Change Your Image
The Masticator
Reviews
Get Over It (2001)
Moderate to lame teen comedy
[Look out - SPOILERS, second paragraph.]
There's a benchmark for teen romantic comedy and it is "10 Things I Hate About You". That film is clever, witty and well-directed with excellent performances. This isn't any of those things, rarely rising above the level of "sweet and inoffensive".
The director, Tommy O'Haver, must take much of the blame: his choice of shot is sometimes baffling and the lighting is just awful. With this type of film, if you don't make your teenage cast look attractive, you're on a loser from the start. And he doesn't. The whole thing is badly paced: not enough time and energy is invested in Burke (Paul Walker) and Alison's (Melissa Sagemiller) relationship; you never understand why he wants her back, especially as she quickly replaces him with the repulsive Striker (Shane West - I hope that English accent was *supposed* to be ridiculous). We realise far too soon that Burke and Kelly (Kirsten Dunst) are supposed to be together, and yet they still kiss too early - there isn't enough tension towards the end.
Walker lacks charisma, although he was fairly sweet. Sagemiller looks too old and isn't much more than a cipher. Dunst is good, as ever - rising above the lame material to deliver a mature and affecting performance. Colin Hanks - a perennial sidekick, unlike his old man - is pretty good and Sisqo camps it up a treat. Martin Short is there as the comic relief, but is over the top and not nearly as funny as he should be. This was true of the whole film - there were a couple of decent sequences and the finale was good, but overall the script was lacking in wit. It could have done with jettisoning the pointless fantasy sequences, too, and tightening up the plot, which threatened to fall apart more than once.
It was left to two old-timers, Swoosie Kurtz and Ed Begley Jr as Burke's embarrassingly liberal parents, to show the youngsters how it's done with a few scenes of effortless comic skill. A shame they weren't given more screen time than the irritating Short.
Must try harder.
The Hole (2001)
Encouraging
Undoubtedly preposterous and far from original, but the good points definitely outweigh the bad here. "The Hole" is genuinely tense and, at times, legitimately scary - it certainly made me jump more than any other teen so-called "horror" movie. It also had decent performances from Thora Birch (the accent was fine), Desmond Harrington, Laurence Fox and Keira Knightley, all of whom threw themselves headfirst into the descent from privileged petulance to shivering panic. The characters - rich, pouting, superior - were all too believable.
Most important, I think, is that it doesn't feel like a British movie - it isn't pretty, it isn't gritty, and it has loud, industrial "Matrix"-style rock all over it. It isn't self-conscious and it isn't obsessed with class. It looks great and it moves on apace - in short, it's an American film done by Brits in Britain, and that is no bad thing if it means we're going to keep up with Hollywood. Well done Nick Hamm. Kudos to Birch as well; she didn't need to do this, post-"American Beauty", but I'm glad she did.
Far-fetched, badly paced and at times baffling, but a more than worthwhile exercise, and much better than most of the teen nonsense currently being churned out by Hollywood. It rips off everyone from Romero to "The Usual Suspects" via "Morse", but it has enough tingly moments and unexpected violence to satisfy the most demanding thrill-seeker. Look, we CAN make entertaining lowbrow films in this country. Perhaps we'll do it more often now.
Wo hu cang long (2000)
Breathtaking
Not the transcendental experience promised by some critics, but very, very good nonetheless. A beautiful, moving, elegant picture. I read that "Crouching Tiger" is to the martial arts film what "Stagecoach" is to the Western - it represents the apotheosis, the absolute zenith of the genre. I wouldn't disagree with that. It's by turns exhilarating, hilarious and heartbreaking - what else do you want from a movie?
The irony is, Ang Lee's previous two film were also excellent. They were in English. Now this Chinese-language film looks like being his biggest hit in both Britain and America. Isn't that strange? Why did no-one go to see "Ride With The Devil" or "The Ice Storm"?
I think we should be told.
Boiler Room (2000)
Not bad
Pretty good, effective thriller with a cast of exciting young actors. The funniest thing about it, though, is the Ben Affleck scenes - all bar one are shot on the same set with none of the other principal characters except Giovanni Ribisi. Ben clearly worked on the film for a total of about a day and a half. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.
The first half is very good stuff but you get the feeling that there was never a clear idea where the film was going. The DVD includes the original ending which is possibly a bit better but seems to have been taken out (for fear of being melodramatic, perhaps). This is a giveaway, really. However, the feeling of everything falling apart in the last 20 minutes is genuine, whatever the reason.
Good to see Ribisi getting the chance to carry a film; he is sympathetic and believable. Heavyweight stuff from Vin Diesel as well, and I was glad to see Ron Rifkin, who was so effective in a small role as Ellis Loew in "LA Confidential", getting another decent part. A more than satisfactory rental.
