Swampfox Reviews

Dolphins (1999)

Beautiful, lyrical short film

[10/10 · 23 June 2008]

This is one of those excellent short subject films that doesn't seem like either TV episode or someone attempting to get investors to expand it to feature length. It's a very simple, straightforward narrative brought to soul-stirring life by the gifted director. Ignore comments from those who seem too jaded to appreciate this little gem of a film. And at less than 30 minutes what do you have to loose just to check it out.

In fact the reason I am writing this at all is because I wondered what he had done since (I saw this years ago) and found to my shock and dismay no one has given him a project.

It is included on the DVD for the now defunct Film-Fest DVD series, Issue 3 (along with some other good shorts)

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

Yet More Hollywood Tripe...

[9/10 · 29 October 2005]

(...Is Available For Closed-Minded, Know-Nothing, Proudly Ignorant Types. Feel free to watch it if a fresh prospective on history will challenge your world-view too much).

Above all, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK, is a very well made film that shows the skill with which George Clooney brought CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND to the screen was not a fluke. It is not a bio pic or a broad message film. Instead, it concentrates its attentions on what happens when one man decides to exercise his constitutional rights to challenge a public servant whose actions are causing real pain to American citizens in the name of "national security." The story stays laser-focused on Edward Morrow and his team as they grapple with the impact this servant is having on their beliefs in what America stands for and their personal lives. It is done with style, class and gripping actual drama. To paraphrase the usual definition: melodrama concerns how the plot pushes the characters forward, drama shows it is the characters who push the plot along.

GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK is about an issue that could not be more relevant today: the issue of destroying individual rights in the name of protecting them. Anyone who trots out the hoary claim that this film is about attacking communist-hunters has either not seen it or cannot grasp the difference between questioning methods versus questioning goals. Several times it shows Morrow telling his television audience that he finds communism to be against his beliefs and rightfully has no place in the US.

What he objects to is the way Sen. McCarthy used methods better suited to the Soviet Union to search it out, not caring if such methods would destroy innocent American lives. Milo Radulovich was not the only US citizen who was shown at the time and history has confirmed was guilty only of being yet more meat for the grinder of McCarthy's tactics. The fact that he was a man serving his country and tried (contrary to our laws) entirely on the basis of "sealed" very questionable evidence is what makes his inclusion the heart of Morrow's reason to attack McCarthy's methods.

Yes, this is a film about ideas. If that makes it "preachy" to you and you like your movies to simply entertain you, then the other 99% of what gets released each year is probably more your speed. Because at the end of the night, the only two valid sides in discussing this film are pretty simple: you either believe believe that destroying even thousands of innocent, loyal American lives is justified to protecting us when some elected officials claim it is; or you think that to do so pretty much invalidates the principles the country were founded upon.

GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK says it believes the latter and could have easily closed with this, my favorite quote about real patriotism: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

• Benjamin Franklin

Serenity (2005)

If nothing else, a great rental

[8/10 · 4 October 2005]

I am a very late comer to the whole "Firefly" universe. How late? Try last week.

I had the same reaction I am sure most will when they hear that it is "a western in space." I also watched 5 mins. of it when it was actually broadcast 3 years ago and thought it indeed looked as dumb as it sounded. I then forgot all about Joss Whedon's stab at taking his "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" style into space.

Now, with the movie coming out and only 14 episodes to plow through, I decided the interesting trailer warranted a second look at at least the first couple of shows. It was one of the better entertainment choices I made this summer to say the least. The show is, as the characters might say, a hoot! The movie, SERENTITY, is very good. Can't call it excellent (unless you want to compare it to REVENGE OF THE SITH, then it's a damn masterpiece), but it's better than every other popcorn flick I saw this summer.

Whedon has smartly done what Nicholas Myer did with Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan: put less emphasis on some of the characters and more on the plot and action. With nine main characters and two hours of time, it's a wise decision to make this more about the one character with biggest secret past. He also manages to keep several steps ahead of audience expectations, so much so that when it gets down to the final act I really had no idea how it was going to end. The usual happy ending ain't something you should be expecting in these parts folks.

I think what I like most is that even though the film and TV show are meant to be escapist entertainment, it's meant to be adult escapist entertainment. Unlike other space set things, this is not a big happy family and sex as a topic crops up frequently. You have to love a show where the most respectable character is the 25th Century's version of a courtesan, called "A Companion." That's right, the one with all the class is culturally-trained, high priced call girl who belongs to union/guild for such.

Even without the show, the film is certainly more fun than FANTASTIC FOUR or WAR OF THE WORLDS.

Red Eye (2005)

Smart movies that make dumb/stupid mistakes

[7/10 · 25 August 2005]

I was really enjoying the hell outta this film until the last act. It's smart, its well cast and it doesn't take the audience's intelligence for granted. I was really starting to think this was going to be another one of those films like OUT OF SIGHT that should have been reaching a bigger audience but was mis-marketed some how (in RED EYE's case, by not stressing that is more of an old fashioned thriller and emphasizing Wes Craven's involvement too much). I liked that the two antagonists seemed to be resourceful opponents and the heroine wasn't going to win because of some stupid mistake but was going to have to find something to take advantage of to prevail.

Then, the filmmakers fumbled yards from the end zone. {SPOILER} After showing Lisa unable to make a call because of "no signal" in the terminal, when she jumps onto the tram which travels ABOVE GROUND IN THE OPEN why for the love of God doesn't she try to call?!!!!!!! It makes no sense whatso-freaking-ever. She had all the time in the world waiting for the tram to reach the main airport. Instead she waits until after she reaches the terminal, runs through and steals a SUV to try to call again.

The most obvious answer must be that something got changed or taken out, otherwise it's unforgivably dumb. They should have at least showed a close-up of her trying again and getting the no signal message. It would have been implausible, but better than nothing. Are we to assume she got caught up in conversation and forgot until the tram reached the terminal, then it was "Oh, darn - I forgot to try to save the Director's life and that of my father. It must be Monday, I could never get the hang of Mondays..."

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Visually Stunning, But Has The Soul Of A Droid

[4/10 · 25 May 2005]

When I saw Revenge of the Sith on Thursday in Westwood at the Village it was with a packed house of hyped-up mostly under 30 fans, in other words the optimum type of crowd to be in the right frame of mind to like/love it. There were light sabers all over the place and several people had sneaked in big beach balls that the crowd started flying around. Then the house lights dimmed, the curtain lowered and the applause level really took off.

The first trailer was for Stealth, Rob Cohen's "See, it's The Terminator combined with Top Gun" killer robot plane movie. If this group was any indication, it won't be box office darling this summer as it garnered huge boos. The rest of them did better, War of the Worlds, Fantastic Four and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Surprisingly, it wasn't Fantastic Four that got the biggest applause, but Smith. Guess when you have both Angelina and Brad in a movie, there's someone for all members of the audience to want to screw.

Then the Fox logo came on with it's rather Prussian march and extended Cinemascope score. When the Lucasfilm logo, followed by the immortal words "A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far, Far Away..." came up, the roar of the crowd drowned out the music. Finallly the movie started in earnest with what I saw in hindsight was the spectacular giant space battle that Lucas could not end the movie with. Yet once this was over and the story had to return to scenes involving dialog and characters - two things that cannot be fussed with later using CGI - Lucas was back where he is the weakest.

You could sense the excitement falling as the minutes ticked by, helped appreciatively whenever the audience had to endure yet another wince-inducing Anakin/Padme moment (even this crowd was having big belly laughs over "Hold me like you did that time on Naboo" and other such lines). I think a collective sense of diminishing expectations kept those critics who have written near-raves of this thing from seeing what should be apparent to all: this is actually the biggest failure of the entire double trilogy. All you have to realize is that this film works or does not work based on one simple premise: do we care about Anakin and Padme? This entire thing revolves around us becoming emotionally involved in their relationship and ensuing plight.

And... We... Don't...Give...A...S**t. Without them to hold the center, the rest becomes the longest product reel for an effects house ever. Hell, yes, the battles were impressive, the CGI work at times so well done they looked like live effects instead of optical ones.

But this film has the soul of a droid. Towards the end, Lucas seems more occupied by his paint-by-numbers attempt to shoe-horn every bit of saga arcana that harbingers events in the ensuing trilogy withing the last 15 minutes of Sith. "See, this is why Yoda ends up on Dagoba." "Look! It's the ship from the next one!" "This is why Obi Wan lives so close to Luke." Instead, we should be having our hearts broken along with Padme and gripped by Anakin's wretched decent into evil.

Lucas has always been weak when it comes to emotional things. He once remarked that if you wanted to affect an audience that way all he had to do was show it a kitten, then strangle it. The films that have moments of genuine human moments between characters were written and mostly directed by someone else. Han and Leah in Empire, Indy and Marion in Raiders, Luke and Leah in Jedi. What you have here is Lucas strangling the life out his main characters, but many of us just didn't care.

