The Analytical Critic Reviews

America's Sweethearts (2001)

Hollywood Pokes Fun at itself

[22 October 2001]

In `America's Sweethearts', the story of two superstars who broke up and the people around them plays out while we witness many of Hollwood's foibles in the background. No cliché is safe: the agent who is not beyond using his manipulative skills to sell his own grandmother; The diva who is incapable of thinking about anything or anybody but in terms of herself; the movie star whose insecurity leads him to accept any nonsensical garbage; the director whose eccentricity borders on insanity and the studio exec whose conscience could fit on the head of a pin.

Apart from these characterizations and several misunderstandings, much of the humor is derived from the observation that Hollywood people often seem to say the opposite of what they mean. Sometimes, it is funny, and sometimes it misses the mark.

While the ending is very funny, it does stretch what the audience might be willing to accept as realistic. But then, it could be its own tongue-in-cheek attempt to portray the over the top movie reality that it mocks in its first few minutes.

As an aside, it is interesting to see what Julia Roberts would look like if she were 60 pounds heavier.

Quite a passable comedy, especially for those who appreciate Hollywood culture.

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)

Disney Explores new Depths

[22 October 2001]

`Atlantis-The Lost Continent' goes beyond traditional Disney animation movie fare because it is much more adult-oriented than other Disney movies. Its mood is darker, the monsters look scarier (one child actually cried in the theater at the sight of the sea monster) and the villains are more evil. It also comes closer to depicting death, however indirectly, than any other Disney movie. In more than one respect, it was strongly reminiscent of Japanese animes, although by comparison it is still much tamer. The message of the movie is contemporary, because the villains do not strive for some abstract power, but simply for money. The animation is (predictably) awesome, and even here Disney introduces something new: While the hero and heroine look unmistakably like Disney figures, the other members of the explorer team look like they each sprung out of a different comic genre. This juxtaposition of different styles makes the animation more interesting to watch. The story moves at a fast pace, leaving us to be entertained from beginning to end. Overall, a very good contribution and a riposte to those who object to the rampant `Disneyfication' of every subject matter that this company treats.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

An Uneven Remake

[22 October 2001]

`Planet of the Apes' is one those movies in which you can virtually see the downward slope from beginning to end. After a supremely evocative score by Danny Elfman, an introduction that grabs the audience, masterful atmospheric cinematography and a presentation of the premise that maintains our interest, the movie goes downhill. Essentially, the second part of the movie is little more than a cat and mouse story and does not match the expectations set up in the first part The movie has some great make-up effects, and the special effects in which the apes jump or throw others up in the air are very entertaining to watch. It seems that Tim Burton has a `signature' special effect in each of his movies: In `Sleepy Hollow' it was the decapitations, and in `Batman', the flying sequences over Gotham City. I heard many voice comments that they were disappointed by the movie. I believe that's partly because of a mismatch between its main body and the ending: up to the ending, the movie treats the subject matter as a science fiction story with only a touch of social commentary, whereas the ending is very much in the spirit of Pierre Boulle's biting social satire. If the two elements had been better integrated, the ending might not have seemed as abrupt. The movie does deserve credit in that it did not attempt to replicate the well-known ending of the original story, but find its own twist. Nevertheless, as a social fable it is weaker than the original. I still recommend this movie because, despite the drop in the second half, it is entertaining and the cinematography and special effects are well worth watching.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Quintessential Hollywood Big production

[14 October 2001]

Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor is Hollywood at its most ambitious. From glossy photography, beautiful wide-angle shots, eye-widening special effects and exceptionally good-looking people playing the lead characters, it offers a lot of eye candy to those who are willing to sit through the long movie. In fact, it reminds me of a big cake with a recipe in which the makers tried to include all the tried-and-true ingredients of a commercially successful movie: visual treats, humor, drama, action and a story involving love, passion, friendship, vengeance and a good dose of patriotism. It almost seems as if director Michael Bay wanted to challenge the audience with all these elements to be entertained by a movie twice the length of a typical feature without lapsing into boredom. If that was the challenge then he succeeded: it was entertaining, it really did not feel like three hours, and I, at least, did not feel bored at any time during the movie.

