daved-3 Reviews

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Huh?

[6/10 · 22 May 2003]

Of course The Matrix Reloaded looks great--given the time and expense how could it not? But I was not that involved in the film, even as much as I was for X Men 2. The "rules" for operating in The Matrix are unclear--why can Neo fly very, very fast but not simply teleport? Why is no one surprised that he can stop bullets in mid-air? Maybe there are explanations, but it's not worth it. The actors are all good, especially Carrie Anne Moss, but Fishburne is just doing a one-note performance and Jada Pinckett Smith is underused. Interesting, fun to watch, but hardly memorable.

Amélie (2001)

clever but disjointed

[7/10 · 3 April 2003]

Amelie is a film that features splashes of cleverness but doesn't have enough structure to sustain it. The lead actress is very appealing, with a large eye-to-skull ratio for the suitable gamin look, but often she merely looks blankly and lets the audience impose their feelings onto her performance. Visually, the film is a treat, with one eye-popping visual after another. But what does it all mean? I don't know. It's a very good film, but top 20 all time? It wasn't one of the 20 best films the year it was released.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Lucas needs a writer

[3/10 · 6 July 2002]

Episode II can only appeal to children with Attention Deficit Disorder; anyone with an attention span of more than two minutes will find much of the action tedious and confusing. The love scene between Padme and Anakin is nothing but a collection of trite cliches,and most of the dialogue is pedestrian (the only line with any emotion is Samuel L. Jackson's "This party's over!" which one suspects was his suggestion). The first Star wars sequel, Empire Strikes Back, was written by an excellent writer, Lawrence Kasdan; Lucas needs to work with a better co-writer for the (unfortunately) inevitable Episode III.

Even the plot, where Lucas usually excels, feels creaky and forced. There is a major plot point that makes no sense and is never explained (okay, maybe the explanation comes in III), and most of the plot developments are fairly random. The amount of time that has passed since Episode I is in question; Anakin seems to have aged ten years, Amidala not at all, and Anakin has a younger half-brother (born since Episode I) who looks about 20.

Ewen McGregor is great as Obi-wan, evoking memories of Alec Guiness. Hayden Christiansen just pouts a lot; Portman is out of her depth but looks scrumptious.

Lucas will make a ton of money of course, but the fact that this will be the first Star Wars film NOT to end the year at #1 (thanks, Spidey) will hopefully drive him to improve Episode III. Or maybe he just wants to film his vision and make more money, quality be darned.

I rate this film at 3 out of 10.

Ali (2001)

a mess of a movie

[4/10 · 24 May 2002]

Ali is, alas, a mess of a movie, thanks to Michael Mann's self-indulgence and lack of focus. I have admired his previous work, which makes his utter incompetence here so surprising. Mann refuses to impose any narrative structure onto Ali's life story, so we get scenes that go nowhere, characters whose significance in Ali's life appears to be non-existant, and some scenes that don't have anything to do with Ali at all. Some scenes are extended beyong tedium, such as a sequence of Ali doing roadwork in preparation for the Rumble in the Jungle.

The film does feature fine performances from Will Smith (who captures a young Ali's bravado), Mario Van Peebles (who deserved an Oscar nomination as Malcolm X), Jamie Foxx, Mykaleti Williamson and Ron Silver. Jon Voight did get an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Howard Cosell, but he merely does a competent impersonation and besides, Cosell was too small a player in Ali' life and in this film to warrent it.

I'm not saying I wanted an old fashioned bio-pic like The Life of Emile Zola or The Babe Ruth Story, where reality is chucked in favor of a cliche riddled plot; but as a writer/director Mann had to make decisions about what to focus on and what to leave out, and he didn't make those decisions. I give it a 4 out of 10.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Dull, plodding, pedantic

[3/10 · 24 November 2001]

This film makes no sense. I could stop my review there, but seeing as this film is currently taking up space in the top 250 that would be better used by Weekend at Bernie's, let me repeat--there is absolutely no linear narrative thread running through the course of this motion picture. David Lynch is too busy filming things out of focus to bother with thinking up a "plot." I suppose that would be fine in something interesting happened while we were being taken on this non-linear trip, but aside from a couple of lesbian scenes featuring two very good looking women, nothing remotely interesting happens in well over two hours. Despite its excessively long running length, the film shows signs of major editing--for example, Robert Forster gets star billing and shows up in one scene for about 30 seconds.