Cabin Fever (2002)

WILL DEFINITELY MAKE YOU FEEL TRAPPED IN THE THEATER...

[14 September 2003]

Cabin Fever Is the most overrated, overhyped mediocrity since... well...28 DAYS LATER (kudos to David Poland for that set up).

And just like DAYS, this film has a lot of promise if only the filmmaker had spent an extra couple of weeks on the script. But you get the feeling that Roth spent more time checking out what cool gross things his make-up effects guys had come up with than worrying about making the characters believable or the plot logical.

I will give him credit for attempting a horror movie that tries to avoid any supernatural BS (although the psycho dog comes close). He lets the virus and the paranoid self-protection of the characters do the work of boogeymen. And a few times this works, but not enough.

This isn't even worth renting unless you are a 12 year old taking a break from sniffing gas however.

28 Days Later (2002)

DON'T BUY INTO THE HYPE

[14 September 2003]

On a personal level, I can say that not only did this movie make me wonder what some critics and the fan-boys here see in it, but not a single person I know who has seen it has thought it was any good. The few times it ever offers a "made you jump, ha ha ha" moment they are cheap and involve characters doing something stupid.

For the first 45 minutes of 28 DAYS LATER (following a forced, confused PETA raid sequence that doesn't work) it seems that Danny Boyle might have found a new genre to breath life into. SHALLOW GRAVE was the first top-notch thriller since DEAD CALM and TRAINSPOTTING was a return to enlightening while entertaining lower end economic social commentary pretty much abandoned in the mid 70's. So the promising start of 28 DAYS raises one's hopes, after the wise cracking and near parody of the ELMSTREET and SCREAM franchises, Doyle might have produced the first great horror film in a long time (since perhaps HALLOWEEN). Alas, Danny shoots his creative wad in those 45 minutes and the rest of the film becomes a tragic miscalculation attempting to meld a horror film with a ON THE BEACH/DAY AFTER lone human survivors infighting story.

One of the things the film first has going for it before Doyle looses his nerve and goes Hollywood is the unknown but very good actors he cast in the lead roles. One of the advantages of small films is the fact that their unknown casts help pull audiences into their worlds without the distraction of "Hey, its the guy from Dawson's Creek!" But then Doyle first uses Brendan Gleeson, then Christopher Eccleston to remind the viewer "its just a movie with that guy from GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS." Which is pretty ironic, because Eccleston was unknown when he did SHALLOW GRAVE.

For those who don't see that many films, this is certainly one to skip unless you want to feel disappointed and used by the publicity machine. An overhyped, stupid bore.

The Center of the World (2001)

UNEVEN FILM, BUT WHAT A PERFORMANCE

[14 September 2003]

If you decide to rent this film or catch it on HBO (which seems to run it several times a month these days), know up front that it is uneven and ultimately doesn't really end up anywhere interesting. The writer/director Wang was trapped with only two possible outcomes, granted. But after the level of trust his performers put into him, he owed them and us something more satisfying than where the movie takes the audience. However, the performance of Molly Parker makes watching this film more than worth the failings of the script.

No one, NO ONE, came close to what she does in this film that year. If you have any respect left for the choices the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members, not to mention most of the critic groups, don't watch this movie. The fact that Parker was completely overlooked, while Julie Robert's over-hyped, far-short-of-spectacular turn in ERIN BROCKOVICH got the accolades, shows what total rubbish these critical popularity horse races really are. In CENTER OF THE WORLD Parker gives an astoundingly brave performance. Yet it is the nuanced, subtle touches that show the viewer her character's shifting attitudes that make it such a stand-out job.

Without a single line of expository dialogue to illuminate the internal one, one can follow the character's struggle to maintain the control she thought she had on her own emotions. The idea that some young people have the wisdom of adults without having had the experiences to form that wisdom and what happens when they face situations that test them in a similiar fashion is very intriguing. Its a shame the film cannot match the effort Parker puts into it. Peter Sarsgaard does a 180 degree flip from his turn in BOYS DON'T CRY and while not as amazing as Parker, he does fine job too. His character is more of a now stock one: the brilliant guy with immature sexual development.

But above all else, bravo Ms Parker, BRAVO!

24 (2001–2010)

About 23 hours too long...

[3 October 2002]

I really want the time I spent watching a marathon viewing of 24 back, with an apology from the creators for not only wasting a chunk of my life but for making such a hackneyed mess of what had the potential to be landmark television. Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that this creative train wreck is any more than the usual television pap probably has all of Manimal on tape.

The first episode, "12 - 1am", is as good as most critics and fans seem to believe. Using the approach of several parrellel story threads unfolding in concert, it seems possible that the writers have stumbled onto an approach to make their gimmick of the show progressing in "real-time" work while also being able to keep up the tension.

Yet, as the show progresses it becomes apparent that that bit of innovation is the only truly imaginative thing about the show. Bit by bit, the usual parade of bad tv details begin to add up and you soon realize just how unique an actual innovative show like "The Sopranos" is - and why its on HBO and not some adle-brained network.

Their first mistake was going with Keifer Sutherland for a character who really should look 40 (he was 35 when they shot this). He just doesn't have the presence to pull off being both the head of a Federal task force and the father of a 17 year old daughter. Yet, everyone reacts to actors differently. Fair enough.

What's harder to dismiss is the steady stream of over-used dialogue recycled from countless action films, roomfuls of stock characters without any real semblence to anyone other than stock characters taking ups space in the background and a plot so desperate for attention that it never trusts the audience's faith, relying instead on a mounting deluge of convuluted plot twists. This is the type of show that having cool looking sets takes priority over them looking in any way functional or realistic.

In the end, the problem with the show is that it wants you to think it's smart entertainment, while asking at the same time for you to not think too deeply about it.

Men in Black II (2002)

Just how young and/or desperate are you?

[1/10 · 7 July 2002]

If you are the brainless, easily entertained fan boy type moviegoer that Hollywood depends on these days, man is this the film for you. Only this isn't a film. It's 88 minutes of various ingredients that put together by filmmakers who actually give a damn about their craft might cook, but not this boring oatmeal. Imagine if someone gave you three raw eggs, some tomatoes, cheese and ham and called that an omelet. That is the nutshell of what MEN IN BLACK II is all about.

To put it another way, if you can remember back to '97 when the original came out then you should remember that it wasn't all that great either. But after a summer that started with SPEED 2, CON AIR and BATMAN & ROBIN the original was a nice diversion. If you want to see a film about humans defeating aliens intent on destroying the earth and are hellbent on paying $9 for the privilege, then see LILO & STITCH. Or at least give yourself some sort head injury.

Donnie Darko (2001)

ONLY MINOR FLAWS IN THIS ORIGINAL GEM

[8/10 · 3 November 2001]

THE BULLET AND THE BOTTOM LINE - this is the usual run-of-the-mill boy meets girl, boy falls for girl, boy introduces girl to his imaginary 6 foot tall evil rabbit buddy with a metallic skull-like mask. As if making it in the world of the late 80's American zeitgeist while dealing with girls and evil rabbits weren't enough, he also has to deal with self-help gurus, terrorist classmates and seeing Katherine Ross as a middle aged therapist ("middle-aged" being a polite term for frightfully older). DONNIE DARKO is a film that will have trouble finding an audience because it challenges them with both a mentally disturbed protagonist and the big boogieman of studio zipperheads - the ambiguous ending ("...audience because it challenges them..." being a polite way to suggest that fans of "Touched By An Angel" are likely to be confused by it). DARKO is a thought provoking film that joins MEMENTO on the too short list of smart and entertaining films released this year.

What's new about this story, besides the Harvey-as-the-Terminator, is that writer and director Richard Kelly sets DARKO in the last months of the Reagan Era, October 1988. George Bush (the original, not the sequel) is seen making some later to be embarrassing debate statements about his good friend Manuel in Panama who couldn't possibly be involved with drugs and money laundering. While it does have the de rigueur period soundtrack and cultural icon references, Kelly does his best to keep them in the background. So, even though Tears For Fears provides the music for a montage and the now forgotten children's game of Hungry, Hungry Hippos is the punchline to a therapy session, the kids attend a private school that thus keeps the clothes and hairstyles subdued. In fact, probably the most remarkable thing about DARKO is how tightly Kelly keeps both the overall tone and his protagonist's performance reined in to maintain a restrained quality to them.

The Donnie Darko of DONNIE DARKO is very much, without-a-doubt slipping into dementia. There are no coy games being played here as in K-PAX of whether or not Donnie is seeing the things he thinks he is seeing. By not giving in to the Hollywood impulse of having the mentally disturbed character either capable of incredible human insight that has him tossing off bon mots of wisdom or a cute crackpot who says funny nonsensical non sequiturs, DARKO allows for something much more human. And unpredictable, which becomes the source of DARKO's tension. As likeable as Donnie is, there is always the foreboding sense that he is liable to really go off the deep end any moment. Given the countdown gimmick in the film, it is inevitable that something is going to happen. Which is to say, Kelly has a lot riding on the actor inhabiting the title character.