My impression is that most of the negative reviews are critical of the movie because they are looking for something that went beyond its intentions. Definitely, A Saving Private Ryan this movie ain't. But I believe that one should evaluate a movie, as one would any other work of art, for what it is and not for what it should be. Take the love story, for example. It has been criticized by many as being extraneous. It is true that a story about philosophical and ethical questions raised by war (and treated in Ryan) would have been more fitting in the context. As it stands, the life-changing attack could have been replaced by a natural disaster without losing much from the gist of the story. But what would a quintessential great Hollywood production be without a love story? Besides, the beauty of Kate Beckinsale adds to the visual aesthetics. Another possible charge against the movie might be that it tends to glamorize war. That may be true, but again, this movie is not meant to be a propaganda call for arms, but just a few hours of good entertainment. I must admit, though, that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks against the WTC, the reply of William Baldwin's character to a question-that if he ran out of plane fuel, he would `find the sweetest military target and try to kill as many Japanese as possible'- sent chills down my spine because it illustrated how righteous the terrorists must have felt. I suppose the recent events highlight the movie's rudimentary treatment of the philosophical issues and conflicts associated with war, especially if one considers the obvious similarities.

In the end, if you eat this cake to be enlightened by some new insights, you will be disappointed. If you eat it, however, to enjoy it for its own sake, you will.

Jurassic Park III (2001)

Just a Sequel...

[14 October 2001]

Right from the first shot, an aura of genericness that is common to many sequel movies became apparent and persisted through the end. Perhaps it was the lack of touch of Spielberg & Co. that caused this movie to lack a distinctive edge. This is not to say that the authors (not Michael Crichton) did not try to up the ante. The characters do encounter dinosaurs that are bigger and smarter than in the previous movies, but the movie itself seems smaller and dumber. Smaller because we follow the fates of fewer people overall, the action moves through fewer scenarios and the film is over a half an hour shorter than the first two installments; dumber because it stretches its credibility further than the previous movies. Granted, suspension of disbelief comes with the franchise, but there are situations in this movie that violate its internal logic. For instance, only after the group gets stuck on Isla Sorna, the Kirby couple learns that Dr. Grant had never been on that particular Island before. If they did their homework well enough to get the number one paleontologist to accompany them to that destination, then they would have had to come across this detail.

On the positive side, the movie had many suspenseful moments despite having fewer gore scenes, it made a sincere effort to be different by introducing the thematic element of the odd couple and it had quite passable special effects. The effects, though they were fun to watch, did not break any new ground, however (with the possible exception of a fight between two giant carnivores early on). On the contrary, it was surprising to see that this movie probably employed live action effects much more than its predecessors, which, in a sense, is almost a step back.

All in all, this movie will certainly be enjoyable to most fans of the genre, but the fact that this is just a sequel is conspicuous in more than one aspect of the movie.

The Score (2001)

All-around Excellent Heist Movie

[8/10 · 6 October 2001]

Of those movies that belong to a clearly defined category, the ones that stand out often display a high quality and craftsmanship not only in aspects relevant to their own genre, but also in aspects that are important to all movies.

`The Score' is clearly one such movie. It follows Nick (De Niro), a night club owner by day and safe cracker by night who is persuaded by his business partner (Brando) to execute one last big coup before finally retiring. He maintains his uneasy decision, even tough it forces him to contradict his own principles, to work with a young hot shot (Norton) whom he doesn't know nor trust and to face an increasing number of complications as he comes closer to reaching his objective.

As an unmistakable `heist movie', ‘The Score' showcases technically ingenious ways to overcome the obstacles that safeguard the prize coveted by our protagonists. That alone, though, would not be sufficient to raise it above the level of other movies with similar themes. What distinguishes `The Score' is the superb realization of the movie on a number of levels: the cinematography, which for example in the first part of the movie features a number of scenes against gates, portals and doors, as if to portend what the protagonist must face before getting his trophy; the dialogue, which most of the time flowed quite naturally even if a character said something unexpected; the acting, especially by De Niro and by Norton, who was quite credible as a thief impersonating a mentally handicapped janitorial assistant; the simple but effective story line; and the three dimensionality of the characters, who as criminals not beyond trying to trick each other nevertheless retain a high degree of likability.

To be sure, there are a few technical flaws that were essentially ignored. For example, none of the main characters seem to consider that the meeting in the park to purchase the security codes might just be a setup; or that the same `laws of physics' that eventually force the Main Safe door open would have likely crushed or at least deformed the scepter and the container it was in. These are likely no great concern to most viewers, nor do they need to be, as the rest of the plot, particularly with its punch at the end that illustrates the tagline more than makes up for them.

On a final note, this film is proof that movies prominently featuring criminals in their professional activities do not need a high body count to be suspenseful and exciting to an adult audience.