The acting isn't bad, but since it all takes place in an emotional void it is impossible to tell what the actors are supposed to be conveying most of the time. Is the director laid-back? too frighten for words? Really Cool? Stoned? Planning a counter-move? Who can tell if this is good acting or not?

I would love to know if anyone out there who rated this film higher than a five could tell me the plot. I sort of doubt it.

Heist (2001)

great dialog, dumb plot

[5/10 · 13 November 2001]

There are usually two great things about a David Mamet script--punchy one-liners and an intricate plot. Heist nails the first, but bails on the latter. While there are dozens of great one liners, delivered with precision by pros like Hackman, DeVito, Lindo, and Jay, the plot begins to breakdown about halfway through the movie and never recovers.

The plan for the first heist is good, but the second one is absurd--would airport officials really let a plane get robbed in broad daylight? The conclusion isn't well done either, with expert con man Hackman resolving things by staging a gunfight, where as usual the bad guys are terrible shots. Too many twists, too many red herrings, too many implausible plot points. I liked Mamet's previous work in House of games and Spanish prisoner, but after Heist and State and main he seems to be running out of ideas.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

The Ending Makes No Sense!!

[6/10 · 13 August 2001]

I admired the technique that went in to making this version of Planet--not just the make-up, but the sets, the costumes, the "re-imagining" of ape culture and society. But much of the script seemed to be on auto-pilot, as if the prologue was rushed through because everyone knew the main character was going to end up on, well, the Planet of the Apes and so they went through the plot contrivances as quickly as possible.

And then there is the twist at the end, about which I will say nothing other than I didn't see it coming because it makes NO SENSE AT ALL! I of course cannot explain why without giving it away, but trust me, it was a major let-down to have a well made film end with that nonsense.

All in all I do mildly recommend the film; it is one of the better summer releases I've seen this year, second only to Apocalypse Now. But maybe that just goes to show what a weak summer it has been.

PS In the film there is a female character on the space station with the name tag "Alexander", but IMDB lists no character with that name. There is, however, an "Anderson" listed among the characters; I wonder if this is an error.

The Return of the Man from U.N.C.L.E.: The Fifteen Years Later Affair (1983 TV Movie)

surprisingly good reunion flick

[9/10 · 6 August 2001]

Reunion TV-movies based on old series rarely capture the spirit of the original, but Return of the Man from Uncle taps into the campiness of the series as if it never was off the air. The leads have fun acknowledging their age, and the whole thing neatly turns into a parody of spy films without becoming a parody of itself. I rated it a "9" not because it is great art but because compared to all other TV reunion movies it is head and shoulders above the rest!

Bamboozled (2000)

great but muddled

[7/10 · 10 June 2001]

Bamboozled has the potential for great satire, being about the combination of race and television. Lee's point--that whites in the TV industry are closet racists who think America will only accept blacks as maid, hookers, pimps, or drug addicts--is a sound one, and he balances this perspective by also skewering blacks who are too busy revolting against whites to ask what exactly they are revolting against. Lee as usual swings a sledge hammer, taking no prisoners.

However---the Damon Wayan's character is confused; first, he creates a "new millenium minstrel show" to reveal the racism of his boss, but at times he seems to want the show to actually succeed. Sometimes he is painfully aware of how destructive the show he's created is, and other times he justifies it as "satire." It doesn't help that Wayans affects a ludicrous "white" accent that only reminds you of how brilliant Eddie Murphy was in the "White Like Me" sketch on SNL. As forcefully as Lee is trying to be, it also doesn't help that he muddles the screenplay with a lot of irrelevant points, like the whole question of whether Jada Pinkett-Smith's character slept with Wayans'. One of Lee's better efforts, but a far cry from Do The Right Thing or Malcolm X.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

where's the love?