Seldom do performances deserve the heaps of praise they are swathed with, the part being so showy that the appraisers confuse the uniqueness of the character with the gifts of the actor (Dustin Hoffman in RAINMAN or Al Pacino in SCENT OF A WOMAN just to name two Academy Award winning ham-fests). This has less to do with the actual performance than the reviewers desire to be the one to find the "next Brando." Much harder to appreciate is the skill to pull off a nuanced character who manages to emote on a broad range with subtle shadings. Being able to do this while portraying a mentally disturbed boy without resorting to scenery-chewing histrionics is a rare feat and Jake Gyllenhaal should be on the very very short list of noteworthy performances this year for doing it. Two years ago he showed his chops in his first starring role in OCTOBER SKY and DARKO confirms that that performance was no lucky fluke. If the part was bigger, Drew Barrymore would also deserve any awards she will probably garner for what is arguably her first real adult role of the English teacher Ms. Pomeroy.

The young-bold-teacher-with-radical-new-ideas is not exactly a cinema first, but Barrymore plays it so completely free of inappropriately ennobling tics that it seems fresh. It's not so much the part but that it is Barrymore playing it that the surprise here. Another former child actress moving to older parts is Jena Malone, most recognizable from STEPMOM. As the love interest, she does a lot with the little time Kelly allows for her. Looking down the road, it is easy to see Malone segueing to leading lady roles. This is not to suggest that the rest of the cast is dogmeat for all do more than well enough. One of the few stumbles that Kelly makes is Kittie Farmer (Beth Grant) a preachy teacher and book banner who is at first blush a cliché. At one point she wears a very 80's religiously sloganed t-shirt. But surrounded by such unique characters Farmer comes across like people who do in fact act like clichés.

A lot of the film's strength comes from the fact that these characters surrounding Donnie are given a real human depth, most notably the Darko parents who are given the rare-for-fictional-parents facet of unique senses of humor. Unlike other Hollywood worlds where the parents are portrayed as the likely source of a disturbed child's mental illness, the Darkos are seen as real people doing what they can to help their son. There's a pathos to this depiction of the realistic randomness of dementia. All of which goes towards making DONNIE DARKO one of the original gems of filmmaking to come out this year. It is not a perfect film, having an awkward third act deus ex machina and developments that hint too strongly towards a supernaturalism that is out of place. But these are minor complaints for such a unique film.

K-PAX (2001)

LET SPACEY BE SPACEY, NEVERMIND THAT MAN WRITING THE SCRIPT BEHIND THE CURTAIN

[8/10 · 27 October 2001]

THE BULLET AND THE BOTTOM LINE - When a man appears in New York's Grand Central Station claiming that a beam of light and not the 8:23 from Poughkeepsie dropped him there, the new & improved NYPD officers fresh from sensitivity training decide perhaps a ride in a nice warm police van wearing a set of comfy handcuffs is the best place for him. It will then fall onto the shoulders of both a caring doctor and the audience to decide if either he is a few bananas short of a bunch or maybe NASA should stop putting "When in the Milky way, Visit Earth!" notes on space probes. However, the note on this film will have to be walk don't run.. to the video store unless one is a serious Spacey junkie. Not an out-and-out failure that will call to mind how much the sitter is costing, it could be enjoyed as a second or third choice. For a much more satisfying film involving possibly disturbed guys, their therapists and references to soap bubbles check out DONNIE DARKO.

Whether or not one appreciates Kevin Spacey will have a lot to do with whether or not one appreciates the movie surrounding him of K-PAX. Ultimately, this is a film that is so dependant upon the portrayal of its protagonist that the audience's faith in him will be their path through the prickly parts of the story. Just don't expect a tour-de-force performance along the lines of THE USUAL SUSPECTS' for K-PAX delivers unto Spacey what is Spacey's - the smooth, flip, cool-as-a-cucumber guy who tosses off snarky bon mots with a bemused expression. As the supposed E.T. prot (rhymes with wrote and spelled with small "p"), he is channeling less the likes of Verbal Kent than Jack Vincennes (who seemed to be channeling Dean Martin) and Lester Burnham after he found his balls. In essence, Spacey is simply playing his usual persona. It's really hard to even refer to the character as prot rather than Spacey-as-prot. If it wasn't for the plot and production design, it would almost deserve the label of documentary.

Not wanting to depress the audience by showing poor Spacey-as-prot in some Spartan, antiseptic place of wire-mesh protected windows and puke green tile floors, the movie-ish named Manhattan Psychiatric Institute (located in Queens apparently) is filled with warm light and odd-but-not-repulsive inmates. Jeff Bridges' Dr. Mark Powell has a very stylish pseudo-modern office. Perhaps points should be awarded for the fact that this New York head shrinker is not overtly Jewish, but they would be lost when balanced against the Sassy Black Receptionist .The equipment is all the latest stuff. None of the patients are apparently suffering from any sexual dysfunctions or healthy urges for that matter - MPI is apparently a unisex institution. When a party is thrown, the institute even sees fit to buy them expensive favors. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST this is not.

One of the more annoyingly cloy things about K-PAX is its refusal to pick a side when it comes to whether or not Spacey-as-prot is of this world or not. In order to make the Jeff Bridges character a fuller person and not just the rote psychologist acting as surrogate for the audience to ask testing questions through, he is given a back story. In so doing, the whimsical Bill Forsyth elements of is-he-or-isn't-he-Starman are bound to the standard melodramatic device of the searcher finding himself. This is the Scylla and Charybdis the film tries to steer between and eventually is torn apart by the contradictory evidence. Sadly, had the filmmakers trusted the strength of Bridges' search to find the reality behind the myth they had all the elements to deliver a very effective and possibly powerful conclusion. But it would have meant sacrificing the possibility that Spacey-as-prot was the magical being he claims to be.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Not Bad Enough To Sling Poo At, But No Banana Either

[29 July 2001]

NOTE: Not only does the following omit spoilers for the current APES, but also does not have any for the '68 version.

Sometimes a situation is best served by calling forth a well reasoned logical argument that drives home the strength of its position by precise language and clever word play. The summer film season is not such an occasion. Popcorn movies are best enjoyed with brain in the "disengaged" position, attitude on "laid-back" and the butt as frequently as possible on the edge of the seat. While an argument can be made that PEARL HARBOR is an event that demands a certain level of seriousness and respect from its filmmakers (which, for the record, it did not receive) when your title is PLANET OF THE APES such decorum is out of place. The last of this summer's big popcorn films has arrived and with it the last word on just what a season it has been. Following the above dictum it can be summed up rather succinctly. To put it colloquially, this summer sucks a**.

Forget what beefs purists will have with remake of such a science-fantasy icon as APES, this is a movie whose failure can be judged on its own meager merits. While every film's strengths and weaknesses starts with the script, the decision of whom to get behind the camera to helm it will only add to them. If you want to hire an A-list director who is going to bring a very unique look and visual style to the project, Tim Burton is a in a very select circle that includes PEARL's Michael Bay, FIGHT CLUB's David Fincher and MOULIN ROUGE's Baz Luhrmann. BEETLEJUICE, BATMAN and SLEEPY HOLLOW are films whose very look are worth the price of admission (though in the latter two's case I would suggest matinee prices). That's the plus.

The negative is that especially for Burton, Bay and Luhrmann, they are not directors who can bring anything to the project narratively. Is it hard to imagine them as the students that could not shut up in their art and design classes, but doodling away during the story and character labs? Any wonder that Bay and Fincher were star video and commercial directors before getting into features?

Ironically, there is not really anything in the visuals of APES that will strike anyone as awe-inspiring or even memorable. The production design, which is arguably half of the basis of BATMAN's success, is never any more or less inventive than what can be found on TV's Farscape. To be fair, there is only so much that can be done to show an other-worldly yet primitive culture and this probably had a lot to do with the decision to establish Mark Wahlberg's Leo character in his time before starting the primate ruled heart of the movie. Yet, very little is done with the ways in which the ape culture would key off of their different physiology.

While the cast is game and never indulge in the kind of winking performances many others do (considering the make-up this would be hard to pull off to begin with), very few manage to bring anything extra to what are your basic "big movie" stock characters albeit in heavy masks. Tim Roth simply mashes his teeth, never showing the insight needed to make chief ape baddie Thade truly dangerous. The lone exception is Helena Bonham Carter, whose portrayal of Ari almost rises above the unexceptional script. Almost.

Without joining the ranks of such spoil-sports as Matt Drudge, who surely must include in his pastimes running around to tell little children who Santa Claus is, some mention of the attempt to duplicate the ending to the original should be made (in difference to those who might be tempted to rent the 1968 APES, that ending will also be left unmentioned). Timmy Burton and Marky Mark's version is clever and novel and a good twist - and makes no sense whatsoever. The original ending was a surprise in the way that the best surprise endings are - they make you rethink the entire film armed with the new information. PRESUMED INNOCENT, THE SIXTH SENSE, FIGHT CLUB and now MOMENTO have you retracing the entire film to see if it all fits with the new.

