Yes, indeed, it is that time again. The summer is nearly over, so it’s time to reflect on the no good time-wasters Hollywood has thrust down our gullet. This summer’s motto - Slow and steady wins the race. Keep it simple, stupid. Anything NOT simple (therefore huge and overbearing) was obnoxious. The good kind of “not simple” usually comes out around the holidays. The methodical and intelligent dramas have won the summer from the blockbusters.
It seems that summer heavyweights are event movies that are an event for about two days, then they’re gone. “Evolution”, anyone? Say, when does “Tomb Raider” open? Is ANYONE talking about “Dr. Dolittle 2”? ANYONE AT ALL? Well, NO ONE is, and it grossed $100 million dollars. The public is eating the garbage they’re fed. That moment that many predicted where someone suggested that standards would slowly be lowered to the point that no one would know that they’re low anymore has been reached!
Here’s what I think is missing this summer: THE event movie. Movies are making a BUTTLOAD of money, but they’re not living up to the hype. There’s simply nothing else to see. Would anyone see “The Fast and the Furious” if there was something GOOD instead? But when you’re looking at a turd buffet, you better get used to eating shit. There’s no “The Sixth Sense”-type movie that was a critical hit, commercial hit and a flick that just took over the country’s imagination. Then again, “The Sixth Sense” came out in August, so we can be hopeful. Understand?
Let me ‘splain. No, there is too much.
Let me sum up:
CATS & DOGS (**) - My wife was ecstatic when she heard there was going to be a movie involving doggies as spies. And the opening titles suggest that there will be much in the way of spoofing spy movies - only with dogs. However, the end result left much to be desired. I wish I could put my finger on it EXACTLY: Jeff Goldblum used very poorly? The ending being too sloppy? It was just missing something. Some voices were terrific - Sean Hayes as the evil cat with the excellent name Mr. Tinkles and Alec Baldwin outshining his own embodied performance in “Pearl Harbor”. Unfortunately, Tobey Maguire just sounds like a Michael J. Fox rip-off (Mike himself was great in “Atlantis”), and Susan Sarandon is doing the same voice she gave to the spider in “James and the Giant Peach”. It was a mixed bag, but in the end, not as memorable as it could’ve been. Oh, except for the line uttered by one dog, “Son of my mother!”
ATLANTIS: THE LOST EMPIRE (***) - Great voices and excellent animation make up for a lack of humor in this DIsney epic. I was not a big fan of “The Emperor’s New Groove”. It was a departure from ‘the Broadway formula’ Disney’s been accused of following since “Beauty and the Beast”. But the one thing I thought was missing was the epic feel. They cleaned the slate, but took away the most interesting part. This movie brings back the epic and is as big an adventure as any this summer. Michael J. Fox and The Great James Garner do impeccable voice work, as well as a great supporting cast including Don Novello, Florence Stanley (hilarious), John Mahoney, Leonard Nimoy, the list goes on. Not to mention Phil Morris of “Seinfeld” fame as the doctor. However, it is not without fault. There is a character that is truly annoying named “Mole”. He likes to dig! Lame. The plot gets a little convoluted at then end, when they could’ve used a little K.I.S.S. But the directors of “Beauty” pull out fantastic animation (that REALLY came alive with digital projection at the El Capitan Theatre) that proves that traditional animation is not dead.
A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (**) - Wow, did this movie lose its wheels three quarters of the way through. If the first 3/4 of the film were balancing on a tightrope, the last half hour fell to the floor without a net. Kubrick and Spielberg is an awesome combination on paper that should work on the screen. Haley Joel Osment was very good. There were flashes of Spielberg’s genius, but not enough to sustain the entire story. ACT one: I was mesmerized by the idea of a robot boy living with real people. The problems emotionally were shown with great clarity, and the classic man vs. machine argument was handled well. ACT two: More unique stuff - the Flesh Fair, a dazzling, chaotic uprising against the machines now occupying the world with man. Energized and exciting. ACT three: The boy robot wants to see Pinocchio’s Blue Fairy, who he hears grants wishes. Kill me, already. I’M GOING TO REFER TO THE END OF THE FILM, ‘cause it ruined all the precise, calculated filmmaking up to that point: New Times magazine in LA said it best when they said Spielberg hasn’t learned that a happy ending isn’t always the best ending. I believe Kubrick would’ve ended the film with David staring into the sea. Then I was told that his treatment included the last twenty-five minutes (a sort of coda) anyway, so I probably never would’ve been totally pleased with this project. And the pace was brutal. There is ALOT more worth discussing, but I don’t want to give any more away. Please call or write to debate this film!
