Films reviewed in
February 2002
(Last Updated 02/27/02)
Links to the
films of last year By Greg Douglass
Soul Survivors 2/23/02
What’s Good: k
What’s Not: k
IMDb Plot: j
I can’t believe anyone would dare make a movie this awful. Forget the fact that “Jacobs Ladder” and “Six Sense” (both based on the short story Incident at Owl Creek Bridge) paved the way for dead men walking movies with “surprise” endings, this film is not only void of ___, but absolutely incoherent… and that’s coming from someone, who in the same year, thought the puzzling “Mulholland Dr.” was the best film of the year.
“Soul Survivors” is about four teens who are just about
to go off to college before they get into a horrible car accident. ___ stars as
an albino looking nut case (the out of her league ____) who can’t live down
the death of her dear dear boyfriend (a predictably deadpan Casey Affleck),
whom, while she was driving, died. While on campus, she is menaced visions of
him and her friends (Wes Bently and Eliza Dukshu) are concerned. On and on the
film goes in this unrelenting dreamscape where masked people chase ___ and right
as she is about to be killed, she realized it was all in her head. This happens
at least a dozen times and by the end of the films way too long 85 minute
running time, I was dizzy with anger and ____. Anyone who thinks this film is
scary is confusing fright with dread. The film, which was wisely put on
Artisan’s shelves for a few years, seems to have gotten worse with time. It is
worthless horror film that is so inconsistent that it couldn’t even be called
elusive. The film simply means nothing. Director ___ seems to posses zero talent
as a storyteller (yes even worse than most college filmmakers).
Note: The film also stars Luc Wilson, a good actor who has
somehow managed to appear in his third straight F film after the odious
“Charlie’s Angels,” “Legally Blond” and this disappointment. Wilson
plays a priest who is trying to help ___ (paging Danny Ailleo) but like most
other aspects of this film, it seems unfinished and rough. Wilson broke the F
streak with “The Royal Tenenbaumbs” and that film proves that he maybe needs
to stick with films that at least had a screenplay going into production.
Grade: F
Queen of the Damned 2/22/02
What’s Good: This films shallow nature may reaffirm why Rice’s
verbose books are so addicting, but that doesn’t mean it won’t make
solid rental a few months down the line.
What’s Not: Hard to take
seriously. Nowhere near as awesome as "Interview with the Vampire."
IMDb Plot: The vampire Lestat becomes a rock star
whose music wakes up the queen of all vampires.
What’s so disappointing is not the fact that this is a shaky B-movie (after seeing “Collateral Damage” my crap detector was still in good working order) but the fact that what could have been the James Bond of vampire flicks has turned into what is essentially a shiny joke with plastic fangs and novelty blood. Director Michael Rymer has sabotaged the franchise with his untapped vigor and neophyte skills. For now, that day-walker, Blade, remains the vamp lovers only big screen hope.
I don’t know what’s more eerie,
Alias acting or the fact that her brother dubbed the late singers voice because
of how bad her accent was. (I couldn’t stop but to think of how or when her
brother realized he sounded just like his sister.) I’m going with that whole
brother sounding like a chick thing, although, to see Aaliyah trying to look
menacing is about as much of a stretch as seeing her trying to act love struck
along side Jet Lee—talk about B-movie territory. Besides a ridiculous costume,
every time this villain opened her mouth, I kept picturing this Rupal looking
mo-fo behind glass trying to sound like a chick, while at the same time actually
trying to mimic someone who couldn’t act to begin with-- how hard can it be to
sound like a vampire? Just throw in a sudo-English twang with a hint of arrogance.
Sorry movie people, but bad acting + bad dub don’t cancel each other out. And
sorry again but Aaliyah fans will be equally bummed to learn that this lady,
playing the big bad, is only in the film for a dozen or so minutes.
Aaliyah is “playing” a cranky, age-old vamp queen who has
just awoken from her eternal (well, not so eternal as it seems) slumber thanks
to the vampire Lestat's mad skillz as a musician (don't ask) and is mad as
hell—though the film doesn’t really care (or need) to explain why because it
would get in the way of all the mindless action and cheesy dialogue. So, even if
the film doesn’t explain why this queen wants to kill everybody in sight, and
why other kindly vampires want to stop her, the final nail in the coffin is that
the personality of this supposed menace doesn’t relay the necessary amount of
malice needed for someone who wants to destroy the earth.
The film centers on Stuart Townsend (who seems to be a REAL actor, but its hard to tell from just looking at this film) playing the most iconic vampire since Dracula (though the slacker vampire Spike is catching up). Up until the last minute, Wes Bently was pegged play the Lestat role but turned it down (he probably got around to reading the script); I imagine that really could have worked but we’ll never know. Making due with what’s left over, I must say that Townsend does justice to the grandeur of the brat prince—lord knows he’s got the characters cocksure, pretty boy look down pat--- but he’s not as sexually ambiguous and powerfully lustful as Cruse was in the infinitely more memorable Rice adaptation, “Interview with the Vampire;” a film oozing with both atmosphere and the greatest heavy handed acting available at the time. Still, I could totally stand seeing the non-blond Townsend reprise this role, that is, if anyone is stupid enough to attempt a third Rice film.
