ARCHIVES 2001

Movie Reviews by Paul Preston and Mary Gent
Reviews in alphabetical order

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!
-PP

ALI (**1/2)

Let me start right out with the thing I found most disappointing about this film. That would be Ali himself. I knew a few tidbits about his life, but, after learning more from Michael Mann’s biopic, I still don’t find him very compelling. Naturally, the impeded by ability to get involved in the whole film. Ali was portrayed by Will Smith as a big child, yelling or talking in a slow, monotone that bordered on the retarded. I was more interested in Malcolm X, played wonderfully by Mario Van Peebles. And guess what? The biopic made about Malcolm X was fascinating! So most of the two and a half stars noted here come from Michael Mann’s style. He is a great filmmaker, and I’ve always enjoyed his offbeat choices. Who else would’ve thought to open a film about Muhammed Ali with a ten minute or so segment of Ali training that intercuts with a Sam Cooke performance? It’s out of left field, but original, energizing, and it works. His photography of the fights (which are quite lengthy scenes) are innovative, using digital cameras and POV shots, and that’s impressive seeing as how many boxing movies there have been, with each one trying to outdo “Raging Bull”. Much has been made of Jon Voight’s performance, but it’s not much beyond what the media showed us of Howard Cosell. So, due to a cartoonish lead character, I couldn’t really get into “Ali”.
-PP

AMELIE (****)

I believe the director of this film, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, directed “Delicatessen” and “City of Lost Children”. If so, they’ve just jumped to the TOP of my DVD rental list. “Amelie” is a fascinating, fascinating way to tell a simple, honest love story. This movie seems to have the quirkiest characters of the year in it. But unlike “Chocolat” or “U-Turn”, movies that seem to have quirky characters just cause ‘isn’t it cool to have quirky characters in your movie?’, “Amelie”’s main strength is in the playfulness of it’s director, editor and screenwriter. This movie zips along with a cheerfulness and joy worn right out on it’s sleeve. Every character seems bizarre because the introductions, thoughts and desires of the characters are explored in such intesting ways. Example: The plot is basically a woman’s folly in making good things happen for other people causes her to ignore her own happiness. At one point, she is to meet a man for dinner. She thinks he is A) late or B) captured in a robbery attempt. This thought B leads to a glorious montage sequences that lasts about two minutes where she imagines his capture, torture, abandonment in an Afghan mountain,etc., etc. Is she especially quirky? Well, this much is for sure, with storytelling like that, the filmmaker is downright daffy, enjoying every minute of his main character’s tale. I liked it equally as much.
-PP

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.
-PP

THE ANNIVERSARY PARTY (***)

OK, not everything else this year has been bad. I saw this film in a sneak preview at the Film Society. It has alot of balls, it covers ALOT of bases and often bites off more than it can chew. BUT, the charm and talent of the actors prevails. This film was shot with a digital camera for practically no budget, but writer/directors Jennifer Jason Leigh and Alan Cumming put together an exciting cast including the Great Kevin Kline, Parker Posey, John C. Reilly, Phoebe Cates, Jane Adams and more, including some new-comers I’ve never seen before who were really impressive. They all concentrate on the relationships, and the acting stems from reality. Are there scenes of such high emotion that it seemed a little TOO weighty at times? Yes. But as I said before, the actors carry the day. It’s amazing to think that the self-involved characters that populate this film are my neighbors…
-PP

A second opinion…

THE ANNIVERSARY PARTY

A day in the life of your typical deluded, privileged, and shallow residents of La La Land

I have watched so many films about Hollywood life. Parodies of actors, situations and the studio system politics. Most of them are impersonal at best (“The Player”) or horrific and nerve-wracking (“Swimming with Sharks”) or just plain boring (“Postcards from the Edge”). I live in Los Angeles. I’ve worked in production. I’ve been around “film” people, famous actors, directors, etc. For me. “The Anniversary Party” captures, or parodies if you will, aspects of the Hollywood lifestyle perfectly.

This movie is the love child born from two gifted actors, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Alan Cumming. This was a project that the two wrote, directed, starred in and funded themselves. It was a labor of love which gave them the opportunity to have complete creative control over how they perceive the life they live. The movie is simply about a couple throwing a party in honor of their six year anniversary. I suppose simple isn’t the correct word to use when you are dealing with the upper echelon of the movie industry. Leigh and Cumming play the recently reunited married celebrity couple Sally Nash and Joe Therrian. Both are in their late thirties and are at different pinnacles in their respective careers. Sally is approaching the time in an actress’s life when age and longevity become an issue, while Joe is an author who has just written his first screenplay which he also gets to direct. The fragile nature of their relationship is evident from the beginning of the film and reaches barbaric levels at the tumultuous climax towards the end.

The beauty of this film is its intimacy and I don’t mean the actual film itself but the ensemble casting of their friends and the freedom they had while making the movie. It is a desperate if not rather unforgiving look at the lives of the privileged. It almost feels like a documentary. Lots of improvisation, and, of course, working in the studio system for years lends a harsh honesty to the performances. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s real life best friend Phoebe Cates (what a treat to see her on screen!) plays the serene Sophia Gold, wife to real life husband Kevin Kline (aka Cal Gold), along with their children Greta and Owen! Jason Leigh’s half-sister Mina Badie plays Monica Rose (I met her and she is lovely!). Jennifer Beals plays Gina, Joe’s ex flame. Beals is stunning still to this day and what beautiful grace she has as an actress. My favorite film-stealer is Jane Adams as the incredibly neurotic actress Clair Forsyth. She is so engaging and quirky as Clair. I could watch her for hours. Her husband, director Mac Forsyth played so truthfully by John C. Reilly (reminds me a bit of the late Ted Demme) shows up to the party with dailies of his current film! Typical! There is no rest for the wicked in Hollywood. And then there is the rest of the brilliant cast. Parker Posey, John Benjamin Hickey (amazing!), Matt Malloy, Michael Panes (dead ringer for Peter Sellers), Gwyneth Paltrow, etc, etc. etc. (again, we all know how I feel about ensemble acting!)

I don’t have a lot to say about the plot of this film except that it is sadly genius. Two hours of watching actors portraying actors could be tedious or nauseating at best, but the artistry of the DV work and the edginess of the performers pull you in kicking and screaming until the bitter end. What I love about this film is it’s blatant slap in the face to the shallow, stupefied world of Hollywood. The layers of insecurities and feigning of interests is so real here in Los Angeles. But it also forces you to take notice of the humanity of these people as well. There is no escaping it. It ain’t all glitz and glamour!

I will say this, however, I hope that this film encourages other artists to take risks in filmmaking or standing up to the studio systems with their suits and their rules. I can also say that as a woman in her mid-thirties, I was so relieved to watch these beautiful women in all their natural glory. To see depth and wrinkles and idiosyncrasies and fallibilities. It was reassuring. It reminded me of that magical decade in film history: the 70’s. Where women had juicy roles full of piss and vinegar. Where they weren’t plasticized carbon copies of each other playing stereotypical roles with their male counterparts. I miss that in film. “The Anniversary Party” reminds me of that decade. It reminds me of great promise in acting and art. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it certainly is worth a watch.
-MG

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.
-PP

A BEAUTIFUL MIND (***)

It was good to see Ron Howard come back from the critical lambasting he received for “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” with this reviewer’s darling. But as “The Grinch” proved, critical praise of no critical praise, Howard’s movies will make money. Why? They’re so easily accessible. Think of all the other MATH films that’ve grossed 150 million? “Pi”? Maybe “Good Will Hunting”? “The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes”? Howard is probably the only director besides Spielberg who’s name can lure people to buy a ticket. His projects wildly vary, and he always brings some of the best in the game along with him (this time he is joined by BRILLIANT DP Roger Deakins and James Horner, nominated for his score here as he was for an Oscar with Howard’s “Apollo 13”). And the one thing you can say about “A Beautiful Mind” is that it is most accessible, easy to get in to and successful as a drama and romance. It hasn’t hurt Ron Howard to have the best leading men in Hollywood, too. Tom Hanks, Mel Gibson, and now Russell Crowe, who is riding a string of great performances – “LA Confidential”, “The Insider”, “Gladiator” and now “A Beautiful Mind”. And it’s not like he sucked in “Mystery, Alaska”, and “Proof of Life”, either. Love him of hate him, they guy’s GOOD. He does a masterful job of bringing John Nash to life, delicately underplaying many important scenes and maintaining a mix of pathos and unpredictability in his situations. Jennifer Connelly continues her hot streak (a) she’s hot (b) she’s showered up after “Requiem for a Dream”, in which she was also very good. Plus, here’s a fact – after you put Ed Harris in your movie, I can automatically name twenty movies that will be inferior to yours. He’s a lock. The only thing preventing me from awarding this film its fourth star would be the very accessibility I mentioned before. In being accessible, it never quite got evisceral, and in present company (“In the Bedroom”, “Monster’s Ball”), the gauntlet for going one step beyond has been thrown. But it’s a sturdy Hollywood flick to be sure.
-PP

BLACK HAWK DOWN (****)