Simply Irresistible (1999)
Shame!
Awful, frankly, and everyone involved ought to be ashamed of themselves. I'm all for a bit of romantic escapism now and again but the overall incoherence and incompetence of this movie meant that neither romance nor fantasy was able to flourish.
Sean Patrick Flanery is a reasonable actor but his role is thankless in the extreme; the audience is never allowed to work out whether they're supposed to like him or not. Sarah Michelle Gellar is a decent TV actress and moderately appealing in this, notwithstanding the banalities emerging from her mouth. Perhaps this new James Toback project will finally show us if she's up to scratch or not. Patricia Clarkson was also sparky and looks like she could make an impact in future. Apart from that, performances woeful. On the plus side, at least that meant they matched the script and direction.
It is a constant wonder to me that a film like this can be greenlit by studios. I wonder what the original script looked like? If it was any good, it must take some kind of talent to ruin it so spectacularly. In many ways, it's great that this wasn't a hit. It might make people try harder and think smarter.
Gellar's made some bad movie choices before, but really, this makes "Cruel Intentions" look like "GoodFellas". Don't rent it even for a laugh. It made me yell in disbelief more than once. Ninety minutes you'll never get back.
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
Not the best Coens film, but far from the worst
While the Coens appear to have reached the status of "They who shall never be derided, ever" among critics, there are still those of us who point knowingly to the confusion and misjudged intricacy of "Miller's Crossing" and the often hellish excesses of "Barton Fink" and say: "Boys, you're admittedly great, but you're not perfect. We're not going to wet our pants automatically as soon as you make a new movie. You've still got to convince us." So I come to the new Coens movie with a more open mind than some.
After the masterpiece double-whammy of "Fargo" and "The Big Lebowski" - the latter often seen as somehow Coen Brothers Lite, mainly because it is so very funny, but repeated viewings attest that it is one of their best, most tightly-plotted and well-acted films with inspired dialogue throughout - "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" is an oddity as well as an odyssey. Apologies for that lame joke, there. But it certainly rambles far more than any other Coen, while the down-home dialogue lacks the sparkle we've come to expect from them.
The credits tell us that it's based on Homer: well, frankly, they could have got away with pretending that it was original, as the Homeric references are few and far between (John Goodman's eyepatch signals that he is the Cyclops; the singing Sirens; Everett's wife is called Penny). As a whole, though, the film does resemble "The Odyssey" in that the main character is wandering, seemingly aimlessly, for a long time without really doing anything - things just happen to him. This is not really a criticism; trying to stick closely to Homer would have no doubt been false and ridiculous.
The performances, of course, are exemplary; George Clooney gives an old-fashioned, rip-roaring turn as the dapper Everett while relative newcomer Tim Blake Nelson is funny and sweet. The Coen regulars (Turturro, Hunter, Goodman, Durning) need only to turn up to be great. The period look is fantastic, Roger Deakins' photography is beautiful and the film simply engages and entertains, without trying to grip or thrill. Neither does it fall prey to the clever-cleverness of so many movies made by intelligent, literate filmmakers. It also contains more than one classic moment of Coen comic absurdity.
My guess is that like "Lebowski", "O Brother" will improve immeasurably with repeated viewings, as the rich subtleties of plot and performance become clearer. Not a masterpiece, then - for now at any rate - but an undoubted success.
Scary Movie (2000)
You get out of it what you bring to it
I saw this and I laughed, a lot, and that was what I wanted from "Scary Movie". I didn't go in looking for great cinema, or for sophistication, or for anything resembling maturity. Just because I like the Coen brothers doesn't mean I can't laugh like a drain at this too. It was stupid, it was funny, and I'm not going to say too much about it because I don't want to think about it too much.
If you like stupid spoof movies, you'll probably like it; if not, you won't. I like them, and I think it's great to see a new generation of spoofists (?) emerging, giving us an alternative to the faintly tired but (I reckon) still pretty funny Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker movies. Especially as they're black, and as such they can both bring a fresh new perspective and make some points about ethnic diversity (or lack of it) in Hollywood. More power to the Wayans: "Don't Be A Menace To..." was criminally ignored and I'm glad this didn't receive the same DTV fate.
But I'm rambling on. See "Scary Movie" if you like spoofs, and don't join the cynics in saying "it's a spoof of a spoof, that's stupid" because "Scream" was never a spoof. It was clever and it was funny, but it never really ridiculed those silly horror movies enough; essentially it celebrated and aped them, and it eventually fell victim to its own clichés. "Scary Movie" is up with the ZAZ films and later-period Mel Brooks spoofs, if not quite in the "Producers"/"Blazing Saddles" league.
