Ehren Kruger's ungraceful script. The screenplay is full of twists, each one a little more theatrical than the last. I know that this is a movie with a movie plot, but Kruger occasionally drops tidbits of real interesting dialog and story with Michael's lectures to his terrorism class. These scenes are the best in the film. They give the character the depth needed for the climax of the film, and they truly give off the uneasy vibe of militias and terrorism that the rest of the film works overtime to achieve.

The ending of "Arlington Road" is one that will be the one thing most talked about when this movie is discussed. It is very disturbing, very vivid, and entirely appropriate. It's also one I wish I could explain in great detail here, but I won't. This conclusion is something that Pellington and Kruger do perfectly. The rest of the film is never really inadequate, just missing something that obviously Pellington couldn't provide: a strict narrative and appropriate visual choices.----- 6

Wild Wild West (1999)

It just isn't good

[8 July 1999]

It's that time of year. The time when Hollywood trots out it's worst of the summer. You know the drill. There's a "Godzilla" every year, somebody has to be it. "Wild Wild West" clenches the title hands down this summer, and we still have eight weeks to go!

The Will Smith phenomenon has now entered it's third phase: overwhelming ego project. Teaming with his "Men In Black" director Barry Sonnenfeld, Smith has finally teetered over the edge and released an outright mess. A film that will hang in the halls of all time bad event flicks. Should we blame Smith? I think so. "Men In Black" and "Independence Day" were gigantic hits, they even call the 4th of July "Big Willie Weekend" due to these successes. I submit that these films were hits due to the films themselves, the writing, acting, directing, and not just because of Smith. "West" is finally the film that rests on Smith's comedic shoulders alone. The truth shines through clearly. Not everything Will Smith does is funny.

Based in the television show running from 1965-1970, the simple plot tells the tale of a Civil War era federal marshal James West (Smith), who must team up with a weapons expert (Kevin Kline, at his most painfully unfunny) to thwart the evil plans of the villain, and legless, Arliss Loveless (Kenneth Branagh). Along for the ride is a giant mechanical tarantula, President Grant, and the stunning, gorgeous, lovely, and just plain old hot Salma Hayek. The plot is just a simple excuse to push the characters through endless scenes that give birth to no laughs at all. Scenes that make the audience gringe with fear, as if something wrong is with them. Fear not my good people, these are professionals up on screen, and they blew it.

The screenplay, credited to FOUR writers, has the damnedest time to make any of the jokes funny. You would not believe just how far the cast goes to make this limp material work. It's embarrassing to watch, and even more embarrassing for the actors. There is not one funny moment in the film, not even a courtesy laugh for the attempt. Dead silence. I also disapprove of the attempt to squeeze racial jokes into the mix. Yes, Will Smith is African-American, but do we need to call attention to it every five minutes? The movie would've been better served had it left the race issue alone and just played up the potential fun of the concept.

Will Smith is simply miscast as the hero. He's an amiable actor who's proven himself with stronger material. This film clearly shows just how paper thin the Smith charm can be. While Kevin Kline tries but fails as well, it's really Hayek's role that's a mystery. She's barely in the film, and when her character is explained, you come to realize that she's not apart of the story at all. Hayek has always been a fun performer with winning personality. All this movie asks of her is to be the butt (literally) of a few jokes and keep the cleavage coming. A shameful waste of talent.

Director Sonnenfeld has also been at the helm of better pictures ("Get Shorty"), but for some reason I have yet to see a truly great film directed by him. There always seems to be a spark missing from the action, like a better, funnier film was in there somewhere but he can't find it. Relying in great amounts on special effects and the considerable use of easy-to-spot green screen shots, the typical Sonnenfeld camera work is either buried under all the mayhem or just not inventive when the attempt is actually made. This is a very top-heavy production with little chance to breathe. But Sonnenfeld made this choice, he must be held accountable for it.