MOULIN ROUGE (**1/2) - The year’s most frustrating film. It is absolutely, unquestionably out of its fucking mind. So unique, so ballsy, so untraditional that it took me a MONTH to determine if I even liked it. It’s so jam packed with vision and insanity that I had to mull on it for 30 days! But the end result - I didn’t like the whole picture. Here’s how I feel: There’s a moment when Ewan MacGregor sings Elton John’s “Your Song” to Nicole Kidman and they are so enraptured that they sail into the sky, and dance on the clouds as the music swells. This scene is fascinating, and I became totally rapped up in it and I was transported, like all great movies can do. Then...there were moments like the “Like A Virgin” sequence, which plays out like Baz Luhrman’s wet dream and I found myself saying ‘Please, God, let this end.’ The other problem I had was that I personally never bonded with this film’s sense of humor. Parts of the film are lush, parts are tragic, parts are magical, but the parts that are supposed to be humorous are so out to lunch that they seem like they’re in the wrong film. They’re downright WACKY, and it never felt right. The opening of the film is brilliant, Luhrman’s camera flies through the streets of Paris as if we’re in an old postcard or in a Georges Melies film. Other things I liked included Ewan MacGregor. Who knew that Obi-Wan Kenobi had such an outstanding rock star belt! His singing was great and entire presence and sexuality was fierce. Nicole Kidman was very good, too. She was more of a breathy singer, but commanded the role she was given. Baz Luhrman, director of “Strictly Ballroom”, has always prided himself on the dance quality in his films. I feel, however, that he’s done an injustice to the dancers in “Moulin Rouge”. Long story long, I’ve always thought that excessive editing is a disservice to stunt men in action movies. These people put their lives on the line, but then watch their work ruined by choppy editing and swooshing cameras that barely capture the effectiveness of the stunt (see “Zorro” review). Luhrman’s dancers are poetic in “Moulin Rouge”, and there’s some great magic in the scene that intercuts ‘Roxanne’ and ‘Where Does my Hear Lie?’. It’s OK to cut back and forth between the two scenes, but Luhrman’s still in “Romeo + Juliet” mode with OVERKILL, and he cuts around WITHIN the scenes, diminishing our ability to really take in the dance - and I wanted more of what the crazy German (was it German?) and the ho were doing. This overactive editing permeates other scenes, and at times, it’s a little much. I give all the credit to this film for not giving the public that same old, trite crap, but regrettably give it the old thumbs down.
SONGCATCHER (***1/2) - A great film featuring wonderful performances by all involved. I missed “Tumbleweeds”, so I never knew what the hubub was with Janet McTeer. Turns out she’s a solid lead performer, and her character has so much drive, ambition and attitude, you follow right along with everything she does, wanting her to succeed. It’s the story of a British music teacher who travels to North Carolina to study the songs of the “mountain people”, determining that the songs have English roots. Woohoo! Thrilling, right? Well, naturally, it’s the personal journey that’s more inspiring and interesting. This movie gets major points for letting the music live LARGE within the film. We get to hear whole songs, sung by a variety of people with great character. It brings to mind “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” and the problem with “Finding Forrester”. In the latter, Forrester and the Rob Brown character are supposed to be great writers, but when do we get to hear this great writing? Even when we could at the end, we’re cheated by getting a montage of a few words here and there. “Songcatcher” lives in its music, and its characters. And it lives large. Word.
PEARL HARBOR (**) - Could Michael Bay just humor me and make a film that’s ALL action? Then it may not be so bad. Maybe two and a half stars. But having characters and putting them in scenes has once again done him in. This movie blows. I almost want to write two reviews about it. Hey, it’s my site - here I go:
PEARL HARBOR (****) - Fierce action scenes! Bay and Bruckheimer have scored with a series of powerhouse battle scenes that rock the theater. It’s absolutely immense and they make the most of the budget, which broke banks by being the most expensive film ever greenlit (yet not the most expensive total). The camera follows planes through the carnage of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor with a technical wizardry burying anything we’ve seen this year. I was floored.