While the Chuck Heston version doesn't really change the fundamental storyline, it does give the viewer something to ponder and debate after the curtain falls. This new one, call it APES REDUX is nothing more than witless stunt that seems to be trying to... er...ape the signature element of Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone - the twist at the end. But the first time around producer Dick Zanuck was lucky enough to actually have Serling co-writing the script. The ending the gaggle of writers on REDUX give us thirty years later is as mindless and cynical an attempt to be clever and spark "debate" as the ending of BASIC INSTINCT. And fails just as completely. The only explanation that could possibly cover it satisfactorily, with an unintended nod to Serling, is that it happens in another dimension.

The witless ending is an apt metaphor for the entire summer of '01, lots of anticipation only to be rewarded with disappointment. The only bright spot, and it is very bright indeed, is that next summer looks to be the first since 1999 to deliver the type of films we expect between May and August. Ironically, many are return trips to the successes of that summer and others: STAR WARS - EPISODE II, TERMINATOR 3, MEN IN BLACK 2. There's also some big original choices, with SPIDERMAN and Spielberg directing Tom Cruise in MINORITY REPORT; plus the next installments of both The Lord of the Rings trilogy and THE MATRIX RELOADED coming for Christmas. These last two summers of pretty mediocre fare beg the question did the studios completely loose the ability to make the one type of movie they used to roll out like Buicks? It's going to be long year waiting to see if they still know how to deliver the goods or just monkey around.

Jurassic Park III (2001)

SOMETHING HAS SURVIVED, UNFORTUNATELY NOT A PLOT

[20 July 2001]

Steven Spielberg finally figured out how to make a movie that is critic-proof and if anyone was going to do it, the former summer box office champ with a career long love-hate relationship with the nation's film reviewers is the man. He has reached back into the pages of history that saw his rise and done what all good modern filmmakers do - taken something familiar and given it a new twist. Apparently boning up on his Watergate trivia, Spielberg has taken that favorite of Nixon mouthpieces the non-denial denial, and given it a new, cinematic twist. He has made a non-movie movie.

Most cleverly, he passed on the director's duties to Joe Johnston so moviegoers will not be tempted to state "It must be a movie! See, Spielberg's name is on it." Looking at the progression of Johnston's work from Honey, I Shrank the Kids to The Rocketeer to Jumanji it seems he too has been doing his share to get to the non movie movie as well. October Sky is looking more like the exception than the rule. Spielberg has also gotten writers Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor III to get on board this non movie movie idea as well. Hopefully they will escape back to greener pastures that produced Election and Citizen Ruth.

So what is Jurassic Park III? Luckily, I spent the day Monday at Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia, California and not dying from a brain aneurysm on Goliath I am here to tell you that without a doubt what this 95 minute series of images most resembles is a trip to the theme park of your choice. All you are supposed to remember are the thrills, not shuffling along for 20 minutes to get there. Just like in the movie, I saw and met other people (we can call them characters if it helps) as we filed up to the attraction. In the case of Monday, there was the nice trio from Orlando who I rode Riddler's Revenge with just like there's this trio headed by William H. Macy and Tea Leoni in Park who we get to know just as well.

In fact, Leoni is that hyper affected woman you get stuck next to who screams shrilly from start to finish. Only in her case it was acting in way so unbelievably life threatening to the other characters that their inaction had me wanting to belt this woman so badly Ike Turner would blush. If a films success should be judged by the emotional reaction it elicits, then congrats, Steven, I have never wanted to hit a woman so bad in all my life. Sure NOW really appreciates that.

So what are the big attractions? Well, we have the Overhead View Ride, the Crash The Plane Ride and about half a dozen Run Like Hell Rides. There are parts that were lots of fun and parts that just weren't worth the wait in line. My least favorite was seeing how much Taylor Nichols has aged since first breaking out in Metropolitan and Barcelona, the Good Lord, Have I Aged ride. Don't get me wrong, I had a great time Monday helping Time Warner AOL pad their bottom line by going on Viper and Batman, so too parts of Jurassic III - The Ride, Not The Movie. There were some great visuals, nifty new creatures and a few sequences that were very effective. Just don't call it a movie because then we have to get into things like story and character, something you just don't find in theme parks unless you provide them through your own imagination. Which, it seems, all the otherwise talented people behind JP3 expect you to do with their ride as well.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

BORA BORA BORA*

[28 May 2001]

*My congratulations to Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal, I could not resist using this.

Just how good or bad PEARL HARBOR is taken to be will depend on how many films the moviegoer has seen and therefore how large their internal database of war movie cliches is; in other words the more is definitely not the merrier here. Even films that are only set during the WW II era are at risk to be plagiarized, as a plot device of THE CIDER HOUSE RULES shows up. Yet no matter how many they throw into PEARL, it never seems to get interesting. Summer movies are expected to be dumb, but boring? Anyone following Randall Wallace's career should not find this too surprising as BRAVEHEART (with much input from Gibson I suspect) is looking more like the exception from the man who once wrote for the tv show "Hunter." And anyone familiar with Michael Bay's oeuvre should know better than to expect him to realize or care how much work the script needed. He has far more respect for bomb trajectories than story or character development.

What is surprising is that for Jerry Bruckheimer film, it is surprisingly miscast. With characters so uninspiringly written, getting actors that could bring something to the part was essential. Instead, we get the WB Goes to War of choices. Ben Affleck continues to make the case for not being cast as the lead in action roles (REINDEER GAMES and ARMAGEDDON too quickly forgotten, with him taking over the Jack Ryan role yet to come. Yikes!). Compounding this, they cast Josh Hartnett so as not to overshadow him. No worries there as Hartnett seems to be channeling Clint Eastwood, right down to the squint. As to their object of mutual affection, Kate Beckinsale is a fine actress but doesn't have the pep or spark that inspires love triangles.

Just how good this film could have been is evident in the fact that the very same visuals that are wasted on a screenplay that could have been bested by simply shuffling together an old "Love Boat" script with one from "The A Team" were cut together to make one of the best coming attraction trailers of the last ten years. Using Hans Zimmer's THIN RED LINE score ("The Village" for those who want to run out and find it), it suggested in under four minutes the scope, humanity, pathos and majesty this story demands that are not to be found in the bloated three hours of the actual film.

The only real redeeming aspect of this otherwise mind-numbingly boring film is luckily for the filmmakers the raison d'etre the vast majority of ticket buyers are showing up for - the bombing of Pearl Harbor sequence. Clocking in at 35 minutes, it will for some audience members be worth the admission. Torpedoes slam into hulls, bombs crash through decks and all manner of pyrotechnic mayhem is unleashed in a torrent of flying debris. It never approaches the intensity of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or the scale of THE PHANTOM MENACE, but works on it's own level. Very few shots have the cartoony feel that so much CGI effects impart, the truly sad exception being the explosion of the Battleship Arizona. Great explosion... and unrealistic as hell. Nothing matches the grandeur of the "money shot" from the trailer, the one that follows the bomb from the plane all the way to the deck.

The only problem with this maelstrom is that it has no sense of geography or scale. One never knows where the different locations are in relation to one another and the entire fleet seems to be sitting in one place. Once the attack commences, it seems that same nine planes are unleashing the munitions while the other 270 are off elsewhere, taking pictures perhaps. Not to mention the chronology of events becomes hazy, the first wave indistinguishable from the second. There's a reason most films that deal with large scale assaults, like MIDWAY, use a lot of subtitles to identify the players and locations.

There's an old joke about Deadheads that goes one day at a Greatful Dead concert they ran out of drugs and one Deadhead turns to the other and says "Wow, man, the band really sucks." So goes the joke, so goes PEARL HARBOR. Every year or so a film manages to become through both design and happy accident the beneficiary of want-to-see hype. In PEARL HARBOR's case the usual wave of interest that such hype produces has become a tsunami because of an alignment of unique factors, most notably the absence of any other event films this summer that appeal to such a broad range of sex and ages. What does any of this have to do with how good a film PEARL HARBOR is? Nothing, but it will explain why two days after seeing it very little will be memorable and why years down the road battle sequences aside the movie will then seem pretty lame. In other words, "Wow, dude, the movie really sucks."

Frequency (2000)

ENJOYABLE PUFF FOR THOSE WHO SUSPEND DISBELIEF

[4 May 2000]

THE NUTSHELL: In 1969 New York City, as the "Miracle Mets" are poised for World Series greatness, hero firefighter Frank Sullivan (Dennis Quaid) likes to spend free time at night talking to the world on his ham radio. In 1999, his son Jack (Jim Caviezal) still lives in the house. His mom is now a widow of 30 years who lives alone elsewhere. Without his dad for guidance all those years, Jack is now a semi-drunk cop losing his girlfriend. In both '69 and '99 a spectacular display of the aurora borealis lights up the big Apple skyline. And when Jack turns on his dead dad's radio, Frank's voice comes over the ether and decades between them. Somehow they can talk across time. Unfortunately, Jack can also warn Frank about his imminent demise and save his life. The consequences of that action begin to affect Jack's present and they must now try to undo the damage it does.