The movie has been through many edits, and this shows with wildly out of tune continuity and many unexplained plot twists. Also grating on the brain is Elmer Bernstein's annoying and featherweight musical score. While we have Warner Brothers shamefully trotting out it's "We pray it's as big as the 'Men In Black'" Will Smith rap tune, Bernstein provides a flat score that serves no purpose to enliven the film. The cinematography is also without color, and the catering probably sucked too.

"Wild Wild West" is the product of zero imagination. A lifeless summer film that seems to stick out even more in this unusually good movie season. I am always wary of comic westerns, and this film seals that envelope. If this is what 160 million buys you? I'll take the 3 million "South Park" any day.------------ 0

Run Lola Run (1998)

Sit Brian Sit

[6 July 1999]

"Run Lola Run"

The film "Flirt"(Directed by Hal Hartley) had this trick where we would see the same story, the exact same dialog, but from three different locations, with different actors in the roles in each segment. It was the typical bizarre experiment from Hartley, and it failed greatly. If you can't enjoy the story the first time, you have to sit through it two more times. That's not my idea of fun.

"Run Lola Run" tells the story of Lola(Franka Potente), a young German woman who receives a frantic phone call from her desperate boyfriend. He has just lost small cache of money due to an accident and asks Lola to help him replace it... in 20 minutes. The film asks the audience to view Lola's journey to her boyfriend in three separate attempts, like "Flirt". Each outcome differs in slight ways. And also like "Flirt", if you don't buy into the fun right at the fantastic opening credits, then you are stuck watching what ends up being a video game of a film. Complete with three "guys" and a reset button.

Using animation, video, photography, and a host of other devices, director Tom Tykwer uses the film to show off some pretty impressive film techniques. It's a picture that's very slim on plot, yet very lush with design and pop. Set to a techno score, the film is rarely slow, only stopping to set up the next 20 minute Lola run. I like the energy, I like the silly and half-baked camera moves. But don't you remember a time when people and critics used to hate films this slight? I do, and in the end "Run Lola Run" doesn't add up to much.

Tykwer has fashioned a bizarre experimental film. A flick that's being praised for it's shallow characters and disposable hipness. Tykwer tries mightily to make the film resonate with a limp opening sequence in which is explained that whomever we touch in life goes on to live theirs. We see this philosophy in action as Lola runs into people during her rush and we watch (in a series of photographs) what happens to the person, good or bad. Each run shows a different resolution for the strangers she encounters. That might seem cool, but when these "strangers" have more depth than the title character, something is wrong with the film. When you leave the theater all you really know about Lola is a mess of red hair and a scream that would make a vase nervous.

Like clockwork, "Run Lola Run" has been branded the "cool" art-house film of the year. It's all very reminiscent of the "Trainspotting" run two years ago. I cannot whole-heartily recommend the film as a satisfying night at the movies. I can appreciate the candy coating of "Run Lola Run", but like the best desserts, it's wonderful going in, but not as filling as you were led to believe.--------------- 5

Wild Wild West (1999)

Bad Bad West

[4 July 1999]

"Wild Wild West" It's that time of year. The time when Hollywood trots out it's worst of the summer. You know the drill. There's a "Godzilla" every year, somebody has to be it. "Wild Wild West" clenches the title hands down this summer, and we still have eight weeks to go!

The Will Smith phenomenon has now entered it's third phase: overwhelming ego project. Teaming with his "Men In Black" director Barry Sonnenfeld, Smith has finally teetered over the edge and released an outright mess. A film that will hang in the halls of all time bad event flicks. Should we blame Smith? I think so. "Men In Black" and "Independence Day" were gigantic hits, they even call the 4th of July "Big Willie Weekend" due to these successes. I submit that these films were hits due to the films themselves, the writing, acting, directing, and not just because of Smith. "West" is finally the film that rests on Smith's comedic shoulders alone. The truth shines through clearly. Not everything Will Smith does is funny.