[6/10 · 10 June 2001]

I went into the theater prepared to love Moulin Rounge, as I had been terribly impressed with Luhrman's last roller coaster, Romeo + Juliet. However, there the visual pyrotechnics had been at the disposal of the greatest love story ever told; the plot here is, well, NOT the greatest love story ever told. The whole things starts off too silly to take seriously, Satine falls for Christian merely because the script requires it (who wouldn't fall in love with Nicole Kidman?), and the fact the story is being told in flashback destroys all tension as to what will happen. McGregor and Kidman are fine both as actors and singers, but the words spewing out of their mouths are such a bewildering purree of pop culture references the mind can't process everything.

I recommend the film for Luhrman's dazzling visuals and the fine work by the actors (particularly Jim Broadbent, who should get an Oscar nomination), but the writing keeps it from being as good as it could have been. My rating is a 6 (actually, it's close to a 7 but since it is averaging over 8 I feel I need to knock it down a notch).

The Mummy Returns (2001)

less sense of fun than original

[5/10 · 10 May 2001]

What I liked the most about the original Mummy was it's sense of how absurd it was--the fate of the world really wasn't at stake, it was all just an excuse for some fun. That sense is missing from the sequel, where the filmmakers seem to think we will take it seriously if the world is threatened with apocalypse in 1933 (I suspect that if the world had been overrun by Annubis warriors in 1933 I would have read about it in my history books).

What I also find odd is that several scenes that were featured prominently in a "The making of" special on AMC were noticibly absent from the final film. That indicates the film may have suffered from some last minute script/editing changes. The special effects in the finale are also not that special, indicating last minute tinkering. The Mummy Returns is competently done, but give me another Indiana Jones installment.

State and Main (2000)

A Major Disappointment

[4/10 · 13 January 2001]

I am a big fan of David Mamet's work, both as a writer and as a director, which is why I was shocked at the mediocrity that pervades State and Main. The script contains scenes that go nowhere, character development is bewildering (is Sarah Jessica Parker's character shaking them down, or is she just really confused?), most of the actors are seriously mis-cast, although some rise above it (Philip Seymore Hoffman as a romantic lead? Hey, it works!) and the whole production seemed listless, which is the last thing I'd expect from a David Mamet film. It's not a BAD film, but it's hardly worth even the price of a matinee.

Bedazzled (2000)

see the original!!!

[4/10 · 28 December 2000]

Bedazzled is a maddeningly flat attempt to remake a classic. It isn't horrid, but I suppose people as talented as Harold Ramis and Brendon Fraser would really have to try to produce a really bad film. The problem seems to be pacing--this version seems content to hit a so-so joke every couple of minutes, while the original was much more consistently funny. This version is hardly trying--in the original, the magic words were "Julie Andrews!", here they're "I wish". Does "I wish" seem funny to you?

The big difference is of course casting Elizabeth Hurley as the Devil. As an actress, Ms. Hurley has very nice breasts. That's probably unfair, she's not bad and does bring a sense of panache to the role, but she raises a problem--why would the main character still be interested in his co-worker after getting a gander at Ms. Hurley's cleavage?

Fraser is sensational, and probably deserves an Oscar nod if people in comedies ever got Oscar nominations. Fraser is just about the only actor who can go from drama (With Honors) to action (The Mummy) to comedy (George of the Jungle) and be credible in each. He handles his various roles impeccably. But the screenplay is flat and listless, and seemingly goes from set-up to set-up with no motivation. The ending is straight out of the blue, although it does make a certain amount of sense. Still, Bedazzled is a far cry from the original.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

very good, but still chop socky

[8/10 · 28 December 2000]

I suppose I am suffering from over-inflated expectations--I am disappointed because I consider Crouching Tiger (or is it Crouching Dragon?) only the second best film I've seen this year (let's here it for Wonder Boys!). With all the hype I expected something better than a real good chop socky film.

As a huge fan of Jackie Chan, I have long been frustrated with the conventions of the Hong Kong cinema, namely that the script need not make sense, the direction can plod except for action scenes, and the main character must have the same first name as the actor playing him. Finally here is a script for a Hong Kong film that features interesting characters behaving rationally. Michelle Yeoh is marvelous, and Chow Yun fat seems much more at ease here than in his English language pictures.