The Bone Collector (1999)
Resoundingly average
You couldn't really say this is a BAD movie. It is competently directed, competently scripted, competently performed. But is it too much to ask for something more than just "competent"? Something inspiring, poetic, magical? There are a thousand other formulaic killer-thriller films and we just don't need this. Neither do the two leads. They do themselves an injustice by appearing in this pap, while lending the movie a gravitas (the dignified Washington) and a 'buzz' (the hot Jolie) it doesn't deserve.
And as if it wasn't bad enough that sexual relations between Denzel and his white leading ladies are always somewhat strained, now they've gone and made him a quadriplegic, for god's sake! We get the idea! You don't want him to have sex with her! All right!
Can't Denzel just play a role? Does it have to be a "Black" role?
Michael Rooker, though... Now THAT is an actor.
High Fidelity (2000)
Campaign: Cusack to be in every film ever
Thank god Nick Hornby sold his book to Hollywood and the action was moved to Chicago. If we had tried to keep "High Fidelity" in Britain, some dreadful couple like Ewan McGregor doing his "accent" and Sadie Frost doing her "acting" probably would have been cast and it would have been a horrible mess. In the capable hands of Cusack and co though it's mostly a delight, a genuinely funny, realistic comedy about relationships - which is the point of the book, not the fact that it happens in a certain place. It's themes that are important here.
Rob (John Cusack) addresses the camera a lot, which is OK because it's done without any self-consciousness and Cusack is a likeable presence. He also addresses his (ex?) girlfriend Laura (Iben Hjejle) a lot, which is not OK, because she is awful. He gives all the reasons he misses her at one stage and it rings utterly false because Hjejle is barely even one-dimensional. She's going to have enough trouble being successful in English-speaking cinema with that name, and being useless as well... It's a shame.
Apart from Hjejle and the ever-irritating Catherine Zeta Jones, the casting is spot on. Jack Black and especially Todd Louiso are inspired as Rob's desperately sad record-shop colleagues. Tim Robbins, Lili Taylor and others flit in and out in blink-and-you'll-miss-them cameos, adding to the picture with their understated but rich skill. The standouts are both named Cusack, though; Joan puts in sterling work as usual while John is simply terrific. Considering he is in almost every frame, not once did I get tired of him.
A few of the book's details have been kept, which will make British audiences feel like they're in on a secret - like none of the first names changing, so you've got people called Ian and Barry and Liz in an American film, which you don't often get. But the real achievement is in the screenplay, which gets laughs - big, genuine laughs - without resorting to jokey jokes and one-liners. It's real dialogue and real people, the humour comes from the situations and the characters - and it's up there with the best examples of this that I know, "Withnail & I" and "Swingers". And, to be fair, "Grosse Point Blank"; although this isn't as good as that John Cusack masterpiece, it's pushing it. These two films prove Cusack is one of the finest and most interesting A-list actors working today.
Funny, heartwarming, real, a top-notch comedy. Those moaning about changes from the book should be ashamed of themselves. Stop it. You know who you are.
54 (1998)
A "wasted" opportunity (ho ho)
[Pssst! Hey you! Watch out! Some feisty little spoilers in the fourth paragraph.]
The dangers of making a film about a club... even documentaries can't really get over what it's like to "be there". Mark Christopher's film is over-ambitious from the word go, which is probably why he chooses a sweet suburban kid as his protagonist, to make the film more personal, more real. But mass drug-taking, promiscuity, disco and mindless hedonism don't make, it has to be said, for an intimate cinematic experience.
The story of the rise and fall of New York's Studio 54 told through the eyes of aspirational Jerseyite Shane (Ryan Phillippe) is an interesting one, but the film ultimately fails because it fails to focus on the right stories. Shane is not especially dynamic or even sympathetic, and it's frustrating as we watch things happen to him rather than just seeing them happen. Christopher's mistake is failing to realise that the two main characters of "54" are Steve Rubell (Mike Myers) and the club itself, and he does not invest enough enthusiasm or affection or indeed screen time in either of them. While Anita (Salma Hayek) and Greg's (Breckin Meyer) romance is sweet and endlessly endearing, it only serves to detract further from what you feel was *really* going on at the time - that mindless hedonism I mentioned before.
Phillippe looks perfect as Shane - you can certainly understand Rubell being smitten with him. However, his petulant attitude and monotonous delivery, useful in some roles (see "Playing By Heart"), don't make for 85 minutes of great entertainment here. Hayek is surprisingly good and Myers is absolutely stunning as Rubell, a role he clearly threw his heart into, but a dismally wan Neve Campbell undermines them all, contriving to make a dull underwritten role as a soap star even duller. Shane's relationship with her feels utterly false and forced, as does his friendship with Greg - there must have been at least half an hour more of this movie that had some actual character development in it.