Based in the television show running from 1965-1970, the simple plot tells the tale of a Civil War era federal marshal James West (Smith), who must team up with a weapons expert (Kevin Kline, at his most painfully unfunny) to thwart the evil plans of the villain, and legless, Arliss Loveless (Kenneth Branagh). Along for the ride is a giant mechanical tarantula, President Grant, and the stunning, gorgeous, lovely, and just plain old hot Salma Hayek. The plot is just a simple excuse to push the characters through endless scenes that give birth to no laughs at all. Scenes that make the audience gringe with fear, as if something wrong is with them. Fear not my good people, these are professionals up on screen, and they blew it.

The screenplay, credited to FOUR writers, has the damnedest time to make any of the jokes funny. You would not believe just how far the cast goes to make this limp material work. It's embarrassing to watch, and even more embarrassing for the actors. There is not one funny moment in the film, not even a courtesy laugh for the attempt. Dead silence. I also disapprove of the attempt to squeeze racial jokes into the mix. Yes, Will Smith is African-American, but do we need to call attention to it every five minutes? The movie would've been better served had it left the race issue alone and just played up the potential fun of the concept.

Will Smith is simply miscast as the hero. He's an amiable actor who's proven himself with stronger material. This film clearly shows just how paper thin the Smith charm can be. While Kevin Kline tries but fails as well, it's really Hayek's role that's a mystery. She's barely in the film, and when her character is explained, you come to realize that she's not apart of the story at all. Hayek has always been a fun performer with winning personality. All this movie asks of her is to be the butt (literally) of a few jokes and keep the cleavage coming. A shameful waste of talent.

Director Sonnenfeld has also been at the helm of better pictures ("Get Shorty"), but for some reason I have yet to see a truly great film directed by him. There always seems to be a spark missing from the action, like a better, funnier film was in there somewhere but he can't find it. Relying in great amounts on special effects and the considerable use of easy-to-spot green screen shots, the typical Sonnenfeld camera work is either buried under all the mayhem or just not inventive when the attempt is actually made. This is a very top-heavy production with little chance to breathe. But Sonnenfeld made this choice, he must be held accountable for it.

The movie has been through many edits, and this shows with wildly out of tune continuity and many unexplained plot twists. Also grating on the brain is Elmer Bernstein's annoying and featherweight musical score. While we have Warner Brothers shamefully trotting out it's "We pray it's as big as the 'Men In Black'" Will Smith rap tune, Bernstein provides a flat score that serves no purpose to enliven the film. The cinematography is also without color, and the catering probably sucked too.

"Wild Wild West" is the product of zero imagination. A lifeless summer film that seems to stick out even more in this unusually good movie season. I am always wary of comic westerns, and this film seals that envelope. If this is what 160 million buys you? I'll take the 3 million "South Park" any day.------------ 0

An Ideal Husband (I) (1999)

This isn't "Ideal"

[30 June 1999]