The cause and effect relationship is the usual theme of any film that deals with time travel. FREQUENCY eschews the oft-used device of a time machine in favor of some sort of worm hole tied to solar flares, but the rest is pretty standard for the most part. The classic story from science fiction is of the hunting party that goes back to the age of the Thundering Lizards to kill T-Rex's. The hunters are told to stay on a special path, but one stupidly steps off for just a second to (not kidding) smell a flower. When he returns to the present, everything has changed including language. He finds a butterfly pancaked to the bottom of his boot.

The big difference between stories of that ilk and FREQUENCY is that any change is looked upon as extremely verboten because of those consequences in most stories and in the movie they are viewed as little fires that just need stomping out for all to return to peace. Because the link between present and past is exactly 30 years and moves ahead concurrently with time, Jack and Frank cannot undo anything by simply going back and starting over. They must use their wits to overcome all setbacks as they occur.

When a movie tries so earnestly as FREQUENCY does to be a crowd pleaser, pointing out its weaknesses is something akin to spanking a puppy who's misbehaving. Gregory Hoblit and Toby Emmerich, the director and writer respectively, try a juggling act between the three balls of logic-defying plot, cleaver plot twists and feeding audience expectations. By keeping the story moving pretty quickly and physically cutting it down to short shots, the audience isn't given much time to ponder the inexplicable. They also trust that the audience doesn't need to be spoon-fed some loopy reason why it's possible.

For instance, even though there's a set-up for it that suggests it was taken out, neither Jack or Frank seek out help from the Eminent Scientist In The Field to explain how the premise is possible. Probably because said scientist would then be compelled by the Official Handbook of Obvious Movie Dialogue to warn of the consequences, ala the dinosaur-hunting story above. Very little time is spent waiting for the characters to accept that what is happening is possible. Little or no mention is made of the fact that this is the fall after man had just walked on the moon, making just about anything seem possible. The filmmakers understand that it's highly unlikely that anyone watching the film could have arrived in their seats without at least some vague notion that communication across time will be part of the story.

As with any film made by bright storytellers, the biggest problem with FREQUENCY is the flip-flops it makes between respecting the audience's intelligence and insulting it. To example the former: a crucial bit of information that will later explain why 3 women become 10 (excuse the vagueness, but more info would spoil it for first time viewers) is so casually presented many will miss it if they look down to get their soda. But later, a rescue in a burning warehouse begs credulity as Quaid goes from Brave to Super Fireman. It's best not to think too long over the logic concerning the changing past and present.

For those who like a good Guilty Pleasure, FREQUENCY is the perfect film of that sort. It has a nice balance of original premise, exciting sequences and pull-on-the-heartstrings moments between a father and son who were robbed of growing up together. Similar, but not nearly as good as the superb FIELD OF DREAMS. Be warned, it will fall apart if you begin to dissect the time travel aspect after seeing it. A willing suspension of belief is a big requirement of watching FREQUENCY. RECOMMENDATION: you can skip the theatrical release, but well worth a look on a slow video rental night.

U-571 (2000)

RUN SILENT, RUN NOT SO DEEP

[22 April 2000]

THE NUTSHELL: At the height of the WW II German U-boat campaign in the North Atlantic against allied transports, one member of those dreaded "Wolf Packs" is disabled and adrift. Military Intelligence catches on to the situation and realizes it has the opportunity to capture the key to all German communications, the cipher machine code named "Enigma." Pressed into the service of an intelligence officer and Marine Commando leader (David Keith), is the crew of an aging U.S. submarine. XO (Matthew McConaughey) and his men find themselves camouflaged as another German sub and in a race to reach the U-boat before the actual supply ship does. The name of their quarry is: U-571.

If you think you can faintly hear the sound of a military drum march while reading the above, the producers of U-571 are your type of moviemakers. Not only is the standard rousing march provided, so is almost every single element from every submarine niche movie ever made. To call them clichés is a little unfair, for as with any setting there are certain rudiments that are hard to avoid. A movie made around semi-trucks is bound to contain shots of the wheels turning, gears being jammed and the occasional hiss of air breaks. So too will your underwater warfare flick feature such stock items as the skipper at the periscope, the call of DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! and fish (torpedoes) being launched. When it comes to theses obvious expectations, U-571 delivers handsomely. Therein lies the problem.

Moviegoers who simply want a good, well told story delivered with the current level of craft regardless of unoriginality cannot ask for a better return on their two hours of time and seven bucks. Go see U-571, it doesn't disappoint. Yet, neither does it surprise. With the exception of the basic premise of the actual mission to retrieve the code machine (seen in countless other genre pictures, including one of the better Roger Moore Bond films - FOR YOUR EYES ONLY) there is not a single scenario left unused by the end of this thing. Crews being rattled by depth charges while looking fearfully up? It's here. Cat and mouse games with a destroyer dropping those depth charges? That's here. Putting debris in the water to fake the sub's "death?" Yep, it's here too. RUN SILENT, RUN DEEP, CRIMSON TIDE, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, and the uberfilm of submariners DAS BOOT have all contributed to U-571's bag of tricks.

None of this is meant to insult the audience's intelligence. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that the filmmakers actually respect it. Several characters are killed without the usual fanfare to make it clear to the audience what has happened (although the similarity between Jack Noseworthy and Jon Bon Jovi made it a little confusing who "bought it" there). The sub lingo comes as fast and furious as it must in real life when lives are at stake, made even more cloudy when the characters themselves can't read the identifications on the German boat. The positions of the various crew members have to be sussed out as they do their job instead broadcast bad-movie style, ala: "Ensign Huff here is the best rudder man in the Navy."

Not that U-571 is without it's clunkers. Harvey Keitel is the chief of the boat, a salty dog who actually says (while belting whiskey no less) "I got da sea in my blood." McConaughey has been passed over for his own command because his skipper (Bill Paxton) doesn't think he's cut out for command yet because of the XO's closeness to the crew. And in one of the biggest insults to the audience, just in case they don't get it that it's wartime and you must kill your enemy in sometimes cold-blooded ways, the Germans machine gun a life raft of survivors from ship they just sank so when the Yanks pull a Trojan horse maneuver later it won't seem less than sporting. There are a few technical gaffs the pickier viewer will pick up on: there's no light at the depth the sub is seen at and a seasoned sub pro has pointed out that you cannot start diesel engines underwater (WWII era subs cruised on the surface, submerging only to attack or evade using precious battery reserves to do so).

The most surprising thing about this lack of surprise is who is presenting it, co-writer and director Jonathan Mostow. Two years ago he reworked the well-trod thriller path of a driver against unknown assailants out in the American wasteland into the excellent, stipped-down, very underappreciated BREAKDOWN. For filmgoers sake, I hope the blame for U-571's failures can be traced to the probable culprit, Dino De Laurentis. Writer-directors who make first rate action films are few compared to those working in strictly dramatic or comedic arenas. Outside of James Cameron and possibly the Wachowski Brothers, most helmers are hired guns.

Back in the 30's and 40's, studios like RKO and Republic churned out basic genre pictures that stuck to a tried and true formula which satisfied audience expectations if only rarely giving them anything original. It was escapist fare, judged solely on meeting those expectations. That's U-571. In addition to all the usual sub aspects listed above, the period details and the subs themselves bear mentioning. Along with the various duty uniforms, there's a dance scene early featuring a room full of dress whites and women's 40's era clothes for those who love the details of nostalgia. The dockside set is toyland of jeeps, trucks and naval personnel milling about. The production definitely did no skimp here.

Then, there are the sub sets. Anyone who assumes that they simply went to some place like Chicago (home to U-505, from which an enigma machine was taken during the war) and shot the real thing can be forgiven their misinformation. Using Cinecitta's famed craftsmen, the production built their sub interior in Rome. It is a marvel of pipes, moving gears and gauges. Universal will be criminal if they do not campaign next winter for Best Design on their behalf.

The best praise, albeit somewhat faint, I can bestow on U-571 comes down to who I would recommend this to: my dad. Like most of the general public, my dad sees maybe half a dozen films a year (not counting Bond repeats) mostly on cable. He grew up during the war and was raised on those RKO and Republic features. A war movie can ONLY mean knocking the hell out of Nazis or Toho's boys. For any regular film habitué who demands a little more out of cinema, the movie is forgettable and unsurprising tale that might not exactly make your 10 or 20 best list for 2000. It won't make your worst, either. But my dad's gonna love it. RECOMMENDATION: Can see now with no rush or wait for video.