It's hard to escape the feeling that this film, while attempting to get across the high times and wild nights of Studio 54, has actually sanitised the club by turning it into a mere backdrop for a minor human drama which utilises countless Hollywood clichés (an old lady befriends Shane, then dies! Shane clicks with the TV star when they find they have a similar Jersey background! Shane covers for his friend's indiscretions! Plucky Anita makes it as a singer!). The trouble is, we don't care about the story and by the end we don't care much about the club either. Those who were there in 1979 will no doubt be shaking their heads at the film's representation of "their" club, while those who were, say, living in England and three years old at the time (me) will wonder what all the fuss was about. Until... the snapshots of REAL glamorous people at 54 that appear over the end credits (Minelli, Stallone, Travolta when he was obscenely hip the first time around, et al) actually give more a flavour of 54 than the whole of "54".
A shame, and a waste. As I say, I expect there was more footage, but it would probably have been of the wrong things. As it is, "54" is mercifully short. This movie marks Mike Myers' coming of age as a character actor, but little else.
Mystery Men (1999)
The old lady was right
If there's one thing I've learned in this pale, fragile life, it's this: "Never pass up the opportunity to see a film that unites the talents of Ben Stiller, Janeane Garofalo, Tom Waits, Wes Studi, Eddie Izzard, Kel from Kenan and Kel, Geoffrey Rush, Pras "Ghetto Superstar" Michel, Greg Kinnear, Paul Reubens TAFKA Pee-Wee Herman, Hank Azaria, Claire Forlani and the great William H Macy." My grandmother told me that on her deathbed. She got better some days later, I'm happy to say.
Comic superhero spoof: that's all you need to know about the plot, which is really only of vague relevance. Really it's all about the cracking script, which delivers big laughs with almost every line and produces great comic characters who are given layers of subtlety and complexity by the insanely talented cast. At one point, a deadpan Macy gets to say: "We've got a blind date with Destiny... and it looks like she's ordered the lobster." If you don't find that funny, you might as well stop watching films now. Yes, you.
The choice of a pop promo director, Kinka Usher, to helm "Mystery Men" is inspired. Video directors understand light and colour in a very basic way - when a scene needs to be garish, when it needs to be blackened. And boy, there's a lot of that here. Usher's insistence on a fish-eye lens technique only serves to add further depth to the actors' performances as you're presented with every twitch of their faces. As usual it's Macy who steals the top acting plaudits - how does this man keep getting better? - but Stiller and Azaria both emerge with credit. As for Janeane Garofalo, I've long thought that she can do no wrong (I even sat through the whole of "The Matchmaker") and once again she proves herself immensely talented and drool. Did I say drool? Oh, what a giveaway. I meant droll.
[Aside: an interesting thing about this film was that it contained an American doing an English accent, an Australian doing a German accent and two English people and a Swede doing American accents. It's not relevant. I just noticed it.]
"Mystery Men" is inspired, ingenious, hilarious. All right, it's disjointed and badly paced, but - hey! It's supposed to be fun! I can't believe that no one went to see it. Rent it. You'll appreciate me saying this later. It's for your own good. I'm only thinking of you. I have your best interests at heart. Trust me.
Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde (1995)
As bad as you've heard, if not worse
I'm writing at something of a remove, as I saw this movie a while ago. I watched it because I wanted to see if it was as bad as I'd heard. Well, it lived up to expectations. As well as being ill-conceived, shrill, moronic, humourless, wretched, asinine, irritating and generally amateurish, it was also incredibly misogynistic. I thought (hoped) they didn't make this sort of film any more.
Everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves (except maybe Sean Young, who clearly has absolutely no shame). I just don't understand how these films get made. Offensive for pretty much every reason you can think of. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
Ride with the Devil (1999)
A Civil War film that's not about the Civil War
Period films often fool people into thinking that they are about the period in which they are set or about the events that form the backdrop to the story. "Ride With The Devil" certainly appears to have done so; many have complained that the events are fictitious, that real-life heroes and villains of the Civil War are ignored, that the movie is inauthentic. This is a shame as they are missing the point. "Ride With The Devil", like most Westerns and most war films, is not about its environment. It is about hardship, loyalty, struggle, affection, betrayal, compromise and love all the things that come with human relationships.
Ang Lee is possibly the most thoughtful and sensitive director working today and he has made another fine film. This has a far more sprawling setting than the excellent "Sense & Sensibility" and "The Ice Storm", but this movie's characters are no less finely drawn and the director imbues each with colour and heart. He is well served by a quality cast: the always superb Tobey Maguire as Dutchie, a startlingly good Skeet Ulrich (real name Bryan) as Jack Bull, Jeffrey Wright strong and pensive as Holt and a viciously brooding Jim Caveziel, in one of the best and most intense bit-parts you'll see, as Black John. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is also wonderfully petulant and dislikeable as Mackeson. Jewel, in fairness, acquits herself no more than adequately, but it's inspired casting nonetheless. Her open face and childlike beauty lends itself well to the complex role of the young widow Sue Lee and she surprises us at every turn.