`An Ideal Husband' Rupert Everett stars as Lord Arthur Goring, a bachelor who's ex-finance (Julianne Moore) comes strolling back into town with a secret. The secret threatens to expose Lord Goring's friend Sir Robert (Jeremy Northham) and his wife (Cate Blanchett). Set in 1894 London, and adapted from the stage play by Oscar Wilde, `Husband' is the latest costume drama where `scandal' and `society' are the buzzwords and tedium is the audience's reaction. Oliver Parker directed the 1995 Shakespeare flick `Othello' with a burning pace and a slick cast led by Laurence Fishburne. That film was deeply entertaining and showed that Parker was capable of making the most mundane work seem fresh again. With `Husband', Parker seems to have forgotten this gift. Relying on the lame drama, the film utterly fails whenever the actors get serious. These costume films are just all the same. The plots seem to bleed into each other, the actors all give the identical interpretations. I could easily predict how the score would sound, the lighting arranged, and each actor's enunciation. I am losing my patience for this genre (the recent mega-disappointment `The Winslow Boy') and I pray this well has run dry. I am so used to Rupert Everett's 3 week old kitten purr of a voice, I immediately thought he was all wrong for the part of a dashing leading man. Rupert is a very handsome guy, but his acting up to this film has left a lot to be desired. In `Husband', it takes time, but he soon becomes the film's saving grace. It's a funny performance stuffed with cynicism and wit. Julianne Moore equals Everett with style and venom. She's in the middle of a real career defining period(`Boogie Nights', `Cookie's Fortune'), and this film adds to the list of smashing performances. Minnie Driver and Cate Blanchett bring up the rear of actors here. Ms. Driver looks just about as animated as I've seen her, and Ms. Blanchett looks lovely beyond words. Both are given very little to do, thus a huge waste of talent occurs. That is tough to watch. `Ideal Husband' isn't my idea of a good time. The seniors in the audience that I watched it with disagreed. I feel very open minded to most intelligent films, I mean, come on, I'm never picky. It's just these repressed society-`they're just like us!'-corset and tea-'improper!' films have GOT TO GO. I can't handle another 45 minute subplot about spilled tea again. Don't we have a reserve of gay coming of age films ready to fill up the art houses? French films about the degradation of society? Anything, please.---------- 3

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

Funnier, Faster, and Delicious

[29 June 1999]

When "South Park" first appeared on the scene, I dismissed it without ever really watching it. I wasn't too interested in watching little kids yell and curse at each other. When "Baseketball" opened last July, it was there and then that I began to understand the humor and musical styling of "Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Last year also saw the release of the duo's "Orgazmo" and "Cannibal : The Musical", both made prior to the "South Park" phenomena. I became a fan. With "South Park : Bigger, Longer, and Uncut", the television show makes the giant leap to the big screen with a completely over the top feature that will probably end up as the one summer film that gives the audience the most pop for it's coin. To synopsize the film would be too painful (and boring). It's so packed with plot and characters that a one sentence generalization would do the film no justice. I'll put it this way : If you don't know, get, or find "South Park" funny, DON'T GO SEE THE FILM. There might be droves of walkouts as soon as the opening sequence ends by people who thought that a cartoon could never be "that bad". The R rating and the "Uncut" of the title are there for a reason. Heed the signs. Paced like a bat out of hell, "South Park" is the funniest film to come around in some time. While most of the jokes might seem stale to real "Park" devotees, Director Parker knows exactly how to keep the film flowing, and in the process, show us new sides and characters that used to be unattainable on Comedy Central. The movie is vulgar and offensive, that's the idea. But Parker and Stone never once get meanspirited about things, always making sure everybody get a slice of the laughingstock pie. The dreaded "bleeping" of the curse words is finally gone, leaving Parker and Stone their first chance to show the world just how far they can take this concept. After hostilities with the ratings board over the NC-17 given to "Orgazmo"(which was harmless fun), this new film( which is far more raunchy than "Orgazmo") can be easily viewed as one big middle finger to the ratings board. It's the first film I have ever seen that purposely goes unbelievably far just to see what they can actually get away with. It's very interesting to compare this film, which made it out with a R rating, to others that were slapped with the NC-17. I believe that this is what Parker and Stone had in mind. Watching the antics of Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny on the silver screen does have it's advantages. The film is decidedly cinematic, often jumping to show-stopping musical numbers that I love Parker for. Working with Marc Shaiman, Parker brings us a whole new load of songs that are equal parts silly, and yet retain some musical respect. A just world would find evil Canadians Terrence and Phillip's "Uncle Fu**a" at the number one spot on the charts. Like "Cannibal", the songs stay in the head. They move beyond their comic foundation and feel like real songs, Parker has a musical gift and this "South Park" feature really showcases it. But don't fret fans, the film is jammed packed with comedy that represents what "South Park" is all about. Canadians, African-Americans, Jews, Catholics, the poor, the wealthy, gay, straight, bi, men with voiceboxes, men with puppets on their hands... Everyone is made fun of here. And every moment of this 80 minute film is comedic gold. Like the "Beavis And Butthead" film, this movie comes out just as people are beginning to write off the TV series. And similar to "Butthead", this film has made a true fan out of me. No other flick this year will have the stamina, the audacity, and the sheer momentum to please like this little "South Park" film. I give Parker and Stone endless credit for crafting a film that nobody will expect, and that every fan will relish.--------- 9