Erin Brockovich (2000)

YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO SHOUT "OSCAR!" BUT ITS WORTH A LOOK

[1 April 2000]

The Nutshell: A feisty young woman, Erin Brockovich (Julia Roberts), arrives at the law offices of Ed Masry (Albert Finney) through the forces of Fate. A twice divorced mother of three with no employable skills, she badgers, cajoles and pleads with Masry to give her a job. He reluctantly hires her as a file clerk. After finding medical records in real estate files, she becomes a de facto investigator to uncover a large utility company's cover-up concerning the contamination of a small town's water supply. As the stakes get higher, the uneducated and untrained Erin must use her considerable wits and genuine empathy to the affected townsfolk to stay not only ahead, but in the game.

As is apparent from the description, ERIN BROCKOVICH is film treading on the ground of earlier films. NORMA RAE has given us the gutsy, blue collar woman fighting the big corporation and THE VERDICT has shown us out-of-their-league lawyers having to face very daunting legal challenges. With the Harley-Davidson riding next door neighbor who volunteers (!) to watch her three kids, there's even a shade of MASK's sweet bikers thrown in to boot. When a film has so much past cinema history to compete in the audiences memory against, it has two choices: the minefield or paint-by-numbers. A writer and director could try to approach the story and film in a new way. They can avoid all the clichés and expectations, and go for something wholly original. But like in a minefield, one misstep and the film implodes from the twin anticipations from both the general audience and the cineastes lead to expect something more.

Or, they can capitulate to the idea that there are few new options in presenting real-life stories and make sure they keep the those audience pleasing moment coming at a steady rate. Steven Soderbergh and writer Susannah Grant go the later, and hence, paint-by-numbers route. This is the Soderbergh who gave us OUT OF SIGHT more than the one responsible for THE LIMEY. There is nothing wholly original here in either the film's story line or how it's presented. In fact, BROCKOVICH is such a studio star vehicle he doesn't employ the non-linear editing of those last two films that was becoming his forte.

Considering his last films and that his announced future projects are a remake of the piffle OCEAN'S 11 and a film version of the BBC TV show "Traffic" (about a drug enforcement chief finding out his daughter is a drug mule), Soderbergh seems to be following a one for the studio/one for himself approach to filmmaking. Too bad BROCKOVICH seems to be the studio pic he is doing before starting TRAFFIC. Allowed to work with a more realistic version of Erin (for comparison, pay close attention to the waitress early-on: it's the real Erin Brockovich doing a cameo) and not having to deal with the considerations that go hand in hand with working with someone of Robert's stature it would have been interesting see how different (and very possibly better) this could have been.

This is a showy part and Roberts sinks her teeth into it. Roberts here will remind those who remember it of her breakthrough part in MYSTIC PIZZA - a film that had the bad luck of being a movie aimed at women before "chick flicks" became trendy recently. Definitely worth a rental. She is caustic, forceful and unpretentious. The only problem is Roberts brings so much baggage with her that she never makes the character seem unique. The part suffers from us never being surprised by a larger-than-life character because, well, it's Julia Roberts. It's a wonder why New Jersey Films didn't opt to try this as a low budget film showcasing an actress not as well known. Janet McTeer, who did a similar no-collar turn in TUMBLEWEEDS that prompted several critics to call hers THE performance of 1999, actually looks like the real Erin.

Beginning what will hopefully be the start of a interesting late middle-aged phase of his career, Finney consistently infuses his character with the quirks and a real human tics that are just as consistently missing from Roberts performance. Those who were unlucky enough to catch the pointless and boring SIMPATICO (was there ever a more egregious waste of a good title?) will be excused from thinking his turn as the race horse voucher in that turgid film was a warm-up for Masry. As a man who has worked hard and been careful to arrive where he is in life, he had a helluva lot more to lose than Brockovich who is acting out of necessity. Instead of sounding shrill and selfish, Finney manages a nice balancing act between grounding him enough to be solid and letting him let Erin befuddle him. Its a shame that if anyone remembers the film next winter when the next awards season starts, it will be for the wrong performance.

Universal left nothing to chance marketing BROCKOVICH, unfortunately for regular movie attendees. Every great zinger and most of the "You tell'em, girl!" moments are squandered in the trailers. For those who plunk down their $8.50 to discover what made Erin and her story worth telling find that the awfully nice folk in the Universal marketing department have made sure there is nothing new to discover. It's not hard to like BROCKOVICH. It moves deftly between the expanding professional life of its title character and the repercussions it is having on her home life. It makes a lot of smart choices in what to play up and what events can be skimmed over. As long as its treated as the feel good, unchallenging mainstream studio star vehicle it was fashioned to be, liking the film will come easy. Just don't expect anything deeper. As either a safe-bet outing at the multiplex or a rental half a year from now, ERIN BROCKOVICH is worth a look. But just remember Olympia Dukakis' retort to Cher in MOONSTRUCK - "Playing it safe is the dumbest thing a woman like you can do."

Mission to Mars (2000)

MISSING PERSONS REPORT: BRIAN DE PALMA

[14 March 2000]

If anybody finds Brian De Palma, please report his whereabouts to the proper authorities. That is the inescapable conclusion after viewing his latest studio offering, "Mission to Mars." Because, if De Palma isn't missing then the question becomes: who the hell directed "The Untouchables?" In that film, he showed he could adapt his usual thriller methods to a stock studio genre piece to give filmgoers a summer movie with pizazz. Continuing the slide he started with first "Mission Impossible" and then "Snake Eyes," De Palma seems to be deteriorating each year since his champion Pauline Kael retired. Given the storyline of astronauts in peril on human's first foray to another planet, De Palma would have seemed the perfect choice to helm this throw back to 50's era space travel films that were more science fact than fiction.

It is in the sequences that show off the marvelous production design of Ed Verreaux that "Mission" is at its most realized. Using a mix of existing technology and stuff just around the techno corner, the sets will leave most audience members with a sense of "why haven't we gone to Mars yet?" Or, at least have a cooler looking international space station. There's a sequence involving an EVA - extra-vehicular activity for those who don't speak techno-weenie - that has gotten much pre-release press as a brilliant De Palma-signature set-piece (but is nowhere near the level of his "Untouchables"/"Battleship Potemkin" baby carriage sequence). What does make this part work is how well the design, acting and direction mesh together to give us a moment that holds the audience's attention without ever jarring it with false moments.

This one is followed by another that is almost its equal. Had the film benefited from a few more of these thriller plot constructions that De Palma can really sink his teeth into, "Mission" might have turned out a good or even great film. In this aspect, it seems to be following the already failed path of another film, "The Abyss." While many will point to the specifics of the design (there are only so many ways a spacecraft can look based on current technology and the physics of artificial gravity) and the events of the last reel as tip-offs that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is the inspiration, I found myself reminded of Cameron's inner-space epic. That film too had a great near-future technology setting that should have been sufficient to drive a thriller plot and was saddled with (for those who are too dumb to get it from the trailers, what follows is a SPOILER) an unconvincing aliens-are-real "surprise" in the last act. If the crowned prince of whiz-bang special effects driven action films Cameron couldn't pull it off, what made the roster of writers here and De Palma think they could? At least "Abyss" had characters you came to care about.

Which is "Mission to Mars"' weakest asset. There's a moment in "Abyss" that is one of the most poignant ever put on film and is a harbinger of what Cameron would be capable of in "Titanic." Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio are trapped in a crippled, flooding sub and only have one dive suit. She decides to drown herself and after dragging her body back to the main base, Harris can then resuscitate her. But, it doesn't work. I found myself literally blinking back tears as he slapped her and screamed, "Fight, you bitch, FIGHT!" There's an echo of this in "Mission" but since you see it coming a mile off, there's none of the same emotional impact. There's a weepy bit about Gary Sinise's dead wife, but it plays like the standard movie boiler-plate that it's supposed to be.

In fact, the movie seems like boiler-plate from the opening moment. In what is becoming a laughable trademark, just as he did in "Snake Eyes" De Palma opens the film with a continuous shot around a backyard barbecue that's meant to both announce "This IS a Brian De Palma" and "These are people you should care about." Yet, both play flat. The most lively cast member, Jerry O'Connell, isn't even there (for those who must, regardless of this warning, see "Mission" now in theaters, all of O'Connell's best lines are now in the tv spots). There was one shot, of four spacepersons in tandem as they jet to another craft with the Red Planet magnificently spread out below, that succeeds so well it shows how far off the rest of this film is from being good. Wait for video.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

SMART MOVIE PLAYS DUMB TOO MUCH

[13 March 2000]

I'm not a big fan of the original "Thomas Crown Affair," even though it stars Steve McQueen one of the least appreciated actors these days. The opening bank job, done multi-screen style, is well done. And the seduction scene played out with chess pieces shows that very suggestive eroticism can be done with class and wit. But overall, its a very forgettable film (and you can keep the "Windmills of Your Mind"). So, this is not a film that the idea of a remake triggers that urge to go maim studio execs. Considering how dated the original is, updating it made a lot of sense. The casting of the underused Rene Russo with Pierce Brosnan was a good choice. I point all this out so I don't have to pull out my mea culpa when I say it didn't exactly bowl me over (or bowler, if you've seen it already).