The film skirts around the issues of sex and race in the period without really confronting them, which is a shame. Ang Lee, though, is always at his strongest when focusing on intimate relationships rather than themes, and the friendships and love struck between the characters - Dutchie and Jack Bull, Jack and Sue Lee, George and Holt - are emotionally charged and never less than believable. Ang Lee handles the action and battle scenes well while never letting the viewer forget that it is the feelings and impulses of one man, Dutchie, that drive the story on. It ends up being that strangest of beasts an intimate epic. But it works both ways: it's emotionally resonant and visually splendid.
Of course, it did zero box office. In the UK, however, this might be explained by the fact that - as far as I could tell - it was only showing at one cinema in the whole country, the Empire in London. I missed it during its two-week run and had to wait for video. I don't know why I'm adding this - just a plea for wider release for quality films like this, and a bit less coverage for the dismal likes of "The Next Best Thing" and its pathetic ilk. Please.
Rouge Baiser (1985)
Compelling and sweet, with an exquisite central performance
I had to sit up until 4 in the morning to watch this film but it was worth it. The kind of political film that most Western filmmakers don't dare to make, "Rouge Baiser" tells the story of a young Polish girl in 1950s Paris, caught between the obligations of family and the lure of powerful politics in the shape of the Communist Party. Nadia is first attracted by the charms of a photographer who pulls her from a street mêlée, but his influence is soon supplanted by that of the Party, leading to painful emotional clashes between Nadia and her mother.
It's a minor work, in truth, but it has stayed with me due mainly to the heartfelt work put in by Charlotte Valandrey in the lead role. Only 16 at the time, her compelling portrayal of Nadia is vulnerable and strong, beautiful and awkward - all you can ask from an actress acting out the complex passage into adulthood at such a sensitive time. Aside from her brilliant performance, Lambert Wilson is excellent as the enigmatic Stéphane, and Véra Belmont demonstrates superior skill in both the direction and the writing.
"Rouge Baiser" is a largely undiscovered gem, a film of rare craft and passion, with a feel for the dangers of its period and a genuine understanding of human urges both personal and political. It would be well worth seeking out.
Final Destination (2000)
Filmmaking by numbers - but entertaining
No one is ever going to claim that "Final Destination" is great cinema but it does what it sets out to - and very effectively. Storyline goes: kid has premonition of crash on plane, kid and some others get off plane, plane crashes, kid realises they were supposed to be on the plane and die when death starts stalking them. That's about it. If you don't get it, the Candyman turns up about halfway through to explain it. Seriously.
The deaths we see are pretty funny too, as director James Wong alternates between the classic horror-movie drawn-out death scenes and sudden, shocking demises after which you're surprised to find you're not covered in blood. Wong clearly keeps his tongue firmly in his cheek at all times, while the cast, who presumably know this isn't meant to be "serious", play the whole thing with the kind of wide-eyed innocence and seriousness it needs. None of your "Scream" style Jamie Kennedy nods and winks to the camera here - all the skill, frankly, is off-camera. Although, to be fair, you couldn't call it inspired - there's nothing we haven't seen here before in Carpenter or early Craven.
The "teen" leads (none of them a day under 20, and Kerr Smith is knocking on 30) are adequate, although the vague romance between Ali Larter and Devon Sawa (who makes these names up?) is less than convincing. Hardly important, though. As Bill Friedkin said of "The Exorcist", you'll get out of it what you bring to it, and if you've suspended disbelief bigtime and gone along with the ride, the ending will be about the best 30 seconds of cinema you've seen all year.
The Virgin Suicides (1999)
Looks gorgeous and feels sad
A slight film with only the bare bones of a storyline, "The Virgin Suicides" is nevertheless invested with affection, drama and a deft visual touch. In seventies suburbia, five sisters are growing up and fighting the overbearing control of their uptight parents. After the youngest takes her own life at the second attempt, the lives of the remaining four come under close scrutiny from the rest of the neighbourhood, not least a group of hormonally-charged teenage boys. The usual rites of passage follow - homecoming, getting drunk, first boyfriends - and the story spirals slowly towards its inevitable, tragic conclusion.