Stir of Echoes (1999)

Not much stirring

[25 June 1999]

Kevin Bacon stars as a man who is very skeptical to the real powers of hypnotism. Going under during a party, Bacon comes back haunted by feelings that a murder has occurred near him recently. His son has the same visions and the two try to discover what happened to a neighborhood girl who disappeared years before. I understand very easily what director David Koepp is trying to do with this thriller. Mixing equal parts "Exorcist", domestic drama, and TBS original movie ham, Koepp strains to keep this mess afloat. It's an uphill battle, but "Echoes" is actually quite effective in it's initial moments. Koepp is a very seasoned screenwriter ("Jurassic Park", "Mission Impossible"), so the man knows a thing or two about pleasing an audience. When the Bacon character begins the journey into the unknown, the film is packed to the seams with spooky atmosphere and ambitious storytelling. It's very winning to see a movie that's actually trying to creep the audience out (a proven point due to the high level of "What the hell..." comments during the screening I attended). It's a majestic first half, and one that sets the film up for greatness. When the action turns to Bacon and the strain his madness puts on his marriage, it's there that the film unravels completely. What was once a creepy and effective thriller now has become a interminable bore. The resolution of the film, involving a slow rape sequence, is sickening on two levels. First being that simple fact that Koepp sinks to a new low by showing us the rape - very tasteful, isn't it? The second being that the movie uses "General Hospital" type theatrics to get out of, what I thought was, a very complex plot . It ends silly. Getting there is even worse. Koepp had something going but loses it in the closure, what accounts for this I will never know. Based on a book, "Echoes" falls apart very cinematically, not like a book would. It seems like a studio wouldn't let Koepp have his way with the entire movie. Kevin Bacon gets all the credit in the world with his acting. He usually can be relied on to show us very different characters in each movie he does. It's a talent that many do not even try to discover. In "Echoes", not much is asked of Bacon. And he returns the favor with one of his most forgettable performances. Kathryn Erbe portrays Bacon's wife and she fares better, but in the end her character never really mattered. Bad character actors like Kevin Dunn and Illeana Douglas round out the cast. Not the best group of performers, but this was not the best script. You decide who's at fault. "Stir Of Echoes" is a very forgettable thriller. A movie that might work for people who see 2 films a year. It's always shocking to see a film break apart like this. Koepp's last film "Trigger Effect" was a more carefully structured movie that was far more successful with half the dramatic raw materials. I hope Koepp can bounce back from this. He obviously can craft a crowdpleasing film, just not one so aggressive in it's intent to please.----------- 4

The General's Daughter (1999)

The Red-Headed Stepchild

[20 June 1999]

When the title character is found brutally murdered and possibly raped in the middle of an army base, two warrant officers set out to find whodunit. When the motives for the crime become increasingly lurid, officer Paul Brenner must decide his allegiance to the law or to the Army. Based on the best selling book by Nelson DeMille, "General's Daughter" is a very middling and mangy thriller. The kind of film that forces you to imagine that this material should have stayed a book. John Travolta plays Brenner with a nice balance of humor and intensity. After "A Civil Action", this film shows just how solid an actor Travolta has become. Spitting out the not-so-hot dialog with fire and cynicism, his performance here single-handedly saves the film from utter failure. It's also a treat to see Madeleine Stowe back on the screen, yet the film doesn't quite know what to do with her. Leslie Stefanson plays the daughter in question. Her performance is completely without any life whatsoever. Maybe she could be more effective on "Boy Meets World". The story of "Daughter" has a very sinister opening. An opening filled with great promise to the depravity that lies ahead. What the movie fails to do is keep that gruesome pace going. The climax of the movie is a complete fiasco. It negates the first half of the film just by being so openly blind to the tightly wound story that I was promised in the first five minutes of screen time. Simon West is not known for subtlety. The director of "Con Air" keeps his overdirecting streak alive with poorly chosen shots and an overindulgence with the AVID editing machine.