No doubt the best film Jerry Bruckheimer has ever made. If you remember my review of “Pearl Harbor”, the best part of the film was the air attack, with the romance, acting and everything else sucking. In “Black Hawk Down”, Bruckheimer has done away with all those petty things like relationships and characters that just got in his way. What we’re left with is an absolutely FIERCE battle epic. It also helps to have knee-deep-in-the-blood-and-sand Ridley Scott at the helm as opposed to glossy-sheen-teeth-oh-so-white Michael Bay. The squadron of troops in “Black Hawk Down” get their orders near the beginning of the film. They’re going into the most hostile section of Somalia to apprehend a criminal tied to a warlord who’s been executing Somali people and hording U.S. food supplies meant for the masses. In and out in thirty minutes. The rest of the film depicts their mission, and how it turned into an over 12-hour nightmare. If there’s one fault in the film, it would be the same one I had with U-571. Many’s the time the soldiers became faceless, meaning I couldn’t tell who was who in the chaos of the battle. I can always depict the stars (Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Jason Isaacs), but other players tended to blend together. Some would say that’s the point, but I found it a bit of a pain when a soldier would go down, and I wasn’t sure who exactly it was. The best performance came from Tom Sizemore, who embodied the film’s tag line – “leave no man behind”. The bravery these soldiers show is so beyond me, I found it very impressive to watch, and very well depicted onscreen. Naturally, it draws parallels to what our troops are doing today in Afghanistan, and only further earns my respect for them. In “Black Hawk Down”, the soldiers are thrust into an absolutely LAWLESS society, filled with absolute FREAKS who don’t know the first thing about civilization. They’re savages, plain and simple. “Black Hawk Down” as been getting alot of flak for being racist. To me, an asshole is an asshole, color be damned, and the Somali militia in this film are more relentless and brutal than any sci-fi story could dream up. What they present is a real, honest-to-God (or Allah) DANGER. That’s what’s missing from the majority of bad action movies these days. And that constant, constant threat makes it impossible to look away. This is a thrilling movie.
-PP

BLOW (***)

It’s really a two star movie that gets an extra half of a star for some of the performances (Depp, Liotta), and another extra half a star for style.

Director Ted Demme dove into the time period and life of Depp’s character and came out with a good looking film.

But, it’s tough to feel sorry for anybody in the drug biz, and Penelope Cruz continues to fail to impress me.

I figure I’ve got to see one of her Spanish films to find out what the big deal is.
-PP

BRIDGET JONES’ DIARY (***)

A refreshing comedy in that the adult characters acted adult and did adult things. In this era of Kirsten Dunst, can you understand what I mean by refreshing? There were a few things that I disagreed with, like playing “It’s Raining Men” during a fight between two main characters, and then not handling the consequences of their destruction of a restaurant AT ALL. However, Hugh Grant put aside his stuttering Brit routine and put in a performance I really enjoyed, and Renee Zellweger was great. She’s the Ben Stiller of comediennes, the lovable loser. This film does suffer from the same romantic comedy ending problems that “Someone Like You” has, but the majority of the film is satisfying enough to recommend.
-PP

CAPTAIN CORELLI’S MANDOLIN (*1/2)

Yes, it’s possible for one performance to ruin an entire film. Nicolas Cage, yes, the same guy who was so GOOD in “Raising Arizona”, “Moonstruck” and “Birdy” ABSOLUTELY BLOWS in this film. His performance is HORRID. UGH. I mean, isn’t he Italian? He’s a Coppola, and his Italian accent is wretched. Then again, Penelope Cruz’ whiny Greek woman is pathetic, too. She just simply thinks she can get away with NO dialect. NONE! So, she’s basically Spanish/Greek. Weak. And John Hurt is British the whole time. What’s going on with Greece? Cage plays an Italian soldier when Italy was occupying Greece. He meets Cruz’ nurse character and the love story is so not believable. I bought Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley more than Cage/Cruz. So, the movie winds through a series of awkward wartime scenarios, and even an earthquake, but fails to tug the heartstrings because it’s so overwrought. There is one massacre scene that’s jolting, but it seems out of place in a movie so sappy. Christian Bale is excellent as the supposed “bad guy” of the love story, but I felt for him more than anyone else in the film.
-PP

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!”
-PP

CHARLOTTE GRAY (**)

Cate Blanchett was very prolific this year, showing up in five films. I’m surprised she didn’t get a Oscar nomination for at least one of them (I thought she was great in “The Shipping News”). Blanchett has also arisen as one of Hollywood’s most assured leads. After getting screwed out of an Oscar for 1998’s “Elizabeth”, she’s been in loads more intriguing projects than that year’s Academy Award winner, Gwyneth Paltrow. The intriguing “Charlotte Gray” has a story so bogus, it requires a strong female lead to anchor it. Blanchett does quite well portraying Gray, a British woman who joins the military as a spy when her lover’s plane goes down in France. But herein lies the film’s fatal flaw. She’s looking for her lover while getting embroiled in a French spy ring, so basically, scores of people DIE ‘cause she’s trying to find her BOYFRIEND. UGH. That’s just not compelling, folks. Especially when I really cared about the French characters played by Billy Crudup and Michael Gambon. Director Gillian Armstrong directs with old-school flair and unapologetic heaps of lush, romantic, war-time dramatic nostalgia. However, the story at its core is foolish, with a ridiculous ending I can’t imagine anyone in the theater favored.
-PP

CRAZY/BEAUTIFUL (*)

I’ve entirely forgotten this movie already, while images of “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” still linger. I have to see “The Virgin Suicides” apparently, because every time I say Kirsten Dunst does nothing for me and she’ll make ANY movie put in front of her, I’m told to see that. Well, once again, I’m watching Dunst in a “teen romance” movie, and it’s just bland, bland, bland. The idea’s interesting with a role reversal (the white girl’s bad, the hispanic boy is a model teen), but the whole experience seemed a little trite with the overbearing father, the racial tension, the jealous friends, etc., etc. A few scenes, when the characters get really personal, strike a chord, but overall it failed to draw me in. Newcomer Jay Hernandez is pretty good, playing a character surrounded by a bunch of teens offering up a good argument for birth control.
-PP

THE CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION (**1/2)

A few modifications and this could get a straight three stars. But, Woody Allen still wants us to believe that he could bed the likes of Helen Hunt and Charlize Theron. Uh, no. Is he still funny? Allen and Hunt trade jibes worthy of a modern-day Cary Grant/Rosalind Russell. The plot is a whimsical flurry of misunderstandings and robberies revolving around a visit to a hypnotist. It’s always intriguing and you want to know how Allen’s character is going to get out of his mess. But, a scene where Theron comes on to him for no reason just seems odd, harsher critics might call it vain, and a forced happy ending seems unsettling. Allen even seemed unbelievable in a few of his scenes. It may be time to just stick to the writing and directing if the film is a romance at heart. I’m sure he can find that fine line between this and “Celebrity”, where he basically directed Kenneth Branagh to do a Woody Allen impersonation. I have a feeling he saw how HOT Theron was in that film and wanted her to come on to him, too. Hell, that’s what I’d do…
-PP

THE DEEP END (**)

When “O” came out, it was listed with this film and a few others on the finally-the-good-movies-of-the-summer-are-coming-out list. Well, I don’t see the attraction. To me, it remains as just another reason not to have children. Tilda Swinton (of “Orlando” – blecch) plays a mom trying to cover up the bad deeds of her son. The kid, however, never seems redeeming enough to be worth the effort. Another alert here for one of the worst performances of the year: Raymond Barry, a character actor I’ve seen before, but couldn’t tell you where, shows up as Swinton’s father. God, he’s awful. Cornball to the max. Goran Visnjic of “ER” has an easy-going charm, but the film never enthralled. Not a pathetic effort, the technical aspects are good, the Nevada lakes and hills look beautiful, but not an engrossing one, either.
-PP

DR. DOLITTLE 2 (**1/2)

A dog with Norm Macdonald’s voice can’t be all bad.
And it isn’t.

In fact, in the style of the first film, there isn’t a whole lot that’s extremely bad about “Dr. Dolittle 2”.

There’s also not a whole lot that’s new.
The Dr. has evolved a bit, become somewhat of a celebrity, but the animals do the same wiseacre stuff they did the first time around.