"The Virgin Suicides" is slightly over-reliant on its source material, betraying its literary origins, and the director's love of the novel, with a smidge too much voiceover. Also, the metaphors it uses are occasionally so heavy-handed they're barely even metaphors (the dying trees, the burning of the rock albums). It makes up for this, though, with its languid feel and superb, almost wondrous use of light. You know the ending because of the title and this leaves a melancholy shadow over the film, which Sofia Coppola punctuates with glaring sunlight through the trees and the glitterballs of a school dance.
Coppola also coaxes top-drawer, understated performances from her cast. Although Josh Hartnett just does his Josh Hartnett thing, Kathleen Turner is adapting from sexpot roles to mother roles with a skill that belies her often drab 80s heroine routine. James Woods, normally so brash, is brilliantly vulnerable as he slowly loses control of his family and himself. Best of all is Kirsten Dunst as the rebellious fourth daughter Lux, who with this and "Drop Dead Gorgeous" is fast proving herself one of America's premier film actresses. (Yes, Lux - the parents are trying to stifle the light that burns so bright, you see. I did say it was a bit heavy-handed.)
It's a curio piece, a gentle coming-of-age period drama that was never likely to find much of an audience. But all those involved give all they have, and it's certainly more than interesting that a daughter of one of Hollywood's most famous dynasties chooses to make her first film about a dysfunctional family. But it is more than that - a reflection on love, death, childhood, awakenings and hope. Satisfying.
Fight Club (1999)
Dark brown-and-black rainy intensity a-go-go
EARLY CREATIVE MEETING, `FIGHT CLUB'.
DAVID FINCHER: Right, I'm going to direct this movie `Fight Club' from this book by Chuck Pa-something-or-other. It seems to have the potential to be one of these dark brown-and-black rainy intense films that I love to make.
PRODUCTION ASSOCIATE: What's it about?
FINCHER: It's about this bloke who's fed up with all the miserable stuff in his life and needs some sort of intense cathartic experience to change it.
ASSOCIATE: Just like your other movies!
FINCHER: Exactly. And it should be easy to make because the great thing about it is, it doesn't require any kind of emotional involvement from the audience whatsoever. They'll just watch it, marvelling at the dark brown-and-black rainy intensity of it all, as scene follows scene follows scene and they won't really have much idea what's going on or why.
ASSOCIATE: Just like your other movies! Who's in it?
FINCHER: Well, I've had Brad Pitt playing a blank-faced, fiery, violent guy for me before, so I've got him for the blank-faced, fiery, violent guy. Ed Norton seems to be quite good at looking confused and ragged, so I've got him to play the confused-looking ragged guy. And I need a fat bloke, so I've got Meat Loaf.
ASSOCIATE: Brilliant! What about women?
FINCHER: Yes, I need someone to play the woman who seems a bit mysterious and enigmatic and that, but who turns out to be a mere plot device to help the men's story along. Just like in my other movies. In this one she's a complete slut and druggie, at least partly psychotic, and with no interest in real human relationships. She's a physical mess and a mental wreck. She's whorish, neurotic, abrasive, abusive, dark and possibly suicidal. None of your pretty-pretty rosy-cheeked actress types - I need someone who will really live the role.
ASSOCIATE: Helena Bonham Carter?
FINCHER: Yes! That's brilliant! Oh, by the way, there's this great twist at the end that's a bit stupid and unbelievable and makes the rest of the movie even more confusing.
ASSOCIATE: Just like your other movies! Dave, you're a genius!
FINCHER: Yes, I am.
[MEETING ENDS. HELENA BONHAM CARTER IS CAST. CUE MUCH ACCLAIM AND ANOTHER $40 MILLION FOR FINCHER TO MAKE THE SAME MOVIE AGAIN]
Happy, Texas (1999)
Pretty funny & with great performances
[Hey! Look out! There's a spoiler in the fourth paragraph.]
It's strange how two very similar films can be promoted and perceived in utterly different ways. "Doc Hollywood", a minor 1991 mainstream comedy starring (yes!) Michael J. Fox, deals with a cosmetic surgeon escaping from stifling East Coast to sunny West Coast - but he gets stuck in a small town along the way. People mistake him for something he's not (a doctor) and are exceptionally friendly to him despite his initial hostility. At first he is driven crazy by the strange (but cute) goings on in the small town, but in the end discovers love and a new-found respect for rural life.
In "Happy, Texas", Jeremy Northam and Steve Zahn escape from stifling prison to sunny anywhere, but they get stuck in a small town along the way. People mistake them for something they're not (gay pageant organisers) and are exceptionally friendly to them despite their initial hostility. At first they are driven crazy by the strange (but cute) goings on in the small town, but in the end discover love and a new-found respect for rural life.
All right, the themes are slightly different - "Happy" deals rather more with crime and homosexuality - but it's essentially the same film. What raises both into the category "eminently watchable" is the performances. Fox, Julie Warner (what happened to her?), Bridget Fonda and Woody Harrelson were all appealing in "Doc Hollywood". "Happy, Texas" gives five under-used actors a chance to shine.