I wished the film had kept its game face on for the entire 115 minutes. It cops out just at the point when it should have turned the screws tighter. In the end you come out of "Daughter" with that annoying bad taste in your mouth. The kind of feeling that you just witnessed something that could have been great had it stuck to its original instincts. What we have left to gnaw on is a thriller without any thrills, a mystery without a resolution, and a director who doesn't know anymore than fireballs, blood, and bad endings. ---------------- 4

Big Daddy (1999)

Make Room For "Daddy"

[18 June 1999]

"The Wedding Singer" showed the world that Adam Sandler wasn't just yelling and poo jokes. He gave a delicate performance and made the romantic comedy his best work to date. You could easily tell growth was occurring, and the film responded by being extremely popular when nothing much was expected from it. "The Waterboy" was made during Sandler's "Wedding" success, thus not able to build on that growth as an actor. "Big Daddy" has the ability to see that a less silly Sandler can still achieve serious coin. While no "Truman Show", this new film plays up the emotions with the hope of showing off some dramatic chops that Sandler might possess. The result is a perpetually funny film that has the brains not to ruin the wacky stuff with superfluous tears. Reuniting with his "Happy Gilmore" director Dennis Dugan (who has a great cameo as the man who wishes he answered the front door on Halloween), Sandler stars as Sonny Koufax, a slacker who cannot seem to get his act together. In an attempt to impress his girlfriend (Kristy Swanson), Sonny adopts a child that was mistakenly dropped off at his front door. The two soon develop a affinity and become a very unique father and son combination. The story is basically an excuse for Sandler and co-screenwriter Tim Herlihy to shower the audience with gags involving typical child-rearing frustrations. Peeing in the bed, disobedience, first day of school, and a very funny bit involving shopping for groceries are all touched on. Intermixed with the usual oddball humor that I love about Sandler-Herlihy screenplays are nice quiet moments encompassing Sonny's romance with a lawyer played by Joey Lauren Adams. It is this segment of the movie that Sandler shows off the lovable charm that oozed out of the flawless "Wedding Singer". Without Drew Barrymore around, the romantic moments in "Big Daddy" seems more of a screenplay conceit that a real subplot. Still, they are funny and touching in a roundabout way. Now I say this with a straight face: Sandler has yet to really write and headline a bad film. Movies like "Happy Gilmore" and "Billy Madison" get beat up all the time over their adolescent jokes. I for one praise the comedian for remaining funny just as the box office stakes are rising. "Big Daddy" is packed with grand jokes and a healthy sense of the odd that made the previous pics so endearing. Writer Herlihy provides the exquisite one-liners and Director Dugan keeps the visual gags fast and proficient. The three are an impregnable team that I hope can continue this run for another film. When it comes to the dramatic moments, "Big Daddy" doesn't really falter, it just stumbles a bit. It comes off as a bit fake to see Adam Sandler trying to muster tears over his beloved child. I don't suggest that Sandler is incapable of dramatic work, but this film forces it a bit. Standing back and letting the drama lead the way might have been a better option. There's an audience to please out there, so the baby steps on display here might the right way to do this. In ten years, when "Adam Sandler in 'Macbeth'" opens, I'll be first in line, assured that Sandler can be the actor that I suspect he wants to be. "Big Daddy" shouldn't frustrate anyone looking for big laughs. This streak that Sandler is on has been marvelous, one film after another just pure fun. As long as he continues to write his own material, as long as the jokes remain ambiguous and risky, I'll go to the ends of the Earth defending him as a true original. A man who's films should not be dismissed so quickly.---------------- 9