Mostly, this is a film that wants to be thought of as smart and sophisticated. Overall, the filmmakers succeed in giving us film that is that occasionally. I think what I didn't like about the film is that it never trusts the audience. Any time a point is made, it has to be underscored so that there is no doubt we got it. Early on, Crown (Brosnan) is shown entering a building with a prominently framed sign for Crown Acquisitions. When a Suit in the lobby hurries a new security guard away who doesn't realize who Crown is, not only do the producers have to throw in the guard saying off screen "What, he own the building or something?" but they have to insult the audience even more my adding "Yes, he does." Following a scant few minutes later is a scene meant to show Crown as a top dog financial whiz, but again the filmmakers can't help themselves by pounding the nail on the head to make sure the dumbest members of the audience get that he just bested the other players in the deal.

"Affair" hits it's roughest waters once it becomes a cat and mouse game between the trying-to-retain-his-cool Brosnan and trying-not-get-too-hot Russo waiting for the other to make both professional and emotional mistakes. When the central mystery becomes "will she figure out how to nail him for doing it?" versus a standard whodunit an audience expects a lot of intelligence from the filmmakers. Imagine pitching an idea for a weekly TV show about a detective who solves crimes that the audience already knows the culprit of and the brilliance of "Columbo" is much more impressive. Also, instead of a selfish rich man who wants to keep masterpieces all to himself the audience is given the very likable cad Thomas Crown. You want him to succeed. Sort of.

Yet, in this period of cat and mouse, "Crown" manages to give us something rare and probably more in demand than studios realize: an adult, mature, frank sexual relationship. Both the producers (of which Brosnan was one) and Ms. Russo should be applauded for once not having the forty-something male actor cavorting around with a twenty-something flavor-of-the-month actress. Reportedly using no body doubles, Ms Russo frolics au naturel giving us more than a glimpse of her forty plus form.

Then comes the ending, featuring another elaborate heist. And "Affair's" dalliance with smarts turns around and bites it in the ass. A film can't tell an audience to keep it's brain in "Drive" and then expect them to shift to neutral when it decides to play it dumb. After showing a well thought-out and very plausible purloin-the-masterpiece sequence in the beginning, plausibility goes out the window for the closing art snatching scene. Again and again the audience is asked to buy one preposterous turn after another. Then comes a big blunder by the director, John McTiernan, in order to keep brain-challenged with the rest of the crowd. To describe it would be to reveal too much. Just ask yourself should you see it, did you really have to watch each step of the way as the painting is revealed or wouldn't a slow pan up have worked much better? The way he chooses to shoot it is par for the course of the rest of this not-quite-as-smart-as-they-thought film

The Ninth Gate (1999)

ROMAN'S DIRTY HOME MOVIES

[11 March 2000]

With the release of both Polanski's "The Ninth Gate" and Brian De Palma's "Mission to Mars" on the same day, you can say there's more evidence for those who still need it that the 70's era of personal, meaningful filmmaking is long past. While De Palma has always seemed to crave the big studio success that others in his circle have found (in fact, he is rumored to have said as much about the stratosphere that pals Spielberg and Lucas attained), Polanski has until now seemed to have stumbled into his Hollywood success phase ("Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown") while always remaining true to his compulsive desire to make films about obsessive characters and themes. His last undisputed critical success was "Tess," made after he declined to return to the US to face statutory rape charges. While not the nail-biting thriller it aimed to be, "Frantic" was certainly far from a by-the-numbers suspense film. It's no easy feat to make Harrison Ford look ordinary, lost and weak (and hence, a very common man).

Each film deals with men and women who find themselves tested as they move against the status quo to find answers or to survive. It is Polanski himself, playing a thug, who slices Jack Nicholson's nose in "Chinatown" for being too nosy. In "Gate" we seem to be at end-game. While there is a muddled mystery in this stylishly decorated and shot film, our protagonist Johnny Depp does all he can to NOT pursue it. He is forever on the phone with the underused Frank Langella (both here and in general. For Pete's sake, will someone give this man a decent part in a good film!) trying to get out of his assignment of authenticating a rare book on the occult. Not that one could blame him, given the pointless nature of the story.

As a "dishy" older woman, Lena Olin gives the film a few moments of smoldering heat that are never allowed to fully catch on fire. Given the sexual tension of his last effort, "Bitter Moon," it seems odd Polanski doesn't pursue this. Olin, looking very different now in her mid-forties, is all set to correct decades of Older Male/Younger Female couplings with the boyish Depp when Polanski cuts away. The answer becomes clear later. For the point of all this mumbo-jumbo about Satan, burned heretics, secret covens and a heretofore unknown circle of rare occult book bibliophiles is this: Roman Polanski's wife "gettin' some." I'm not making this up, folks. What else explains why it is never laid out (sorry for the pun) what exactly anyone thinks will happen when mystery of the books is solved. Does it bring back Old Nick to rule the world or is it just a one-on-one conference thing?

Depp never seems all that concerned that those around him want Lucifer as their NBF (new best friend for the over-25 crowd). As a matter of fact, Depp doesn't seem too concerned about much of anything. Holding four and five hundred year old tomes in his bare hands, he is prone to smoking directly over these supposedly very expensive volumes. No special cases necessary either, apparently, as he casually tosses the books into a battered shoulder bag only occasionally thinking to wrap them in a besotted rag. A note about the music: another parallel than could be made with "Mission to Mars" is the recycled music. In "Mission" Ennio Morricone blatantly used his "Humanity (Part I and II)" from John Carpenter's "The Thing" and here we have Wojciech Kilar aping parts of the score he did for "Bram Stoker's Dracula." Except for this one piece that pops up occasionally that is almost jaunty, sounding much like the theme from "Ghostbusters."

The most surprising thing about both Depp's character and the movie, is how unconcerned with a religious view they are. There's not even lip-service given to whatever faith he is and not so much as a glimpse of a priest or rabbi in the film. The whole point seems to be we get to watch Emmanuelle Seigner (Mrs. Polanski) have a sweaty session atop a seemingly confused Depp while a building burns behind them. Other than that, I'm grasping at straws to explain what it's about or the significance of the last shot. While she is attractive, I think the next time Polanski wants to make a movie to see his wife get boinked, he needs to use a camcorder. Wait for video, or rent one of THOSE videos.

Play It to the Bone (1999)

STORY'S GOT A GLASS JAW, BUT FIGHT'S A KO

[2 March 2000]

A boxing film from minor or no league sports milieu chronicler Ron Shelton (Bull Durham, White Men Can't Jump) with the not exactly untested talents of Antonio Banderas, Woody Harrelson, Tom Sizemore, Robert Wagner, Richard Masur, Lolita Davidovich and Lucy Liu. What's wrong with this picture? Nothing once you get to the last third and the actual fight ensues. It's the first 90 minutes that's not quite a knock out. In our overly commercialized and celebrity athlete obsessed world culture, Shelton has made a career out of showing us the world of the also-rans (and jumped and hit and thrown, etc.). For every record breaking multi-millioned contract holder making even more telling the world to guzzle the Gatorade, there's a hundred guys like "Durham's" Crash Davis trying to eke out one more season before taking a job at the sports shop or hardware store. This is "Bone's" big stumble, not really establishing what kinda of lives these two has-beens lead now that they are reduced to working as sparring partners at a no-name local L.A. gym. Shelton would have written this a whole lot smarter if he had picked a venue he knew better back east, say New Orleans or St. Louis for Banderas' Cesar and Harrelson's Vince to hail from. It would have made the road trip a helluva lot more interesting visually, moving through prairie to mountains to desert. Instead, we get dried brush and rocks as back drop for Cesar and Vince's back and forth that is supposed to tell us who they are. And who they are isn't all that interesting, which is what's going to doom this film with audiences. This is story that starts off in the most contrived way. In a chain of events that starts with the undercard of a Mike Tyson fight in Vegas getting hopelessly stoned and haplessly dead, respectively, we are then asked to believe that the promoter would even in panic call two guys who don't even really fight any more. The film really needs the audience to believe and believe in these guys after this and Shelton fails to make Vince and Cesar unique enough. People might plunk down their eight bucks for a flick with stupendous special effects, but a great fight? Which is the one thing that "Play It To The Bone" has - a helluva fight. For filmgoers who thought the book had been written on showing a boxing match with either the high art stylization of "Raging Bull" or the pop art sequences of the Rocky franchise, prepare for the most brutally realistic display of the sweet science yet shown. In a sequence that uses a refreshing paucity of slow-mo shots, we are taken through ten rounds of sympathy-welt-raising fisticuffs. At least we know the time Shelton didn't spend on researching his characters wasn't wasted hobnobbing with Tyson and the other real-life boxing personalities who pop up in cameos during this section. It was spent watching God knows how many hours of old boxing film.