Jeremy Northam is likeable in the lead - his accent rarely slips for one thing, and he's good-looking and good-natured enough to endear the character to you (he's a criminal, remember). Ally Walker pulls off a rather lame role (frustrated - but spunky! - small town girl) with sympathy and subtlety, even if her falling for Northam in the last reel feels all wrong. The wonderful Illeana Douglas (someone give this woman a lead role NOW) is exquisite as usual as the enthusiastically horny local teacher.
But it's Steve Zahn and William H. Macy who bring the most to the movie. Zahn invests every line with the sort of comic energy I thought had died with the decline of Steve Martin. He's funny, cool, sweet and magnetic. Macy, meanwhile, is probably the pre-eminent actor in America today. He seems to understand every role he plays perfectly and inhabit it effortlessly and the role of the laconic, committed but confused sheriff Chappy is no exception. If it was possible, I would campaign for having these two in every movie ever made.
I'm not sure why this film has been marginalised as a "gay" movie - as if there was any such thing outside the porn industry anyway - as it only has one major gay character and it's not about homosexuality at all, it's about love and life and redemption and tolerance. In fact, it's about what most mainstream rom-coms are about. (And it doesn't have Julia Roberts in it. Which has to be good.) It's a more-than-moderately funny, pretty conventional comedy movie with excellent performances and a semi-happy ending. I recommend it.
East Is East (1999)
Over-ambitious
[One or two small spoilers.]
The panting critical reaction to this film was what led me to see it on video. It turned out that the critics were just reacting to seeing a British movie that wasn't total toilet - remarkable enough in itself, but still no cause for great celebration.
It would be churlish to attack the intentions behind this film, of course - to show racism and domestic violence as both aberrant and abhorrent can only be a good thing. But the film would have got these points across better were it a straight drama, instead of which we are treated to rather forced 'comic' scenes juxtaposed distastefully with tension and violence. It also would have worked better as more of a two-hander between Om Puri and Linda Bassett's characters, rather than needlessly beefing up the roles of the children (none of whom was actually established as a believable character anyway, with the exception of the youngest son Sajid).
There was simply too much tokenism and stereotyping - gay son runs away from arranged marriage; white neighbour hates 'Pakis'; son's girlfriend has 'comedy' overweight friend - to allow the film to be taken seriously. Try watching it again, though, or just thinking about it again, not in terms of race - because it's not actually a film about race. It's about family, masculinity, values, tradition, morals - almost everything BUT race. All viewers need to get past the novel concept of seeing brown faces in a film and they'll discover an interesting, honest film, albeit one that ultimately tries too hard.
Bowfinger (1999)
Steve Martin was funny, then he wasn't. Now he is again
Steve Martin, the funniest man alive in the 80s, lost his way in the 90s with the likes of "Leap Of Faith" and "A Simple Twist Of Fate". Now, after sterling work in David Mamet's "The Spanish Prisoner", Martin's return to writing and acting in straight-up comedy is surprisingly, reassuringly good. "Bowfinger" is a movie about movies, with all the potential for in-jokery and self-indulgence that brings, but for the most part dispenses with the clever-clever, isn't-Hollywood-shallow stuff to deliver laughs.
Martin's Bobby Bowfinger, a struggling producer desperate for a hit before he reaches the 'unemployable' age of 50, hits on the idea of putting action star Kit Ramsey (Eddie Murphy) in his new sci-fi film "Chubby Rain" without the star knowing anything about it. Consequently, Bowfinger's inept crew follows Ramsey around in increasingly crazy and surreal fashion, utilising everything from 'Will Work For Food' signs made of foil to cranes mounted on trucks to get the shot they need. When Bowfinger stumbles across a Kit double (Murphy again) who will do anything the director asks including fetch the coffee, he starts to think all his birthdays have come at once. Meanwhile, the neurotic Ramsey, never that stable to begin with, begins to lose it altogether as he becomes convinced that sex-crazed pod people are stalking him.
It's a simple plot and, while the script throws a few barbs at Hollywood, it's played mainly for big laughs - and gets them. Heather Graham is spot-on as the ingenue literally just off the bus from Ohio who is prepared to sleep with anyone to get longer scenes, and Jamie Kennedy is all laconic wit as Bowfinger's long-suffering assistant. Really, though, it's Martin and Murphy's show. The original wild and crazy guy shows he hasn't lost all his manic energy in the title role, nor his wit with the sharp script. Surprisingly enough, though, the standout performance is Murphy's; he is brilliant as both the paranoid, highly-strung Kit and his dumb-but-sweet double Jiff. This might even be a career-best.