PEARL HARBOR (no stars) - This movie is the worst love story I have ever seen. Let’s all admit it, Michael Bay wants to “legitimize” himself, and have his “Titanic”. BUT HE CAN’T DIRECT ACTORS. It can’t all be the actors fault. Kate Beckinsale’s been great before (“The Last Days of Disco”) and so has Ben Affleck (“Chasing Amy”), but they’re horrible in this! Bay shot at least four scenes in which Beckinsale crosses a runway in slow motion with wind in her hair. That cannot replace acting. That cannot even enhance it. That’s just you being a dink. Forgive me here. I’m not even reviewing with an even head. It’s just that Michael Bay INFURIATES me! AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
OK, with that out of my system, Bay chose a historical setting (like “Titanic”), a love triangle (like “Titanic”), and state of the art special effects (like “Titanic”). It’s no “Titanic”. The dialogue is dumbassed, the love scenes and emotional moments are stilted, and Bay won’t stop swooping with his camera long enough to just have a regular scene. And I found the problem here that permeates all his films - melodrama. This movie absolutely drips melodrama disgustingly. It’s not a ‘throwback’, it’s not an ‘homage’ to old war movies. It’s just knowing how VISA commercials should look, so you get to make a feature. As far as plot goes, the film follows its main characters on a mission after the Pearl Harbor bombing SOLELY so one of them can meet their demise. There is no other reason to have that battle EXCEPT that perhaps Bay can’t end a movie about Pearl Harbor on a sad note. He has to show America winning the next battle and make sure everybody feels OK when they leave the theater. By virtue of the fact that I’m watching this movie with a President in office and not an Emperor means we came out of the war alright. But thanks for the good feeling, Mike. Hell, even touchy-feely Steven Spielberg didn’t let the Jews beat the Nazis.
SHREK (***) - You know, the only thing better than an Abe Vigoda reference in a movie is ample reference to professional wrestling. I went nuts when Shrek and Donkey took on the soldiers in Lord Farquaad’s castle. Funny. There are loads of belly laughs in “Shrek” and a quality, uncompromising ending. I mean, the number of big guffaws - Robin Hood’s dance number, the frog balloon, Farquaad’s Disney-esque castle, the ear wax candle - it’s just the right mix of fantasy and cynicism. I had only a few problems - I felt that there were a LOT of butt and fart jokes. Now, farts are funny. Absolutely. But, it seems like the cheap jokes were put in to keep the younger audiences involved when the film explored higher ground. I didn’t think so many were necessary. Plus, Eddie Murphy’s voice work was exactly the same as what he did for Mushu the Dragon in “Mulan”. He was funny both times, but it’s just odd that he made no attempt to be a different character. He’s no Hank Azaria. But, those are minor flaws, overall it’s just a laughfest with some quality jabs at the fairy tale world. And it stole my joke about calling Snow White a ho ‘cause she lived with seven men! Also, it was a thrill to see this at the Chinese Theater, and see my friend Kurt Schaefer’s name on the screen. He works for PDI, the company DreamWorks bought to expand their animation department, and he maintians the software they used to create the film. Props to Kurt.
JURASSIC PARK 3 (**1/2) - A pretty lackluster blockbuster. It needed Spielberg. It just needed him. It’s not a franchise without him directing. Can you imagine someone else directing an Indiana Jones film? Some projects just need him at the helm. Then again, even the plot didn’t lend itself to be as spectacular of a film as the original. It deals with a rescue mission to people stranded on the island overrun with dinosaurs. So, what you get is action, thrills and more action. That’s good and all, I’m down wit action, but the sense of awe that accompanied the first film is long gone by now. You know what else it needed, now that I think about it? Jeff Goldblum. Sam Neill was bad and all, I’m down wit Sam, but Goldblum’s one-liners saved some of the weaker moments of “The Lost World”. The weak moments here are just weak. On the bad side, Tea Leoni was presence-less (after what I’m told was a good performance in “The Family Man”) and there were many questionable moments (a kid SURVIVING with bloodthirsty dinosaurs; a kid being in the movie, period, they’ve been the weak leak of the trilogy; a phone call and response that are dopey in their implausibility). Now, we do get to see the Pteradons that were in the book “Jurassic Park”, and they’re pretty exciting, plus there is some humor that actually works, and the new Spinosaurus is cool, but rushed at us, like everything is in this necessary to the studio, but underthought sequel.