Summer of Sam (1999)

Quite a summer

[16 June 1999]

In the summer of 1977, David Berkowitz aka Son Of Sam, went on a killing spree that lasted over a year and took many young New Yorker lives with it. Director Spike Lee's new film chronicles this event and the ways it touched a community through it's violence and intolerance. It's Lee's most vibrant work yet, and it carefully explores each and every downfall Lee holds as a director. Working on his most detached film, Lee recreates the hot summer of 1977 flawlessly. Watching the film you can smell the stench of the street, the hot cheese burning on a reheated pizza, the musty aroma of a gay porno shop, and most importantly, the delirium of the citizens as a killer walks among them. Lee's "Crooklyn" and "Do The Right Thing" were more intimately created worlds, but "Sam" is the most believable. We weave around the Brooklyn neighborhoods and watch the Guidos read the papers everyday, monitoring the moves of the killer. They pose and threaten, try to go on as life intended, but everybody is frightened to death of Sam. Their lives are drastically changed during this one summer. John Leguizamo and Mira Sorvino star in one story about a young married couple who cannot seem to be sexually compatible. It is during the hysteria of Berkowitz that the couple finds themselves experimenting in role playing and sex clubs. Lee's biggest failure is trying to make the two actors more than one-dimensional characters. They don't give the best performances of their respective careers. Academy Award winner Sorvino especially seems to be slumming in a seriously thin role that requires nothing from her. Leguizamo is a good comedic actor, and the dramatic roles he takes have been equally as sharp, but the script by Michael Imperioli and Victor Colicchio lacks depth. They leave him hanging in a sea of F-words and impossible improv. You can only take so much of that before you cry uncle. Lee fares better in the other story of a young punker (Adrien Brody) who the neighborhood suspects is the killer. Refreshingly working outside of rap and jazz, Lee is remarkably accurate with his depiction of the punk movement. He scores major points with a montage set to a Who song that sold the movie to me. It's the best 5 minutes of the film. As Brody runs around in spikey hair and a counterfeit British accent, he's the most eye-catching of the picture. I would say it's the most layered performance in the film. Leading a double life as an ambitious musician during the day, and a nightlife of nude dancing and porno films, Brody is compelling to watch. Lee doesn't give any of his actors a chance to shine - the neighborhood is really the star of the film - so when Brody makes an impression, that's something to say. The biggest failure of the film is it's length. At 140 minutes, it's just way too long. The story runs out of steam long before the slick end credits hit. The movie would be better served as a faster, sleeker vehicle. Spike Lee cannot seem to cut a film perfectly. The extra fat that he loves weigh each movie down impossibly. "Summer Of Sam" would be a perfect picture about 30 minutes shorter.

This film is fun to watch. It's interestingly shot, breathtakingly sexually explicit, and contains a Spike Lee cameo that steals the movie. As risky and challenging summer entertainment, "Sam" faces a battle with "Eyes Wide Shut" for the title of the Most Refunds For A Summer Film award. Spike seems to be back on track after the unsatisfactory "He Got Game" and I hope he decides to revisit a New York summer in the future. It seems to be his forte.----------- 7

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Something in the woods...

[13 June 1999]