It's simple, lightweight and throwaway of course, but comedies that try to SAY something, even if they're good, often just don't make you laugh that much. Bowfinger will.
Playing by Heart (1998)
It's been... emotional
This is a surprisingly warm, human film to come out of a Los Angeles setting, where the people and environment are usually shown to be shallow and insubstantial. It follows these themes of love, relationships, anger and sadness through the lives of a seemingly disparate groups of people - Paul, Hannah, Meredith, Trent, Gracie, Roger, Hugh, Joan, Kenan, Mark and Mildred.
Some of these are in actual couples, some are potential couples, some are related, but each is real. It's not easy to give a complex, believable personality to each of such as large cast in a two-hour film, but writer-director Willard Carroll manages it in the main. Gracie (Madeleine Stowe) and Roger (Anthony Edwards) are too rarely seen outside the bedroom, and the tragic Mark (Jay Mohr) is a little hard done by, but their stories, to be fair, are the least integral.
Of the cast, the always-reliable Gena Rowlands and Ellen Burstyn are very good, but notable performances come from actors who aren't often asked to do much acting - Sean Connery, Gillian Anderson and Dennis Quaid in particular. The real star, however, is Angelina Jolie, who starts out by making you genuinely want to smack her, but who proves herself so vulnerable and sweet that she just demands to be hugged, frankly.
It's Joan's (Jolie) relationship with Kenan (Ryan Phillippe) which provides the key moments in the film, but Paul and Hannah (Connery and Rowland) hold it together with their own gentle, weary revelations. Eventually all the threads intertwine in a rather predictable manner, but the movie is none the worse for it as pretty much everything you want to happen, happens. Playing By Heart is always engaging and has an emotional resonance that too few films have these days. It's nice to watch grownups do grownup things every now and then.
Cruel Intentions (1999)
Cruel is the word
I was so looking forward to this film...
It's a great idea to set Choderlos de Laclos' tale of conniving and adultery among decadent French aristos in the elitist world of upper-class young Manhattanites. One of the best I've heard, actually. I couldn't wait.
My friend Phil summed Cruel Intentions up better than I ever could when he commented that "the sleazy marketing men didn't even bother to wipe their grubby fingerprints off the patronising direction" (I wrote it down). Now, no-one's pretending that the current trend for teen movies is a great artistic movement like the Nouvelle Vague. Neither is anyone suggesting that there's much more to it than exploiting a huge audience, as it's an audience that doesn't really mind being exploited as long as it's being entertained ("Scream", "10 Things I Hate About You"). But there's exploiting and there's condescending.
This was heavy-handed, brainless, charmless cinema from petulant start to ludicrous finish. The directing and sets were utterly unimaginitive. The writing was clunky at best, offensive at worst. Of the leads, Sarah Michelle Gellar was woefully out of her depth, Ryan Phillippe copied every twitch of
his performance from John Malkovich in "Dangerous Liaisons", and the undoubtedly talented Reese Witherspoon was stuck with the thankless, superficial victim role of Annette. Only Selma Blair emerged with much credit: sweet and sexy, she was a suitable foil for Phillippe's lupine Valmont. She wasn't in it enough.
I was looking forward to seeing what the film would do with the horrendously downbeat ending (from about five minutes in, frankly) and I couldn't help but laugh when they got there. It's genuinely hilarious. Trust me.
It's got a slight sense of its own ridiculousness, which is good, but too many people involved seems to be desperately trying to prove that they could "do serious" or "do adult". If you want to see Buffy swearing filthily and getting it on with girls, or just want to look at Ryan Phillippe for an hour and a half (and I couldn't blame you, the guy's so good-looking he makes me want to chop my legs off), go for it. Just try to ignore the blatant cynicism behind it all. If you want a titillating story of 18th-century sexual intrigue, I suggest you read "Les Liaisons Dangereuses". If you want a good teen movie, try "The Faculty". Now that's what I call exploitation. Bring it on!
Rushmore (1998)
Interesting & Eyebrows
Rushmore is quirky, interesting, convincing and honest - and a refreshing change from the current rash of marketing-led, romance-heavy, emotionally bogus high school movies. It has excellent performances from Jason Schwartzmann, Mason Gamble and the always underrated Bill Murray. It is also beautifully shot, in contrast to so many indie films where the director seems to think that shoddy production values and little attention to visuals automatically confers some kind of Gen X credibility. I'm just glad I saw it, as it's the kind of film that usually passes me by due to my own laziness.
The only other thing I want to say about it is that it contained more eyebrow than any other film I've seen. Between Schwartzmann, Olivia Williams and Seymour Cassel, I was very nearly overwhelmed by sheer weight of eyebrow. I'm surprised there wasn't a part in it for Noel Gallagher.