More of the same, if that’s what you want.
-PP

FOCUS (**)

This film slipped under the radar without any hubub. I can see why. It’s an interesting story that seems underwritten. Although based on something written by the great Arthur Miller, it seems to cover the surface of emotions laid out in a neighborhood during World War II. What if you were determined to be a Jew in an anti-semitic period of America? An interesting notion, and worthy of a story, but this one seems to never get DEEP into the subject. It, as I said, skims the surface and just, I don’t know, seems small-time. William H. Macy and Laura Dern put in serviceable performances, but they’re hampered by some awkward dialogue and bad pacing by the director. This material could’ve seemed towering if directed by Spielberg or Soderbergh, or some other “berg”, but “Focus” as it stands now, “Focus” sometimes stumbles, sometimes is effective, but is never consistent in tone and pace. There is one great thing to look forward to if you see this film, it has an excellent ending. Just focus on that as you go through the ups and downs of this uneven drama.
-PP

FROM HELL (***)

I haven’t seen the much-praised comic book series from which “From Hell” was adapted, but I’m a big fan of its writer, Alan Moore, creator of the greatest comic series of all time, “The Watchmen”. (People like Terry Gilliam have tried to make “The Watchmen” into a film, but its budget would be too immense. It’s that big of story!) I was excited to see “From Hell” because Alan Moore is a dark dude, who loves to explore the seediness of any situation, and this time he was going to imagine his own scenario about the rise and fall of Jack the Ripper. Well, the only way this movie could’ve been any bleaker is if I DIED during the middle of it. This is a bloody, muddy, messy, ugly, sinister tale told with a noir-ish feel thta never once feels like a “comic book”. Who Jack the Ripper was remains a mystery of sorts, but we (and history) are not cheated at all by Moore’s imaginings, brought to chilly life by “Menace II Society” directors Allen and Albert Hughes. Even our hero, a detective played by Johnny Depp, is a drug addict. Depp is usually a sure thing, and this time is no different, plus he’s backed by an equally good Robbie Coltrane, finishing off a good double-duty with his charming, rougish performance in “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”. The weak link, however, and she’s done it before, is Heather Graham. She was good in “Boogie Nights”, and that’s about it. In “From Hell”, she plays a prostitute terrorized by Jack the Ripper, but I believed that performances by the other whores in her circle much easier. She’s not “The Spy Who Shagged Me”-type bad in this, but she is the weakest link. Goodbye.
-PP

GHOST WORLD (**1/2)

There’s something enjoyable about a couple of characters who hate everything. And the most interesting thing about “Ghost World” is how it shows you that you really can’t hate EVERYTHING. After a while, you have to like SOMETHING. Such is the dilemma facing the teens at the heart of this story. Terry Zwigoff, director of the GREAT “Crumb” shows he’s equally adept with narrative as with documentary, as he approaches the whole film with just the right, hip tone. But did I ever really care? Mildly, every now and then. Steve Buscemi shows up as the lonely guy too fragile to get hooked up with the careless teens of “Ghost World”. In the end, I was indifferent as to the fates of the characters, but, hey, at least I didn’t HATE them.
-PP

GOSFORD PARK (*1/2)

Well made, I guess, but there’s no denying I was bored. Perhaps, being an actor who spent six months re-creating the Victorian era for living history tours, the upstairs/downstairs lives of wealthy people and their servants is nothing new to me. But many people who’ve put “Park” on their Top 10 of 2001 lists seem to find this dichotomy fascinating. Not to me. Despite capable performances from all the actors, I just couldn’t get into Robert Altman’s directing style. This isn’t the first production he’s directed sans flair. I wanted a little something. The photography wasn’t lush, the production design wasn’t especially ornate, the costumes weren’t all that catching. The whole thing just seemed grey and unimportant. The ‘ol just-put-the-cameras-on-’em-and-let-’em-go style wasn’t cutting it this time out. It’s just a shame that this film didn’t make room for “Memento” of “Monster’s Ball” at the Academy Awards nominations for Best Picture. If you really want to see a British servant’s story WITH all the above-mentioned production values, and TOP NOTCH acting, see “The Remains of the Day”.
-PP

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S STONE (***)

I highly recommend this movie! I didn’t know a THING about the books walking into this and wisely avoided all previews (as we all should, as well as burn the post houses who edit them together to the ground), and I was surprised. First of all, there’s nothing worse in this world than watching children perform. UGH. So, a movie with three children as the main character’s worried me. Well, here are two things that surprised me:
1. With children anchoring the film, I thought for sure they’d aim the filmmaking at kids. I kept waiting for the film to be dumb. It never stooped to stupid, Binks-ish tricks to keep everyone’s attention. When Spielberg made “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, children went. Why? ‘Cause it was GREAT! Hell, EVERYONE went!! IT WAS GREAT. Just make a great movie, and they’ll go. Make a great kid’s movie and not everyone will go. And everyone’s going to “Harry Potter” because it’s a shrewd and sharp adult adventure that’s wide-eyed enough for kids, and it will be provocative for them, not catered for them.
2. I waited and waited for the Emma Watson character to be annoying. As soon as she came on the scene and knew everything about witchery, I saw the groundwork of a bratty kid being laid. Yet, throughout, all three of the leads remained likeable.
As soon as Chris Colombus got involved, I feared the worst. Could the “Goonies” and “Home Alone” director make this movie for all audiences? From what I’m told, he balanced the tone just as the book did. He had two things helping him. Author J.K. Rowling was involved during the entire production, and the supporting cast was flawless. Can you beat having Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman in your film? I found the ending to be a blend of pleasure and disappointment. The plot twists in the resolution are good, but some characters act in ways that don’t make sense. Those ways are explained at the very end and we’re just supposed to go “Oh, I see”, when we never knew anything about it before. The Quidditch scene (a soccer/Rollerball type game played on broomsticks) is one of THE scenes of the year, at least as entertaining as a pod race. Only a cameo by Sandpeople could’ve improved it. A brief comment on the CGI effects. I said in my “Mummy Returns” review that you can’t do people yet. People created by CGI effects still look rubbery and smooth. Well, unfortunately, that’s still the case in “Harry Potter”. Fortunately, that effect is only used on characters who are in the distance or moving quickly atop a CGI-created creature. But it’s still distracting, any time you can get real people to do stunts, you’re better off. The film is filled with magic and thank god for a blockbuster that earns it’s status. The summer movies that opened big and died horrible deaths soon after should learn a thing or two from the boy wizard.
-PP

HEARTS IN ATLANTIS (**)

Certainly a less than stellar outing for Stephen King. Normally, anything with Anthony Hopkins is worth looking at, but this story seems horribly underwritten. With the recent success of “The Shawshank Redemption” and “The Green Mile”, which had non-King themes like ‘love’ and ‘compassion’, it seems that he wanted to write a story with those themes in mind. Well, he should go back to themes like ‘blood’, ‘terror’ and ‘monsters’. This sunlit tale of a young boy in the fifties really doesn’t have much to say. Something about psychics and the government that I waited and waited to be explored fully with no luck. So, there’s not much left explored except a bad “Wonder Years” episode. The child actors in this film are quite good, but none of the actors are involved in a story written well enough to care about.
-PP

I AM SAM (**)

A noble film, so noble it makes you sick. Sean Penn plays a mentally challenged man who fights for custody of his daughter. His ability to raise her given his disability comes into question. Way to jump on that. She’s gotta be five or six. Why now? I would think that her most crucial years are behind her and somehow (inexplicably) he managed to raise her OK. Nevertheless, his current struggle to keep his daughter is a personal and court struggle that succeeds in good performances, but fails in plot development. Penn is predictably good, once again disappearing into his character. But the noble handicapped person’s been done before. Michelle Pfeiffer is fairly good, but her role seems hokey in the grand scheme (she plays a lawyer who works with Penn) as a big city lawyer stereotype. Even more thankless are the roles of Richard Schiff and Laura Dern. In fact, Dern’s final scene in the film is WILDLY contrived and a total script cop-out. Can you root for Penn’s character Sam? Sure, but the story never seems more than two dimensional. Dakota Fanning’s gotten some raves for playing Penn’s daughter, but, personally, there’s nothing I like less than watching children performing. They almost always overdo it. Have I mentioned that before? Plus, the director of photography thinks he’s shooting NYPD Blue, and the camera moves around quite a bit, and never necessarily. It’s a stylistic choice that the story doesn’t seem worthy of. If this movie had the depth and feeling of Penn’s “Dead Man Walking”, I could see a number of stylistic choices working here. But “I Am Sam” never really soars above melodrama.
-PP

IN THE BEDROOM (****)

One of the year’s best films. In fact, only bested by “Monster’s Ball”. Another heartbreaking film that is surprising and intelligent. Both script and direction are flawless. Much like this year’s “O”, this is another impressive directing effort by an actor. Director Todd Field was previously seen in “Eyes Wide Shut”, and his pace and focus seem similar to Kubrick. But this film is less cold, it’s alive with raw emotion and tension. Field garners as much interest and creativity in what he doesn’t show as what he does. In fact, some of the most crucial moments of the story are left offscreen, lending an air of mystery to the proceedings and certainly giving the viewer an active role in the storytelling. After a summer full of leave-your-head-at-the-door movies, this is very refreshing. Field’s writing and directing are complemented by top notch cinematography, editing, and locations that suit the range of characters in this New England town, from middle class to white trash. The performances are of equal quality. Sissy Spacek hasn’t shown such command in years, and, despite being slightly hindered by a dialect, Tom Wilkinson is very believable as his character goes through a hundred different emotions. But it all comes down to the story they are telling. Sad, powerful, complex, suspenseful, “In the Bedroom” is a brilliant film.
-PP

IRIS (**)

Judi Dench is in a movie, it must be awards season. One of my secret lust muffins is Kate Winslet. I don’t know, there’s something trashy about her that I enjoy. She’s naked quite alot in this film, and is even spotted engaging in sex. A high point in the film! Unfortunately, the only one. It’s the story of an aging writer of highly cerebral works who develops some sort of mental disorder that prevents her from working and damages her personal life. I think the word “Alzheimer” is uttered once. Jim Broadbent, great in “Bullets Over Broadway” and “Moulin Rouge” plays her confused and frustrated husband. His is the best performance in the film. But the biggest problem the film has is that we never REALLY get to know Iris before she succumbs to her disorder. This certainly didn’t make me care about her enough to carry me through the whole story. The flashbacks with Kate as a young Judi don’t enlighten enough either. Hugh Bonneville does a tremendous job as a young Jim Broadbent, but it’s all for naught as in the flashbacks it turns out that I don’t LIKE her character, let alone know enough about her. I found out later that the film is based on a book written from the husband’s point of view. But the film abandons this point of view entirely and instead tells straight narrative. I think they missed an opportunity to give the movie a stronger emotional core.
-PP

JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK (***)

Now, here’s a case where one performance MADE a movie. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a character in the movies before quite like Jason Mewes’ Jay. I don’t think there’s anyone else in the movies whose EVERY LINE is funny. EVERY WORD HE SAYS is funny! Now, you know what you’re gonna get if a whole movie is based on the two goofs featured in Kevin Smith’s previous films, so the least Smith can do is deliver. Well, he does, in a big way. Smith’s never been the world’s greatest filmmaker, but he’s always been funny. That’s apparent again, as “Jay and Silent Bob” gets a little sloppy towards the end, but always remains hilarious. The last third of the film is FILLED with great cameos and jabs at Hollywood, including outrageous bits by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, plus Mark Hamill, and Jason Biggs uttering one of my favorite lines by calling James Van Der Beek’s show “Dawson’s Crack”. Plus, I joined the Will Ferrel fan club with this film. He’s always been pretty funny, but mainly “the guy who screams” the way SNL pidgeon-holes him. In this film, he’s a great supporting comedy player.
-PP

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.
-PP

K-PAX (**1/2)

I MAY TALK A BIT TOO MUCH ABOUT THE ENDING OF THIS MOVIE, JUST SO YOU KNOW. I’ve heard wildly varying opinions on the work of Jeff Bridges over the years. Many find him boring or passive. I’ll say at the top of this review that I’m a big fan. From “Fearless” to his highly underrated work in “The Fabulous Baker Boys” (a highly underrated MOVIE), I’ve always liked him, and I think his and Kevin Spacey’s work in “K-PAX” elevate the film above standard crazy-guy fare. However, the script isn’t worthy of all their efforts, so their work can take the film only so far. A man (Spacey) claims to be from the planet “K-PAX”, is he crazy or an alien? That’s the premise, but an idea like that lends itself to a number of philosopical and scientific questions, many asked by the pessimistic characters in the movie who doubt Spacey’s an alien. However, as Spacey’s character approaches hurdles in his quest to be believed (he is asked to point out his planet at a planetarium, he talks to a dog), I don’t think the film makes it clear one way or another in these scenes, but we’re left with an confusing conclusion as well. My wife Karen liked that ambivalence, There were loose ends that I thought needed tying up. Not that I need a neat package, I mean, one of my favorite movies of all time is “Birdy”, but in this case, I wanted more.
-PP

LIFE AS A HOUSE (***1/2)

One of the more involving films of the year. Right at the top, I’m going to mention it’s faults, and they’re inherent. First up, there’s alot of extraneous stuff going on in this film that we care alot less about than the main relationships. Dealing with them less would focus more time on the film’s best assests, it’s lead actors. Director Irwin Winkler doesn’t really have a style. He just kinds puts it all out there and, um, ‘what do you think?’. This can lead to melodrama and schmaltz as seen in his previous films “Guilty By Suspicion” and “At First Sight”. “Life as a House”’s subject matter lends itself to schmaltz, and Winkler falls into the trap of giving it up. HOWEVER – I fell for it. I fell for most of this film because of the strong performances. Kevin Kline is usually a lock, and again he is rock solid. He can find humor, levels, sympathy, power and weakness in the same character. I’ve always liked him and I liked him here. But, here is the GREAT news about this film. I saw a preview screening of it. Knew nothing about it. It wasn’t until after the film was over did it hit me that I’d been watching Hayden Christiansen play Kline’s son. And this is the BEST news the “Star Wars” franchise could get. He is awesome! Christiansen will be playing Anakin in “Attack of the 50 Ft. Clones” next summer. And, after two awful performances by cartoon characters Jar-Jar Binks and Jake Lloyd, the next film needs a good actor to come in and get the job done. I’d be shocked if Christiansen fails to deliver. He was very powerful in “Life as a House” and held his own with Kline. Absolutely believable and absolutely impressive. As for the other cast members, they do the job, but some characters are irrelevant. This film is grounded in Kline and Christiansen, and when they’re asked to step to the plate, it’s good stuff.
-PP

THE LORD OF THE RINGS – THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (***)

A mixed bag or pleasures. First of all, don’t miss this movie. It has more money shots than “Edward Penishands”, but can Peter Jackson direct actors? Here’s another fantasy classic that I don’t really know anything about. I remember seeing the Ralph Bakshi cartoon of “The Hobbit” YEARS ago. That’s about it, so I was set up for a real ride. The first hour of this film is the finest. The story is set up with narration/montage. (This worked for “Tenenbaums”, too) Basically, you get the idea of the background of the story you’re about to watch without confusion, and the intro is filled with wonderful, magical images of long-ago battles and demons. Then we see the wizard Gandalf arrive at the Hobbit shire. This entire sequence is magical, from Gandalf’s fantastic presence to an eye-popping fireworks display. Also fierce in their creation are the Ring Wraiths, dark, dark creatures in pursuit of a magical ring. These supernatural beings are gloriously imagined, with piercing shrieks, shadowy visages accompanied by thumping sound effects. Also impressive is the introduction of Aragorn, a warrior set to protect Frodo Baggins on his journey to protect a fabled ring that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could bring doom to the world. Aragorn is a stoic fighter with furious fighting skills (there is one scene where Frodo, in an altered state, watches Aragorn fight the Wraiths that is particularly enrapturing). As played by Viggo Mortensen, Aragorn is one of the more empathetic humans in the story. After this first hour of very effective personal scenes, it seems that Jackson wanted to include EVERYTHING from the novel, and some of the more expansive scenes get away from him. Again, I haven’t read the books, but the movie covers ALOT of ground. The problem with that is as cool as the new lands and creatures they encounter are, we don’t seem to get alot of time with them, and Jackson goes into “let’s move it along, people” mode. There’s a ton of stuff in this film, but I thought it could’ve been whittled down by about 15 or 20 minutes. Now, Jackson isn’t as bad at directing actors as George Lucas and Michael Bay, but his human interaction scenes (and by “human” I mean elves, dwarves, hobbits, humans and wizards played by humans) are not as strong as his imagination in scenes more fantastical. The dramatic scenes aren’t an across the board failure, but they provide some stutter-steps in a film with a decent gallop to it. There are other directorial choices that seem to add length to a film that could stand to be more slender. Technically, there is some blow-you-away shit in this movie, but the occasional scene with CGI people comes along, and I had the same response to it I did in “Harry Potter”. There is always lamenting among the sci-fi crowd that there are no good fantasy films. They can’t really cop to movies like “Legend” and “The Dark Crystal” as the BEST in their genre. The best in recent years, to me, is “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen”, and Peter Jackson’s visionary style often reminds me of Terry Gilliam. I think “The Fellowship of the Ring” is a worthwhile film for fantasy fans to check out to get their fix.
-PP

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.
-PP

THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE (***1/2)

I’ll admit a bit of bias here that I LOVE the Coen brothers, and they can do little wrong with me. Even plotless movies they’ve made like “The Big Lebowski” manage to be entertaining because of their completely unique style. And I find them to be unique within the parameters of the genre they’re operating in. So, just as they’ve made unique comedies and gangster movies, here they give the film noir genre a jolt of refreshment. The film reminds me of “A Simple Plan” in the recent spate of movies involving characters making really bad decisions and dealing with the consequences. The film is narrated by Billy Bob Thornton’s character, who, in a wonderful twist, says the least within the story. His performance throughout is one of the year’s best, and he looks perfect for the part. James Gandolfini and Frances McDormand are also strong in their roles. The Coen’s continue to get fantastic work out of their cinematographer Roger Deakins. His memorable pushing-the-limits-of-white-balance work in “Fargo” and lush photography of “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” are matched by wonderful work with shadows and smoke in this black and white effort. The Coens are so specific in their work, it seems they haven’t missed a detail again, and they tell a very engaging story about characters who just get deeper and deeper in trouble as we get more and more engrossed in their tale.
-PP

MEMENTO (****)

The film to beat in 2001. Director Chris Nolan did everything right, and did everything with a mesmerizing style. The film tells the story of an insurance investigator who is slowly unraveling the mystery behind his wife’s murder. However, he has lost his short term memory due to the attack on he and his wife. The greatest choice a director and screenwriter have made in years is to tell this story in reverse. It’s fascinating. It puts the viewer in the same boat as the main character. The only advantage we have is that we know the future. Where was I? If you’re confused, you will be during much of this movie, but it challenges you to pick through the clues and be OK with remaining in the dark, making up your own theories. But, fear not, the end result is very satisfying. Guy Pearce follows up on the promise he showed in “LA Confidential” with a great performance full of energy, drive and charisma. Do not miss this film. Whether you enjoy it or not, you won’t stop talking about it. Me, I loved it.
-PP

THE MEXICAN (**)

Despite the talent involved, I stopped caring about ANY of these characters half way through the film. I just DID NOT CARE AT ALL. Yet, the story continued without my giving a damn. Funny how that works. They don’t notice that they’ve lost you. Word on the street is that Gandolfini is great in this movie, the best part of it, actually. Well, that’s true, but his character really isn’t dealt with well, and Brad Pitt’s character is such an idiot, it’s hard to root for him. You don’t want Julia Roberts to end up with him. Which leads to:

Me not caring.