But--I've seen cheaply make chop socky films where characters seemingly flew, and it looked silly. Here, they use state of the art effects and . .. it still looks silly. It's better, but it's still just a wee but over the top. The cinematography is luscious, and the score is a masterpiece, and this is a really good movie--just not the best film of the year. Sorry.

Quills (2000)

Marquis de Sade as a naughty little boy

[7/10 · 28 December 2000]

Quills wants to be a polemic against censorship, but it blunts its own point by transforming the Marquis de Sade, the man who put the "sade" in sadism, into a naughty little boy fascinated with telling dirty stories. It's easy to attack censorship when the subject is as attractively played as the Marquis is here, and his writing doesn't even rise (or sink) to the level of a letter to Penthouse. The People vs. Larry Flynt did a much better job of arguing that the value of the First Amendment is that it protects scum, like Larry Flynt.

The film is good, though, especially the acting. Geoffrey Rush is appropriately flamboyant as the Marquis, Joaquin Phoenix is sympathetic as his jailer, and Kate Winslet is excellent as the chambermaid who becomes De Sade's accomplice in smut (as an aside, she also provides the film with more cleavage than any film in recent memory). If only the writer had taken the Marquis de Sade a little more seriously.

Cast Away (2000)

Great acting, dopey script

[7/10 · 28 December 2000]

Cast Away is sure to nab another Oscar nomination for Tom Hanks, and in a relatively weak year for film he may just win his third. He would deserve it, and not just for his physical transformation. Any other actor in the world would get laughs if they recited the dopey dialogue (or monologue, I guess, since he's alone on that island). I can't imagine Ralph Finnes being taken seriously if he proclaimed "I have made . . .fire!" but Hanks somehow pulls it off.

You may be aware that the studio moronically gives away the ending in the trailers and commercials--it is inexcusable and blunts much of the emotion of the situation. This is a solid film with a fascinating second and third acts, but a flat-footed fourth act. They paint themselves into a corner with no satisfactory ending, and then fail to come up with a satisfactory conclusion. But with Hanks' acting and Zemeckis' eye-popping direction, this film is very satisfying.

A Hard Day's Night (1964)

One of the best and most influential films ever

[10/10 · 28 December 2000]

A Hard Day's Night is quite simply a masterpiece--it so thoroughly re-wrote the rulebook on filmmaking that it is impossible to appreciate today how many rules it broke. Richard Lester's direction is so innovative that 35 years later MTV probably still hasn't finished ripping him off. Alun Owens script is a wonder--so seemingly natural that it is easy to forget this isn't a documentary (at least enough people noticed there was a script to nominate it for an Oscar). And as for the acting--trained actors couldn't have portrayed the Fab Four better. Each of their personalities is captured perfectly, especially John's (when George asks why he was leaving the room, John replies, "He told us to stay here, didn't he?"

Then there's the music--glorious early Beatles!! Some of the best music ever made. This is on my short, short list of best films ever made.

Unbreakable (2000)

eerie and thought-provoking

[8/10 · 3 December 2000]

Unbreakable is a worthy follow up to Sixth Sense--it won't gross as much, obviously, but it's much better than Blair Witch II. Shaymalan does a good job of establishing an eerie mood, and rewards your paying attention through the slow parts with a twist ending that should have you slapping your forehead saying, "Of course!" I figured out the twist in Sixth Sense early (honest!) but this one fooled me. Willis is a little too low key, but still gives a solid performance. Samuel L. Jackson is wonderful as always. I give it an 8, and look forward to Shaymalan's next film.

Charlie's Angels (2000)

No cure for cancer

[5/10 · 3 December 2000]

I'll give them this much--for 90 minutes I wasn't thinking about the election outcome. Unlike previous disasters like The Avengers and Wild Wild West, Charlie's Angels escapes by having a sense of humor about how stupid it is. That doesn't make it LESS stupid, but it is refreshing to see a film not take itself seriously. The women are gorgeous, the direction is often interesting (if a little too derivative of music videos), but the script barely rises up to the level of a saturday Night Live spoof (back when SNL was actually good). I give it a five.