The sequence also manages a subtle commentary on the empty spectacle of such "event" sporting events, as the oblivious main event crowd gets sucked into Vince and Cesar's career defining contest. Here's what a boxing match is supposed to be about: two hungry guys out to prove they are top dog. And right up to the conclusion Shelton is on his way to making the first uninspired 90 minutes disappear - then he pulls his last punches and ruins it. This is when the anemic character develpment and unorginality catches up with him. The audience feels sucker-punched going out the door.

Magnolia (1999)

A POINTLESS, BUT FAR FROM BORING, TALE OF THE VALLEY

[2 March 2000]

My god, what a mess. What a crazy, glorious, inspired mess. Much like the characters who Ping-Pong around the eventually surreal milieu of Paul Thomas Anderson's Let's-visit-the-San-Fernando-Valley-again follow-up to "Boogie Nights," this is a film out of control. Which is not to suggest that "Magnolia" is a bore. Unlike "Three Kings" that seemed to run out of steam as far as innovative and kinetic presentation (come on, who really gave a s**t about Clooney and Co. helping the fleeing Iraqis once the third act limped in?), "Magnolia" goes full-tilt until the credits roll. The only way you know this film clocks in at 188 minutes is to time it.

Anderson keeps things moving at a clip that makes your average Joel Silver production seem like Merchant & Ivory. Expanding the use of the techniques he used expertly in "Nights," Anderson zooms around these scenes so energetically you might think you had stumbled into an action film by mistake. Tracks with zooms, tracks with whip-pans propel you into and around scenes. No boring static shots here. A dinner scene between "Nights" alum's John C. Reilly and the wonderful Melora Walters is shot from a low angle so that even though we know that both are flawed, their stature is raised so we can admire their attempts to connect.

Fancy camera moves and superb editing can only hold your interest for so long. As with "Boogie Nights," Anderson excels at getting top-notch performances for his characters. With the exception of Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlburg (who was out underwhelming in the aforementioned "Kings"), almost every actor shows up in "Magnolia." Tom Cruise is good, damn good in his juicy role of a very un-Alan Alda-ish self-help guru for p-whipped males, yet at its core it's still a part we've seen him play before in "Jerry MacGuire" and "Rainman." He's no more impressive than Julianne Moore, and Moore's quite impressive. For my money, the best performance rests either with Walters or Phillip Baker Hall. Until his turn here, Hall has always seemed a bit too arch (like his library detective on a "Seinfeld" episode). Even "Hard Eight" doesn't let him show the character's vulnerable side as he is allowed to in "Magnolia."

As for Walters, if nothing else she should certainly have etched her name into the consciousness of a casting agent or two with a performance that manages to be brittle, hard and very endearing. Similar to the character she played in "Boogie," porn neophyte Jessie St. James, here she adds an edginess to what could have been a standard lost waif role. When added to the others, it makes it very hard not to recommend this film. But Anderson never really goes anywhere with his One Day In The Valley story that seems to be more than inspired by "Short Cuts." Unlike the end of "Boogie Nights" that finds Dirk Diggler returning to his "family" having learned some hard lessons about his place in life, it's hard to draw any such points from "Magnolia," although the events of the last half hour are loopy enough to almost forgive that.

Three to Tango (1999)

MY LORD, ALMOST THE WORST FILM THIS YEAR

[2 March 2000]

The makers of "Three to Tango" are probably the only inhabitants of our little blue sphere who are happy that Jamie Lee Curtis' "Virus" was ever made, for it guarantees that this ill-conceived slapstick-romantic-comedy will not be remembered as THE worse film of 1999. It will certainly make several bottom ten lists I'm sure. "Tango" is less film than a motley series of scenes that are being forced upon the viewer in the hopes that the sum of such will equal "romantic comedy" and hence box office gold. There is a dearth of decent such films and survey after survey tells us that especially women want to see more of them. While studios know that cramming endless shoot-outs, explosions and clever special effects can save your basic actioner, no such rule of thumb applies to romances.

There are traditions is this genre and "Three to Tango" trots them out one after another like a bad dog show. We get a Nice Guy who needs a big break from the Super Successful Studmuffin and in pursuit of which puts him in an Awkward Situation ripe for Comedic Misunderstanding where he Meets Cute the Diamond in the Rough object of his affection who just hasn't met the Right Guy. Not helping the viewer forget all this is a discussion in the film that calls attention to such clichés (in this case the oft repeated "Let's get outta here" which I'm sure leaves many with a longing for just such). In place of attractive stars, zippy dialogue and sexual heat what we to make of such bland headliners such as Matthew Perry and Neve Campbell uttering mostly banal lines while never stimulating more than a blush of puppy love.

I'm at a loss to explain why anyone thinks Matthew Perry should be headlining films in the first place. With a square head and severe shortage in the lips & chin department he seems custom made for the "best friend" role. I'm not stupid and know that the culture-piercing success of "Friends" has Everything to do with it. "Fools Rush In" is the exception to this and "Almost Heroes" the rule. Campbell is slightly better, but barely gives off any sparks in what should have been a role played as a firecracker. Of course her role suffers from being as underwritten as the rest of the script and creates the biggest hurdle the audience is asked overcome: buying her and Dylan McDermott's relationship.

Only in the trite universe that "Tango" exists in would these two characters become Rich Guy and Mistress. That's right, Campbell's not-really-struggling artist is the kept woman of a tycoon. Excuse me, Mr. Screenwriter, I am supposed to believe that underneath all those funky clothes beats the heart of woman who thinks a sugar daddy's boy toy is her best option?! As for as the comedic aspect of this purported romantic comedy, there's not a single line worth repeating in this whole shebang. Only, and I do stress only, if you are so desperate for a night out that involves seeing such a film (and this summer's Julia Roberts' twosome are no longer even playing at the dollar theater) then see this by-the-numbers effort.

Reindeer Games (2000)

ROADKILL INSTEAD OF VENISON

[26 February 2000]

As Richard the III bellowed: "A Diehard, a Diehard... my kingdom for a Diehard" (or something to that affect if Joe Bob Briggs was doing the Bard). With this wreck of film from John Frankenhemier, the streak of bad action films continues unabated. Action/Adventure films are my very un-guilty pleasure of going to movies. While I've matured to look forward to the fall and winter seasons that bring with them a proportional higher number of quality, serious works, it is the summer that is the apple of my eye. Put your brain in neutral, grab some Raisinettes and head for the seats in the "sweet-spot." I'm sure I caught a few "You said it, brother's" coming in across the ether from others so inclined.

In other words, I was pre-sold on liking "Reindeer Games." An ex-con blackmailed into helping a crew of thieves pull a casino heist at Christmas? I'm there baby, I'm there. I would have really been psyched if I had remembered that John Frankenheimer was behind the lens of "Ronin" as well. What turned this "Reindeer" into roadkill instead of Grade A venison? I finger the writer, Ehren Kruger. If I pointed out he was also behind "Arlington Road" and "Scream 3" I'm sure many out there will tell me I should have been forewarned, but I must claim ignorance as I truly didn't know. If you thought those two were bad, "Reindeer Games" is worse. I get the feeling Kruger once said "I want to write a movie with a big, surprise twist at the end and "Reindeer" was his warm-up for "Road." I'm really fearful now for two more films he has coming out this year: "Impostor" and "Texas Rangers."

Ben Affleck, who should have been a good choice to play a car thief, is expected to inhabit a character who is much harder than he can pull off. At least the prison we meet him in is much tougher than Affleck could have survived without becoming the local pump. The rest of the cast, including a completely wasted Dennis Farina, are well suited to their roles. It's a pesky problem with logic that derails this would-be thriller.

This is one of those films that asks you not once or twice, but repeatedly, to accept that characters will always do what other characters expect and predict them to do. It asks you to accept that the bad guys can act like bad guys out in the open (at one point, Gary Sinese and his gang pull a NRA wet-dream of weapons out of a car trunk NEXT TO THE CASINO THEY WANT TO ROB!). That characters who are play-acting would do things that only make sense if they aren't play acting (sorry, but any less vague on that one and I'd "spoil" one of those twists for those who read this and STILL want to pay good money just to see Charlize Theron naked).

What's really depressing is when you look back on it, it should have been decent. All the elements are there (interesting setting, smart hero, clever ways to kill people). Either Kruger can't get past the point where he comes up with these elements and puts them in a workable script, or he is so busy (5 movies coming out in the space of about one year must be some sort of record) that he ignores the cardinal rule of screenwriting: writing is rewriting. All of those released so far needed a few more runs through the word processor. I might have to go to Westwood, where "The Matrix" has returned to the big screen to celebrate its technical nominations, to cleanse myself and reaffirm my faith in Hollywood's ability to produce Movies For Guys Who Like Movies like nobody else on the freaking planet