It seems like they wanted to mix comedy and gangsterism as well as “Get Shorty”, but they failed. Don’t bother.
-PP

MONSTER’S BALL (****)

This is the best film of the year.
A heavy-duty drama that hits on all counts, “Monster’s Ball” is a winner from every direction. The script is full of surprises, suspense and high emotion. It involves two characters coming together who are damaged by tremendous loss. But do they desire healing? What secrets do they harbor? Do they have ulterior motives? Since I was carried away by the feeling of not knowing what was going to happen next, I’m not going to spoil anything for you. But I could NOT STOP WATCHING. The acting is great, from everyone. Halle Berry is so super-charged, with anger, depression, hate and pain oozing from every scream and sulk, she’s my front-runner for the Best Actress Oscar. And Billy Bob Thornton…oh, Billy Bob. Is there a better actor working today? His performances are continually DEAD ON. He displays a level of finesse that allows him to achieve greatness in every scene he is in, from spewing anger to pleading for sympathy. He is brilliant.
Again, he is brilliant.
Peter Boyle and Heath Ledger are very good, and even Sean Combs. Sean Combs! P.Thespy puts in a good turn, not to mention Mos Def. I’m serious.
I’d never seen any films by “Monster’s Ball” director Marc Forster, but I won’t miss one in the future. He is meticulous, specific and (my favorite characteristic in any director) deliberate in every choice, and his exactness pays off to build suspense, strengthen character, and set a marvelous, deep south tone that permeates the whole picture. Again, the acting propels this film, but these characters are invaluable creations, and their story is told with great conviction and bushels of talent. I’ve got nothing bad to say about it. See it soon.
-PP

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.
-PP

MULHOLLAND DR. (**1/2)

Normally, I’ll go with David Lynch wherever he wants to go. But holy Jesus he went WAY off the deep end with this kook-job of a movie. It’s filled with wonderful, legendary Lynchian scenes. One character has an audition for a movie that turns into a captivating moment. Two mobsters stage a bizarre demand to a producer to hire a certain actress for a film and the result has power and humor. But the scenes that work don’t add up to a satisfying whole. It has one of those endings that you eventually find out what happened…LATER. The result of all the over-examining of the film’s themes that you have to do is not worth the effort. The lead women (who engage in very sensual sex acts, thank you, David) are both great, especially Naomi Watts, as a bright-eyed actress just arriving in LA. This character is what Lynch loves to do best. She’s the same as Laura Palmer, Laura Dern’s character in “Blue Velvet”, etc. And I’d be curious to see what he had planned for her over the course of a year, as this film was originally intended as a pilot for ABC. But I was left with so many questions when the film was over, I’d need another 30 movies or so to make it all make sense.
-PP

THE MUMMY RETURNS (1/2*)

WHAT A MESS. This movie BUH-LEW!!! If this is any indication of what this summer’s movies are going to be like, remind me to avoid “The Fast and the Furious”, “Tomb Raider” and “A Knight’s Tale”. Things aren’t looking good for the action genre. Every chance this movie had to be BIG, I mean, BIGGER than BIG, it tried, to the point where turning on a spotlight was accompanied by such a crushing sound effect that real action had to be all that much louder – and more obnoxious. As far as the plot goes, that’s a good question. Where did it go? NOWHERE. I heard The Rock was going to be in this film – I’m a BIG fan of The Great One – so I saw the first “Mummy” about a week and a half ago to be prepared. It was mediocre at best. Now I regret seeing both movies. The Rock is in about eight minutes of the opening segment and he’s not even all that great. I wouldn’t mind him being in eight minutes of a good movie, but he better be more choosy with the “Scorpion King” script he’s working on now. As far as the special effects go, the Scorpion King returns at the end of the film in the WORST special effect EVER. E V E R!!! It looked like I suddenly plugged in my PlayStation 2. There are other equally worthless effects scattered throughout the movie. Bad, bad, bad. The acting and the ridiculous direction in this film are the worst you will see in 2001.
-PP

O (***)

I’m admittedly not the biggest fan of teen movies. And teens doing Shakespeare seems like a pretentious load of muck. But “O” has some really good acting and directing that save what, on paper, seems like it could be treacherous. Josh Hartnett, awful in “Pearl Harbor”, is very good as the Iago-type in this Othello-in-high-school story. I hadn’t seen Julia Stiles before, and wondered what the hype was, and she delivered, too. In fact, Mekhi Phifer put in a good interpretation of a sorrowful Othello. Most impressive, to me, was the fact that I know the story of Othello, and I was STILL in suspense towards the end. The film still kept me caught up in the lives of it’s characters, even though I knew their fate. Director Tim Blake Nelson (an actor in “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”) loves his symbolism. There’s a LOT of it hidden in the frames of this film, from Os to doves to shadows to boxing characters in with walls and doorways. It’s never overkill, however, and he has the balls to drive home a movie about teens killing each other in these oh-so-sensitive times with grandly staged drama.
-PP

OCEAN’S ELEVEN (****)

This movie is a total winner from start to finish. It’s cooler than me, it’s cooler than you, it’s cooler than everyone we know. When this movie ended, I had a stupid-fat grin on my face, having thoroughly enjoyed everything I had just seen. I think we all know the film is about a guy, Danny Ocean, putting eleven guys together to rob a casino. The plot is extremely elaborate, with a few links more implausible than other, but it is A LOT of fun to watch. It’s never been more fun to root for the crook. This is a big, splashy Hollywood movie that could go very astray in the wrong hands. However, in the sturdy hands of director Steven Soderbergh, the entire, complex weaving of many characters and multiple storylines seems…effortless. This movie moves so easy and free-wheelingly, I just got swept up in it. Plus, the actors get the job done with power and style – especially Brad Pitt and George Clooney, who lead the charge. If anything, Clooney’s romance with Julia Roberts is the least interesting aspect of the plot. This is a refreshing heist flick for ADULTS. Savor it, few mainstream Hollywood films aim above 18 yrs. old.
-PP

OSCAR RANT 2002

(Honoring the best movies of 2001)

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE:
Russell Crowe
Sean Penn
Will Smith
Denzel Washington
Tom Wilkinson

Won: Denzel
Should Have Won: Denzel
The three best lead actor performances in 2001 were Billy Bob Thornton in “Monster’s Ball”, Billy Bob Thornton in “The Man Who Wasn’t There” and Gene Hackman in “The Royal Tenenbaums”. How these performances were overlooked is beyond me. Of who’s left, Denzel was pretty damn commanding and fierce in his part. Crowe and Penn had the “disease” curse, and Wilkinson was bogged down ever so slightly by the New England dialect. Denzel was just spot-on. But they robbed three GREAT performances from this year’s nominations.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:
Jim Broadbent
Ethan Hawke
Ben Kingsley
Ian McKellen
Jon Voight

Won: Broadbent
Should Have Won: Hawke
Just as solid alongside the Best Actor winner was Hawke in a role that pushed his abilities. He’s never played a cop before, opting instead for mostly dramatic relationship movies, yet he was convincing and mature in his confidence. In fact, I had never seen Hawke so assured in a part before. Worthy of the gold, I thought.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE:
Halle Berry
Judi Dench
Nicole Kidman
Sissy Spacek
Renée Zellweger

Won: Berry
Should Have Won: Berry
What a thrill to have the Best Actree category more full of great performances than the Best Actor category. Spacek and Berry are both deserving this year. But good GOD, the demands of Berry’s role were simply beyond any other actress this year, and she met the demands note for note. I thought Kidman should’ve been nominated for “The Others” over “Moulin Rouge”, where the film’s style overbeared here substance. “The Others” was more of an impressive vehicle for her. Plus, kudos to the Academy for nominating Zellweger, who was more charming than EVER before in “Bridget Jones’ Diary”. She was hilarious.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:
Jennifer Connelly
Helen Mirren
Maggie Smith
Marisa Tomei
Kate Winslet

Won: Connelly
Should Have Won: Connelly
“Iris” was just lame, both Winslet and Dench (lord, can the Academy get a BIGGER boner for Dame Judy?) were trapped in a mediocre script at best that was adapted poorly from the novel it’s based on. Mirren and Smith were both insignificant in the surroundings of Altman’s mega-cast in “Gosford Park”. Connelly was very effective as John Nash’s wife as the story almost becomes about her half way through the film. She’s never shown star quality before quite like in “A Beautiful Mind”.

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM:
JIMMY NEUTRON: BOY GENIUS
MONSTERS, INC.
SHREK

Won: Shrek
Should Have Won: Monsters, Inc.
I’ll probably get many disagreers with this, seeing as how huge a hit “Shrek” was, but I thought “Monsters, Inc.” hit every note it set out for, and “Shrek” was a little too lowbrow at times, which upended it’s high-end satire. Plus, Eddie Murphy’s voice work was exactly the same as it was in “Mulan” a few years ago. Everything about “Monsters, Inc.” was original, and it had a flawless ending. Pixar blends all facets of quality movie-going together – excitement, laughs, tenderness, plus top-notch animation. Well, at least they won Best Animated Short.