The Contender (2000)

good but not great

[7/10 · 22 October 2000]

The Contender is a good but not great political movie that avoids most of the usual mistakes but still has some major plot loopholes. The standout is Gary Oldman, whose performance goes right up to the top but never over. I suspect the political biases of the film makers blind them to some of the shortcomings of the plot, which I can't begin to go into without providing major spoilers. Joan Allen is excellent, but really doesn't have a lot to do; she was much better in The Ice Storm and Pleasantville.

Sweet and Lowdown (1999)

Allen misses again

[4/10 · 6 August 2000]

Once again Woody Allen seems to be completely devoid of any inspiration other than recycling himself. Here we have a mock documentary (like Zelig), the structure of the film is a series of anecdotes (Radio Days, Broadway Danny Rose) set in the 30's (Zelig, Purple Rose, Bullets over Broadway) about a low-life (Deconstructing Harry) who believes being a genius absolves him from being a jerk (ditto). Given this film and Deconstructing Harry, one wonders if this is Allen's justification for his own actions with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter; yes, I was a jerk, but I'm a genius so you gotta love me.

Allen has only produced two good movies in the past ten years; the fine but overpraised Bullets over Broadway, and the excellent but largely ignored Manhattan Murder Mystery. His other efforts range from trifles (New York Stories, Mighty Aphrodite), to edgy yet experimental (Husbands and Wives), to pure drek (Alice, Scenes from a Mall, Shadows and Fog, Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry). His films no longer even try to have a narrative arc, and his humor seems to aim at wryly amusing, not funny. After Deconstructing Harry I stopped seeing his films in theaters; after Sweet and Lowdown I may stop renting them as well.

Hamlet (2000)

imaginative, but flat

[6/10 · 30 July 2000]

This modern day version of Hamlet is imaginative in its adaptation to the setting of modern day New York City, and its translation of court politics to modern corporations. While the cast is fine, Ethan Hawke's slacker interpretation of the title role, while appropriate, ultimately sucks most of the energy from the screenplay. The recent modern version of Romeo & Juliet managed to maintain its energy.

While the screenplay does a good job of shortening the play to a manageable length (half of Branaugh's 4 hour version), there are still some gaps where, if you don't know the play, you won't be able to follow. It's definately worth watching, especially for the performances of Hawke, Diane Venora as Gertrude and Bill Murray as Polonius, and it is MUCH better than the Mel Gibson version. But it isn't quite the breakthrough as Romeo & Juliet was.

Chicken Run (2000)

Pure imagination

[9/10 · 25 June 2000]

Chicken Run is an excellent transfer of the brilliance of the Wallace and Gromit shorts to a feature length film. The technique is incredible; the faces of the "clay" chickens are more expressive than 90% of all actors. The vocal work is also expressive, and the chickens develop distinct personalities (it's a little distracting that they have lips and teeth, but who cares?).

The writing should appeal to adults, with references to Indiana Jones, Stalag 17 and The Great Escape, among others; kids should love the intricate visuals and pure imagination of the screenplay. This is truly a film for all ages.

Gladiator (2000)

paint by numbers

[6/10 · 20 May 2000]

Gladiator wants to be rousing entertainment, but it's like a talented painter doing a paint-by-number kit and trying really hard not to go outside the lines. It was such a faithful retelling of standard, cliche gladiator movies that I could mouth most lines before they were uttered. It's probably the most faithful remake in history except for Psycho.

Which is not to say it doesn't manage some entertainment value. Russell Crowe is well cast, Joaquin Phoenix surprised me with his range (by showing he had some), and Connie Nelson gave a subtle performance when I would have expected something more heavy-handed. But the action sequences are choppily edited and filmed through a haze, making it hard to tell whose blood it is spraying across the screen (I could only assume it wasn't Crowe's character's).

I give it a six; anyone giving it higher than a seven is very easily amused.

Where the Money Is (2000)

Good actors in tired script

[5/10 · 16 April 2000]

Where the Money Is isn't a bad film, but take out Paul Newman and Linda Fiorentino and you've got a mediocre TV movie. The cat and mouse game between Fiorentino and Newman liven up the first part of the movie, but then they get into a tired caper that just dragged. I've heard that Newman says he's only going to do one more film; I hope he has something more substantial than this in mind.