"The Blair Witch Project" "In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland while shooting a documentary called 'The Blair Witch Project'. A year later their footage was found." That's the premise the filmmakers give the audience for this recent Sundance Film Festival rave. You can think of this film as a horror "This Is Spinal Tap", - completely fictional, but filmed in a way that suggests that what you are seeing really happened. Shot with a digital video camera and 16mm film, we watch as three young filmmakers get lost in the woods and bicker like a married couple from hell. I give first time directors Daniel Myrick and Edward Sanchez a ton of credit and respect for this creepy feature. They create and execute the most searing horror film in some time. It's a truly original creation. With more and more films itching toward the excess and pomp of the visual terror, "Blair Witch" is purely psychological. We only see bits and pieces of what is terrorizing the trio and that is enough. Any more would kill the illusion and ruin the suspense. Trouble is, cut to 82 minutes from a 150 minute cut (even longer at one point), the movie oozes choppiness. Jumping from moment to moment sours the spooky mood. More scenes should have been left to linger. Instead, the film cuts around aimlessly. When the picture truly hits a nerve - in the final 5 minutes - it makes the 77 that proceeded it seem pretty wasteful. Most of the film consists of watching the trio yell and agitate each other. Only a small amount of attention is played to the Blair Witch of the title. While being lost in endless woods with nothing to eat and no way of getting home is a pretty damn scary concept in itself, the film keeps reintroducing the supernatural element only to dismiss it for yet another puerile fight. If this was truly a real incident, I would bet the farm that any news outlet who got their hands on this footage would squeeze the Blair Witch teat till it ran dry. When the ending arrives, it only reminds you of the gaps in the storytelling that should have been fixed. Actors Joshua Leonard and Michael Williams do a sharp job as the cameraman and soundman of the group. They successfully convey fear and anger, and they convincingly look like hell. It's actress Heather Donahue that bothered me. Out of all three actors, Donahue feels the most false. She's just too cinematic in her acting, often resorting to melodrama when the film begs the opposite. This is a situation which invites a million different questions. A perfectly acted film can make you forget the seams. Donahue's acting keeps you reminded that this is a fabricated film. While I did like "Blair Witch", I fail to see what all the fuss is about. It's a wobbly horror flick that will spawn countless imitators upon release. It's a primitive film that reintroduces genuine scares to a genre that long ago forgot how to terrorize. It's a easily buzzable film that the cinematic community loves to hype because everybody feels that they discovered it. It's a lot of things except the one thing that counts the most... It isn't great. --------------- 7

Limbo (I) (1999)

You ain't kiddin'

[13 June 1999]

I'll admit that I'm kinda late to the John Sayles fan club. His 1996 film "Lone Star" is flat out brilliant, and the woefully underseen "Men With Guns" represented another triumph in storytelling and prose. "Limbo" follows this tradition in the representation of a stretch of Americana that we think we all know, Alaska. Weaned on "Northern Exposure" and Sea World exhibits, Sayles takes us behind the facade with this story of a fisherman with a troubled past (David Strathairn) who begins a tentative romance with lounge singer (luminous Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio). The film shows us the other side of Alaska. The mills and factory closings, the theme park future that Alaska might be subjected to, and the constant state of unknown future for the people of the land (the limbo of the title). When the fisherman takes the singer and her daughter on boat trip though unsettled land, the journey turns ugly and the three become stuck on a remote island(again, the limbo of the title). This part of the film is what Sayles excels at. It is at that point when the characters go under the microscope and reveal what they are truly made of. Sayles's strength is in his characters, a gift that few writer-directors even try to find, much less have. I was hopelessly drawn to each character, interested in what happens to them and why. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio has been far away from films lately. She first caught my eye in "The Abyss", and there I was hopelessly forced to fall in love with her and the mighty talent she holds. With "Limbo", Mastrantonio commands the screen once again. She's just great in her scenes with David Strathairn, and it makes you wish she could be in every film. She also gets to display a very delicate singing voice. Also of note is young Vanessa Martinez as Mastrantonio's daughter. It's a role that's very complex, involving alienation and self-abuse, ideas and emotions that any other actress her age would fumble like a Green Bay Packer. The whole cast is perfect, but those two stand out with sheer talent. It's the ending of "Limbo" that the film will be remembered by. The movie is packed with symbolism, and Sayles continues that idea with his finale. It was a blast to see a packed audience react with such horror at the ambiguous ending, a small treat of theater-going. The ending is a bold experiment, and honestly it is fitting with the rest of the picture(I do understand it's purpose). But I just spent two+ hours feeling, caring, loving these characters... Damn it, I want to know what happens! Deep breath...--------------- 9