THE SCORE (***) - This is a heist film of good quality. It once again proves the major talent of Edward Norton. He can play the heavy and the meek with equal intensity and he’s asked to do both in this script. And DeNiro gives us one of his now-expected solid lead performances. The story entails one last job for DeNiro’s character, and the entire first half of the film sets up, in great detail, the obstacles that need overcoming for the heist to work. The detail is so good that the second half of the film got me real involved as the talk was put to action. My only gripe is, and it wouldn’t be fair to fault the film for this, but why is it that when the greatest talents come together, the result is never AMAZING, poop your pants, uncontrollably fantastic!! “The Score”, with Brando, DeNiro and Norton, is a good heist film, but not much more than that, it’s not amazing, poop yourself, etc. Same goes for “Father’s Day”. I mean, shouldn’t that have been great? Wasn’t. “Family Business”? And I get alot of grief for this, but the big coming together of Pacino and DeNiro, “Heat”, was mediocre really. Another weird thing was as soon as the movie started, I knew the score was going to be jazz music with muted trumpet. I just knew. Seemed like one of those movies...
AMERICA’S SWEETHEARTS (***) - Alright, Billy Crystal knows how to write for himself. He is hilarious in this movie. He has the best lines, and he co-wrote the script. I’m sure he wanted to work with director Joe Roth. Everyone seems to want to work with him since he began Revolution Studios, and they came out of the woodwork for this film - Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Catherine Zeta-Jones. The leads are all great, Zeta-Jones does a great bitch as a needy movie star, and Cusack is charming handling the lead in a major Hollywood film as smoothly as he does the smaller flicks he’s more known for. They work well together as a jaded Hollywood screen team. Roberts is good, but fails to get as much attention as the other characters with showier roles. The true luck of this film is to have the supporting cast it does. Stanley Tucci is a riot as a ruthless studio head, Alan Arkin is hilarious as Cusack’s guru, Hank Azaria kills, KILLS as Zeta-Jones new, lisping, Spanish boyfriend. Plus, you’ve got The Great Christopher Walken in prime crazy mode. He owns his screen time as a wack job of a director. The biggest debit this film has is that it tries to wrap up everything quickly, in one setting, with all the characters involved. It could’ve taken its time. I was with the film the whole way and would’ve waited to see it all unfold a little less messy. Admittedly, it’s not groundbreaking, it’s romantic comedy, and it slants toward industry types a bit more than it does to Joe Slurpee, but I recommend it for laughs and a strong cast.
THE MAN WHO CRIED (*) - I didn’t expect much from this, and that’s exactly what I got. I didn’t care much for Sally Potter’s “Orlando”, but am a big fan of Johnny Depp, so I went. Potter just is too slow and cryptic a director for me to enjoy. It’s definitely a style, and I don’t jive with it. It’s almost as if she’s making a silent movie, but succumbs to having people talk for contractual obligation. She holds her shots for a long time, people look at each other for a long time, and she’ll often have a lot of plot go by with minimal dialogue, but there’s never enough action to warrant that, as far as I’m concerned. It’s the story of a Russian girl’s quest to get to the U.S.A. and it plays out as slow as an actual flight from Moscow to NY. Depp is wasted. He’s directed, it seems, to look pouty and beautiful. He’s done that before and it’s always been boring. John Turturro is fairly good, but it’s odd to see him sing, knowing he’s not really. Cate Blanchett is nearly unrecognizable, but solid as always. Christina Ricci continues to choose challenging roles for herself, but this film is just a bore.
THE OTHERS (****) - This has been an extremely long set of capsule reviews, but I hope you made it to the end so I can recommend “The Others”. This film brings back the haunted house movie with style. I thought that “The Haunting” would’ve kept people away from this genre for years, it was so god-awful. But “The Others” is truly haunting and smart and entrancing. Nicole Kidman gives a great performance in an era very suited to her. She should look for more films that take place in the early 20th century. She anchors the film with one of her best performances in years, she’s complex, commanding and vulnerable. The child actors are quite good as well, which is important, as much of the plot pertains to them. As far as plot and direction go, the film is not afraid to be as silent and methodical as it wants to be. The result is creepy and atmosphere is established right away. The idea that two of the characters in the film are allergic to light, and all the curtains are shut and the house is always in darkness adds to the feeling as well. Do this for yourself - avoid all previews, reviews and behind-the-scenes documentaries about this film. Don’t even look at the ads in the paper. I won’t say anymore either, just go. It’s a very satisfying movie.
That’s all for now, but that’s plenty. I’m looking forward to “Planet of the Apes” as an event movie, everyone’s who has written me thus far has been mixed. I also want to see “Osmosis Jones” and “Sexy Beast”.
If you’ve ever played the movie game with me where you link actors from movie to movie until you’re back at the actor you started with, them visit this site:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/oracle/star_links.html
The “Oracle” at this site uses the imdb to play that game, and therefore rules us all at it.
Please send opinions, there's a mail link at the Movie List,
Paul