ART DIRECTION:
AMÉLIE
GOSFORD PARK
HARRY POTTER AND
THE SORCERER’S STONE
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MOULIN ROUGE

Won: Moulin Rouge
Should Have Won: Moulin Rouge
And I didn’t even like Moulin Rouge. But you cannot deny that Baz Luhrman created his vision and nobody else’s, and succeeded in doing so. Unfortunately, the movie was out to lunch, and couldn’t bring the reins in from it’s zaniness to be more effective in the romantic parts. But, throughout, the club Moulin Rouge sparkled.

CINEMATOGRAPHY:
AMÉLIE
BLACK HAWK DOWN
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE
MOULIN ROUGE

Won: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Should Have Won: The Man Who Wasn’t There
Roger Deakins’ superb photography of the Coen Brothers’ latest film was as brilliant as his work for them with “Fargo” and “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”. Deakins is 75% of the reason the Coens pull off a different style with every film. The noir-ish black and white of “The Man Who Wasn’t There” presents us with memorable shot after memorable shot, making FULL use of lighting and depth of field. I don’t think there’s a bad nominee here, but “The Man Who Wasn’t There” is the winner by far with me.

COSTUME DESIGN:
THE AFFAIR OF THE NECKLACE
GOSFORD PARK
HARRY POTTER AND
THE SORCERER’S STONE
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MOULIN ROUGE

Won: Moulin Rouge
Should Have Won: Moulin Rouge
Followed closely by “The Fellowship of the Ring”. The clothes in worn by the Middle-Earth characters really looked LIVED-IN. But for all the reasons mentioned in the art direction comments, Luhrman succeeded here. Damned fine eye candy.

DIRECTING:
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
BLACK HAWK DOWN
GOSFORD PARK
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RINGS
MULHOLLAND DRIVE

Won: Ron Howard, “A Beautiful Mind”
Should Have Won: Scott
So close, I’m reluctant to pick a “should have” in this category. This category is much like the actor category in that the finest direction of the year (Christopher Nolan, “Memento”, Todd Field, “In the Bedroom”, Marc Forster, “Monster’s Ball”) wasn’t nominated. I still agree with Rob Reiner who said that they should do away with this category and just give an Oscar to the director and producer when a movie wins Best Picture. Naturally, the DGA would never hear of it. But how could Field be overlooked this year? His direction and choices were impeccable. Scott’s work on “Black Hawk Down” was a marvel in you-are-there war chaos. The breakneck pace and blood-n-guts approach were departures from his normally methodical, operatic style. And Howard’s been making solid movies for years. He can put together any story and make the images and characters memorable. But I don’t think “Mind” is a better film than “Black Hawk Down”. They’re both directors working at the top of their game. Howard may just be a bit too polite, and as a result, doesn’t get as visceral a response out of me as “BHD” did.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:
CHILDREN UNDERGROUND
LALEE’S KIN: THE LEGACY OF COTTON
MURDER ON A SUNDAY MORNING
PROMISES
WAR PHOTOGRAPHER

DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT:
ARTISTS AND ORPHANS: A TRUE DRAMA
SING!
THOTH

Won: Murder on a Sunday Morning and Thoth
Should Have Won: Oh, sure, those are good.
I’m not too proud. I’ll admit I’ve never seen any of the above nominated documentaries. But “Murder” just aired on Showtime, and I taped it. I look forward to seeing what garners an Oscar these days in this oft-maligned category. Just please don’t ever let me see that fiddle-playing goof on TV anymore…

FILM EDITING:
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
BLACK HAWK DOWN
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MEMENTO
MOULIN ROUGE

Won: Black Hawk Down
Should Have Won: Memento
“Black Hawk Down” winning Oscars is a good thing. But not in this category. What a fucking CHORE it must’ve been to edit “Memento”. UNBELIEVABLE! There is no doubt “Memento” should’ve won here. As soon as I left the theater, I knew it should win for editing. It still should. This film broke new ground in it’s storytelling, and editing was a CRUCIAL part of that. Making a story as risky as “Memento” coherent deserves a damn award dammit all to damn!

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:
AMÉLIE
ELLING
LAGAAN
NO MAN’S LAND
SON OF THE BRIDE

Won: No Man’s Land
Should Have Won: Amelie
I am weak. I have not seen “No Man’s Land”, but I am told (beyond the Academy’s good graces) that it is excellent and very surprising. I DO know this, though. “Amelie” absolutely ROCKED. “No Man’s Land” is going to have to be superb to beat it. I look forward to checking it out.

MAKEUP:
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MOULIN ROUGE

Won: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Should Have Won: The Fellowship of the Ring
Any gay musical can do with makeup what “Moulin Rouge” accomplished, and Russell Crowe’s makeup looked FANTASTIC in “A Beautiful Mind”. However, Jennifer Connelly’s was another story… “Rings” gave us believable fantasy creatures, a usually sure-fire path to award-dom. They made guys like John Rhys-Davies unrecognizable. I was impressed.

MUSIC (SCORE):
A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
HARRY POTTER AND
THE SORCERER’S STONE
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MONSTERS, INC.

Won: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Should Have Won: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
I’ll admit I’m a sucker for the heart-on-your-sleeve emotion of a good John Williams score. But his music for “Harry Potter” had what I thought was SORELY missing from “Rings” – a theme. Williams put together a light, fun, rollicking score and theme for “Harry”, and I can’t remember any music from “Rings”. Although Williams toned it WAY down for “A.I.”, the movie just blew. So I guess second place goes to Randy New man, who finally got his own (read on)

MUSIC (SONG):
KATE & LEOPOLD
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MONSTERS, INC.
PEARL HARBOR
VANILLA SKY

Won: Randy Newman, “Monsters, Inc.”
Should Have Won: Randy Newman
The only time all night I shot up out of my chair and cheered during the Oscar broadcast, Newman finally took home a statue. He probably should’ve won for the score of “Avalon” and DEFINITELY for the heartbreaking “When She Loved Me” from “Toy Story 2”, but “If I Didn’t Have You” from “Monsters, Inc.” has all the Newman qualities – light as air lyrics with jazzy pop piano-led music to back it up. As far as the other nominees goes – can anyone understand anything Enya says? Might as well bring back Bjork. And the Bruckheimer-infused pop ballads of all his movies are getting tired, “Pearl Harbor”’s included. And McCartney and Sting have written better. But I think Sting will win soon, this is his second nomination, and this song was better than the last.

BEST PICTURE:
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
GOSFORD PARK
IN THE BEDROOM
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MOULIN ROUGE

Won: A Beautiful Mind
Should Have Won: In the Bedroom
Although it didn’t have a chance. Again, withouth nominating “Memento” or “Monster’s Ball”, you go with what’s nominated, and out of this group, “In the Bedroom” is certainly the film that illicited the most feeling out of me. I could care less about anything going on at “Gosford Park”, and “Moulin Rouge” was a mess. “The Lord of the Rings” was choppy and poorly paced, and “A Beautiful Mind” was good and all, but, you know, it just didn’t GRAB me. “In the Bedroom” was challenging, moody, smart, surprising, adult, sad, complex and brilliant.

SHORT FILM – ANIMATED:
FIFTY PERCENT GREY
FOR THE BIRDS
GIVE UP YER AUL SINS
STRANGE INVADERS
STUBBLE TROUBLE

Won: For the Birds
Should Have Won: For the Birds
Go, Pixar, Go! Roger Ebert once said that instead of boring arrival specials where celebrities have nothing interesting to say, spend the two hours before the Oscars showing all the shorts no one will have a chance otherwise to see. I would love that.

SHORT FILM — LIVE ACTION:
THE ACCOUNTANT
COPY SHOP
GREGOR’S GREATEST INVENTION
A MAN THING (Meska Sprawa)
SPEED FOR THESPIANS

Again, the Ebert thing would help here…

SOUND:
AMÉLIE
BLACK HAWK DOWN
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
MOULIN ROUGE
PEARL HARBOR

Won: Black Hawk Down
Should Have Won: Black Hawk Down
I’ve mentioned the you-are-there feel of this film many times. It achieves this feat in many ways thanks to sound. It was loud, pulverizing, and never let up. Loved it.

SOUND EDITING:
MONSTERS, INC.
PEARL HARBOR

Won: Pearl Harbor
Should Have Won: Monsters, Inc.
The natural (and correct) response is to say that I want “Monsters, Inc.” to win so no one can EVER say that “Pearl Harbor” is an ‘Oscar-winning film’. UGH. But, alas, it is. The best response, however, is to say that “Monsters, Inc.” should’ve won because you’re starting with NOTHING. NOTHING! ALL sound was an effect. And half the time you’ve got nothing to go by. In “Pearl Harbor”, you can simulate a plane engine. How does a gelatinous monster slime across the floor, though? Give ‘em the damn Oscar.

VISUAL EFFECTS:
A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
PEARL HARBOR

Won: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Should Have Won: Pearl Harbor
Alright, so I would’ve made “Pearl Harbor” Oscar-winning if I had my way, anyway. But I continue to maintain that you can’t create BELIEVABLE people with CGI. “Pearl Harbor” has the task of creating planes, boats and locations, and succeeds greatly. People, however, just look rubbery, smooth and non-organic, and that’s the result of some of the people created with CGI in “Rings” (not to mention “Harry Potter”, “The Mummy Returns” and more).

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY):
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
GHOST WORLD
IN THE BEDROOM
THE LORD OF THE RINGS:
THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
SHREK

Won: A Beautiful Mind
Should Have Won: In the Bedroom
“A Beautiful Mind” was created with excellent proficiency, but, again, we’re talking about a story that’s just missing the grab-you-by-the-balls nature of “In the Bedroom”’s more heavy-duty drama. Plus, the way “In the Bedroom”’s storyline SLOWLY revealed information was a lesson in pace and deliberateness. “Mind”’s screenplay, though an interesting story, was by-the-books on the page.

WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY):
AMÉLIE
GOSFORD PARK
MEMENTO
MONSTER’S BALL
THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS

Won: Gosford Park
Should Have Won: Easily – Memento
Why the Academy didn’t give any praise to Christopher Nolan’s mesmerizing, can’t stop watching it backwards thriller is beyond me. It was original, exciting, and more risky than anything else this year. Give it up, ya bastards. Instead, we get “Gosford Park”? Folks, the whole lives-of-the-servants-is-more-interesting-than-the-people-they-serve thing isn’t new! And the film’s sound is so lousy, I couldn’t even hear half the lines. I think the idea of a murder taking place in the film was uneccesary. Runner up goes to every other movie nominated – “Amelie” was fast, fun and charming, “Monster’s Ball” was hardcore, and “The Royal Tenebaums” was a fascinating character study of the failed dreams of child geniuses. So, of all those great stories, the Oscar went to “Gosford Park”. YICK.

As far as other comments go:
– Whoopi Goldberg isn’t particularly funny. She was even PUSHING it at the end, when we were all falling asleep. Bring back Steve Martin or Dave Letterman soon.
– “Special” Oscars went to Poitier and Redford – two guys who ALREADY HAVE OSCARS. Can we spread the love a little bit? How’s ‘bout Peter O’Toole, eh?
– Jennifer Connelly used to be one of my dream hotties…until Oscar night. She looked gaunt and UNINTERESTED. At least be gracious. Thank God for Halle Berry.
– Speaking of her and Denzel, I hope the fact that they’re black actors doesn’t overshadow the fact that they truly were the best actors in film this year.
– How funny was Woody Allen? Hit the clubs again, man!
-PP

OSMOSIS JONES (**)

See what I mean, I’m catching up from way back. This August comedy is clever. But it really doesn’t go far beyond the clever and interesting script. The film involves a guy on the overeating path to a heart attack, and the fight between a white cell, a medicine caplet and a virus inside his body is shown as animation. This is, again, a “clever” idea. By virtue of the fact that it’s so “clever”, it’s never “hilarious”. It’s not without redeeming performances – David Hyde Pierce is perfect for the voice of the cold-fighting medicine, and Laurence Fishburne is particularly smooth and evil as the virus. Yet, this is another example of Disney’s dominance in the animation department. They’ve set a standard, and any other animation (except computer-drawn), just seems less than stellar. Parts of “Prince of Egypt” were beautiful, and I like the twisted art of something like “Pink Floyd: The Wall”, but “Osmosis”’ art just seems a bit sparse and lacking something in comparison to something like “Atlantis”. As for the live-action half of the film, Bill Murray plays the world’s most disgusting man. I can’t imagine my wife Karen, who normally finds him “sexy”, finding anything redeeming in his look in this film. But he’s predictably solid, as is Chris Elliott as another scumbag (what he does best). But the Farrelly Brothers, known for punching up the gross humor in a movie, go overboard. WAY overboard. As we’ve seen lately as films try to one-up each other, gross isn’t necessarily funny, and often in this film, gross is so prevalent, it overshadows the Brothers’ attempts at human emotion between Bill Murray and his daughter. So, the seeds of a great movie are there, but it just ends up being…”clever”.
-PP

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.
-PP

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.
-PP

PLANET OF THE APES (*)

Not clever in the least. In fact, this is the most empty blockbuster to come along in a long time. In the past, most Tim Burton movies succeed because of his visual signature. “Sleepy Hollow” was not the story Washington Irving wrote years ago. It changed ALOT when it became the film with Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci. What made it entertaining? Burton’s fascinating creation of the headless horseman. The swirling leaves, the loud thumping of the horse’s hooves, the maniacal speed with which he dispensed a beheading was a masterpiece. Where in the name of Dr. Zaius was that STYLE here? “Planet of the Apes” could’ve been directed by any shnook by the looks of it. An absolutely FLAT adventure with no imagination. All attempts of the script to be ‘funny’ crashed and burned. Paul Giamatti’s, oh, I don’t know, stereotypical Jew ape was LAME, and Mark Wahlberg, the great Mark Wahlberg, was totally joyless, scowling as if he got tricked into making this movie. Estella Warren was a waste of time, I wish I’d stop seeing her in magazines as a reward for her bogus performance. And what’s with that relationship, anyway? Wahlberg arrives, the female eyeballs him. Then Helena Bonham Carter’s (shame on you) ape eyes him and the female gets jealous. Then Warren eyeballs him and the ape gets jealous. Then the ape eyes him again and Warren gets jealous. Did I miss the scene where Wahlberg’s character was interesting enough for ANYONE to give a rat’s ass? I didn’t care about him, why should a British ape?!?!! This movie sucked, and it had an ending you had to justify with your own, made-up reasons. That’s totally unfair.
-PP

ROCK STAR (***)

Another star I usually fall for in any situation is Mark Wahlberg. The guy can be cheesus emeritus and GET AWAY WITH IT. He’s got pounds of hair band cheese oozing out of every pore in this film, another film that benefits highly from the involvement of it’s star. Brad Pitt wouldn’t have been as fun, Adam Sandler would’ve been too damn goofy, but Wahlberg can embrace an era as silly as the glam rock heyday and carry the film. And god bless this film for waking Wahlberg out of his “Planet of the Apes” funk. He screams, gyrates, poses and does it all, and it’s a riot. Director Stephen Herek manages to tell the story without mocking the topic. Yet, you snicker along with every “You wanna rock?” yelled at a crowd of adoring fans. We’ve seen most of it before: manic schedules, drugs, women, neglected girlfriends, buses and limos, but the film really enjoys the period of time it’s recreating, and I did, too.
-PP

THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (****)

One of the best films of the year that hits on all aspects – acting (a triumph), writing, directing, costumes, art direction, cinematography. Hear me now, and I’m sure I said it before: Gene Hackman is one of the greatest actors of the last forty years. His performance in “Tenebaums” is impeccable. I can’t tell you how enjoyable it was to watch him play Royal Tenenbaum. He finds the humor in everything, and he’s a joy to watch. And his supporting cast is a no-brainer – Stiller is great, Paltrow is better here than in her last five films, Huston is solid, Glover is fantastic, Murray is wonderfully nebbeshy, and Luke Wilson gives the performance of his career thus far. This film takes place in modern day, but the costumes and NY City sets ring of the seventies, not ironic ‘cause the Tenenbaums themselves have a hard time dealing with their past. The opening is something the makers of “Iris” need to watch to learn how to introduce all of the characters of a story in a highly energized and funny way. It’s a great ride following the Tenebaums through their hardships on the road to redemption. And whether they find it or not, every character is more interesting than those in at least a hundred other movies this year.
-PP

RUSH HOUR 2 (**1/2)

I read somewhere that Chris Tucker was so annoying in this movie, that it was impossible for the critic to recommend the film. The good news is that he doesn’t reach the supreme annoyance he achieved in “The Fifth Element”. The bad news is that he’s still rather obnoxious. It seems that he’s trying to exude that Eddie Murphy cool from “Beverly Hills Cop”, but that’s just the difference. Eddie wasn’t IN YOUR FACE, he was cool. Tucker does everything wrong that you’d want from a movie hero, which is a shame. And that doesn’t mean he’s doing everything right as a movie comedian. He’s managed to find this new plane where he’s always on screen, but rarely succeeding at entertaining me in any fashion. The film itself moves from the US to Hong Kong to pair up Tucker and Jackie Chan, but it’s pretty hollow, and, short of a few interesting lines or scenes, amounts to alot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. But, Chan, oh that crazy Jackie. When he unleashes the physical mastery he’s known for, the film’s action sequences soar. Alas, he’s not allowed enough time to fly.
-PP

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…
-PP

THE SHIPPING NEWS (***)

With success after success, director Lasse Hallstrom is starting to get the backlash that usually accompanies such accolades. But, dammit, he’s done it again. He has fashioned a solid fable, with good performances, interesting locales, off-kilter characters, and strong technical support on all levels. I liked this film more than “Chocolat”, but not as much as “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” on the Hallstrom-eter. The one drawback is the eccentricities of the characters. Might there be a few to many? Not every small town is full of amiable noodleheads. The movies would tell you otherwise. I guess that’s not “The Shipping News”’ fault as much as it is the unfortunate positioning of the movie within the tiresomeness of a current movie trend. Look at how nutty everyone is in “Waking Ned Devine”. Look, I say! So, where does this leave the earnest performances? Many are still effective, most notably Cate Blanchett finishing out a stellar year doing a great job as Kevin Spacey’s wife. And when you’re dealing with Spacey, Judi Dench and Julianne Moore, you can pretty much leave them with the work ahead, and, as a director, focus on other things. And sure enough, they come through with solid work. The script is a total downer, another of three year-end films to labor over the theme of loss. But, in the hands of this many skilled filmmakers, it ends up being an intriguing tale, worth a look.
-PP

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.
-PP

SOMEONE LIKE YOU (*1/2)

Here’s hoping the upcoming “SwordFish” is a good film, because I want to see the breakthrough performance by Hugh Jackman in “X-Men” capitalized upon. This movie is not a quality follow-up. If you like Meg Ryan (God help you), watch a Meg Ryan movie. There no need to see Ashley Judd do a piss-poor Meg Ryan impersonation for two hours. The plot developments in this film are obvious, romantic comedy 101. Again, we’ve seen the girl-gets-wrong-guy-then-the-right-guy stuff for years. It was better on “Cheers”!! And it all leads to the least coherent, least satifying ending since “What Women Want”. It seems that they just want things to end a certain way, so they just do it, with no regard for getting there logically and with no regard for pace. Jackman and Greg Kinnear are doing good work in a totally rudimentary story.
-PP

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.
-PP

SPY GAME (****)

One of the biggest surprises of the year. Not that I expected it to be bad, but I never expected to like it as much as I did. We all know Tony Scott can make a slick Hollywood movie (“Top Gun”, “Days of Thunder”, “Beverly Hills Cop II”), but only occasionally is that big production value coupled with an intriguing story (“Crimson Tide”), or interesting characters (“True Romance”). “Spy Game” hits on both counts, a wonderfully inventive thriller that continually surprised me, anchored by two stars in fine form. I continue to be impressed with Brad Pitt’s project choices. Even if there’s the occasional “The Mexican” of “Meet Joe Black”, more often you’ll find him in more challenging film’s the quality of “12 Monkeys” of “Fight Club”. Pitt is perfectly cast in “Spy Game”, as he was just as convincing as a naive soldier as he was a slick CIA operative. The ins and outs of the storyline are unmentionable. The slightest fact is important enough to ruin crucial plot points. It’s an extremely intricate network of espionage plotting and scheming that is a joy to watch unfold. And you’ve got to keep up! This movie MOVES, jump cutting between time and places at an exciting pace, but Scott manages to keep it all together. At the center of it all is a cool-as-the-other-side-of-the-pillow Redford, in his relaxed-yet-commanding form. Some may call his acting style lacksidaisical or passive. In the hands of lesser material, that may be the case, but “Spy Game” is a thrilling concoction worthy of Clancy and some of the best stuff mainstream Hollywood’s churned out in a long while.
-PP

TOMB RAIDER (no stars)

This is, without a doubt, the world’s biggest, steaming PILE. What a horrible theft of precious, valuable time I could’ve spent looking at one of those paintings where, if you look long enough, a unicorn pops out at you. That is TEN times more interesting than this worthless Hollywood effort. The plot is unrecognizable, the effects are shoddy and plastic, the dialogue is retarded and Angelina Jolie couldn’t have been more of a poser if she were doing a Lara Croft centerfold. Poor Jon Voight even shows up to go down with his daughter’s ship. This movie really addresses the issue of low expectations. They convince you to see this, and, as the film unfolds, you can see how little they the makers of it think of you. They are sure you’ll swallow and inane storyline, as long as it jump-cuts quickly and is LOUD. The makers of this film are positive that you are an idiot. An awful, awful film. The year’s worst.
-PP

TOP TEN OF 2001

1. Monster’s Ball
2. Memento
3. In The Bedroom
4. Black Hawk Down
5. The Royal Tenenbaums
6. The Man Who Wasn’t There
7. The Others
8. Bridget Jones’ Diary
9. Ocean’s Eleven
10. Spy Game

I’m amazed at how many so-called “Hollywood” movies made it into my Top 10, taking up spots usually reserved for independent, “real” films. But there’s no doubt these films all entertained the shit out of me. Plus, how LAME was summer 2001?! I’ll be reviewing the first big summer movies of 2002 this week, and 3 out of the first 4 were good! (for shame, Obi-Wan). Last year, 0 out of 20 were good. So, here’s hoping the summer brings out some winners. If not, rent the above titles!
-PP

TOWN & COUNTRY (*)

Only a half a star better than “The Mummy Returns”, this could’ve used some bad special effects to liven it up a bit. How did this take three years to get released and cost $80 million? You can pinpoint the bad here a bit more easily – the script. This movie plays out as if the married-couples-having-affairs comedy plot is brand new. Someone should’ve told them that it is instead phenomenally weak. There are characters that should’ve been cut out in the first draft, and none of it was helped with direction that brought a lame tempo to the ‘comedic moments’. This was part of the Film Society. I’m thinking of asking for a portion of my money back.
-PP

TRAINING DAY (***)

Two lead performances propel this crooked-cop drama out of the norm the genre is used to. First of all, when you see all the junk the characters get involved in, it’s hardcore to remember it all happened in one day. I don’t know any actor who so successfully injects his characters with more charisma than Denzel Washington. My wife has always referred to Ethan Hawke as “the guy who lives under the ‘L’ tracks”, meaning he never looks showered or non-ratty. Even she liked him in this. It is Hawke’s first attempt at a cops-and-guns flick, and he pulls it off with the right balance of “gee-whiz! I’m a rookie” and tough young cop. As for the plot, all I can say is I can’t believe that Afghanistan pushed the Russians out of their country if the Russians have a mafia as bad-ass as the ones who cameo in this film. That aside, there are major coincidences that you just have to accept, but they come when the script and director aren’t afraid to put the main characters in deeper and deeper trouble. Following them down this path is always interesting and dark. But, like I said, when Denzel is on, I’ll follow him anywhere.
-PP

VANILLA SKY (*)

Sorry, Tom, but this time you blew it. I normally find Tom Cruise to be a capable leading man, who uses his Hollywood clout to get into some decent projects from time to time (“The Firm”, “Jerry Maguire”, “Eyes Wide Shut” – love it or hate it, you would’ve killed to be in it, too). Unfortunately, this project, which Cruise had his hands all over, is a confusing mess. Just as there were three films focused on loss this year, there are FOUR focused on bending reality. But where “Memento” was a success, “Vanilla Sky” just seems plodding. Getting into what this movie is about would be a spoiler and downright bewildering. I will say that Cameron Diaz gives the best performance in the film. But I can’t stress enough that Penelope Cruz SUCKED! SUCKED! SUCKED! SUCKED! So, let’s go to the tote board: she’s “taking Hollywood by storm” and has SUCKED in the following films:
“Blow” (Turns out you CAN suck in “Blow”)
“Captain Corelli’s Mandolin”
“Woman on Top”
“All the Pretty Horses”
and now
“Vanilla Sky”
She’s did the right thing sleeping with Tom Cruise if she wants to stick around. In this film, she just played boring, quiet, meek little nothing-interesting-about her AGAIN. The worst part is that I don’t buy her. Not for a SECOND. I never, ever buy her in the movie. UGH, her success absolutely confounds me. The worst news is that Tom is bad in this film, too. This is the vanity project we’ve all been worried was coming. I didn’t buy him much, either. But, isn’t he pretty? And isn’t Penelope pretty? Aren’t they? I SAID AREN’T THEY? The end of this film is a pretty weak payoff, with an unexplained, unexplored, out-of-left-field plot point suddenly explaining the whole deal. Up till then, it was so confusing, I never cared.
-PP

WHY TRAILERS SUCK

This is a letter I sent to Roger Ebert and thought you folks may want to look at it, too. Do you agree with me, or am I nuts? This is driving me SANE!!! (Ironically, it’s about previews that spoil the films they’re promoting, but don’t read this if you haven’t seen “Cast Away”):

Roger –

You and Richard, in your year-end worst show, touched on something my friends and I have been talking about for a LONG time. Previews absolutely ruin the films they are suggesting we see.

You used “What Lies Beneath” as a good example. I’m a BIG Harrison Ford fan, and I read somewhere that the set to that film was locked up tight so as not to reveal secrets. Why? Did they want to give all the important plot points away themselves?!?! “Don’t you ruin it for everyone! That’s OUR job!!”

Ditto “Cast Away”. A friend of mine told me to avoid the preview. I did. After I saw the film (and was not aware of Hanks’ post-island experiences or of his friend Wilson), I was infuriated by the preview I then saw. It contains the film’s last shot! Plus it sets up a total lack of suspense as to whether Chuck will get off the island at all! AUGH!

I’d love to see you and Richard address this on your show.

My New Year’s Resolution is to avoid them entirely. It will take some work, but I’ve already engaged the remote control to keep it up, and prevented a good ruining of “Chocolat” and “Traffic”. Would you like to know the entire plot and ENDING of “The Wedding Planner”? Just watch the preview…

I HATE, HATE, HATE these previews!

Keep up the good work,

-Paul Preston
-PP