One of the most rewarding themes from the books is that these creatures are tortured and conflicted shadows; “Gods unwanted children” (who are almost at the same cosmically fucked level of Gods other unwanted, Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore.) That dark spirit may work in theory, but are any of the characters in this film really tortured? Ha! Yeah right. All that serious stuff would, like, make those teen all sad and stuff. For a majority of the time the vampires of this move are simply walking fashion adds with crooked smirks.
Other half-formed characters include
Marius (a welcome Vincent Perez) who is like the wise father figure to Lestat;
and there's Marguerite Moreau who plays Jesse, a member of a not so secret order
of paranormal physic detectives called the Talamaska, who must has a soft spot
for bi-vamp rockers. Jesse Reeves is Lestat’s main love interest in the film
and, although much more animated than Aaliyah, she’s about as lively as all
those books she’s surrounded by in the Talamaska’s extensive library. Other
carryovers from the books include the sagely David Tolbot (compared to the book,
a much younger and much more arid Paul McGann) as a paranormal scholar; Maharet
(Lina Olin) as a secretive mother vampire; and Pandora. As a fan, it was nice
recognizing these faces on the big screen and even nicer was the bitching about
how "no side character was done justice," that soon followed.
To hear Rice describe New Orleans circa 18th-century, or the fall of ancient Rome,
is to understand why this stuff is so popular with the ladies. The vampire chronicles
are so heavily imbedded into the popular vampire ethos that, besides being a pop
culture phenomenon, is a valid topper to the age old mythology. And while campy
Vampires were all we knew pre Interview, Rice has reformed and, other
than gaying up the fictional stigma, she has turned it into an absorbing soap
opera capable of gravity and romanticism I never thought possible in relation to
them nasty bloodsuckers.
Rice's Last book was among her
best. At this point she writes for fans who know the score, and each book is
simply a continuation with vacillating time periods. In many cases, her books
are like "Rashomon" in the way that each book might tell of incidents
from multiple characters POVs. In The Vampire Armand, for example, the
lead character describes the fiery undoing of Marius and in her latest, Blood
and Gold, we’re given a first hand account of what Armand saw in the
previous book, and a post script as to where Marius ended up. As you can see,
its easy to get distracted with this addicting shit.
Back to the present, this film seems
to be trying hard to be hip with its “Matrix” like bravado. And my grade
reflects the fact that, at moments, it comes close to being quite cool. But
alas, the film is inconsistent in its dishing out of the fun. The music by Jonathan
Davis of Korn (along with Richard Gibbs) has got to be the best part—so much
so that I had a half smile on my face in that obligatory scene where the heavy
walks (in super slow-motion) away from the fiery bar she just incinerated; and
all of this set to a soaring rock score. And the scenes where Townsend must
pretend to be a rock star, singing and mouthing the words to Davis’ tunes,
were actually pretty accurate in the context of the film. I believed this
character and his music was rock star worthy, and that’s a huge bonus. Other
cool scenes are made so buy great art direction and cinematography: I liked a
scene where Lestat and Marius share a quiet moment while sitting on a scaffold
behind a huge billboard of Lestat's band. Add to that an exhilarating final time
lapsed shot and you got yourself a near hit.
After hearing that this film was to
be sent to direct-to-video graveyard until the films co-star, Aaliyah, died, my
expectations, going into the show, were flat lining. I expected utter trash and
instead got beautiful garbage.
Grade: C
Anne
Rice's Queen of the Damned novel: B+
Anne Rice's Blood and Gold: A-
Hart’s
War 2/17/02
What’s Good: For the second week in a row, the villain is more interesting
than the hero. Marcel Iures does a great job as the complex Commandment. I was
grateful that he wasn't over-the-top.
What’s Not: After a promising start,
the film goes limp with a lame court case instead of delivering what could have
been an elaborate escape film.
IMDb Plot: A law student becomes a lieutenant
during World War II, is captured and asked to defend a black prisoner of war
falsely accused of murder.
“Heart’s War” is not the
balls-out, trench foot, missile dropping war picture that “Saving Private
Ryan” was, this one is more like a contained prison picture set against the
backdrop of a giant war. Although that is not a novel notion, prisoner pictures
are usually less risky than the grand ones with, yawn, a message. From the
classic “The Great Escape” to “Stalag 17,” “Hart's War” may be the
most realistic looking WWII POW drama to come out of the bunch (the camp in
“Great Escape” looked like a fun vacation resort where bachelors got to play
cards and drink booze). The picture sports some great visuals with
cinematography by Alar Kivilo (who did a great job photographing the underrated
film, "The Glass House"), and gorgeous art direction by Martin Kurel.
The dark earth tones, harsh blues, and decaying wood helped to set a nice mood.
On the flip side to the film’s visual realism, oddly enough, is the fact that
the "Hart's War" plays out like a ludicrous (and boring) melodrama.
Bruce Willis may be a real life ass hole, but I feel he disserves more credit as a dramatic actor. After “Unbreakable,” this guy proved to be as credible as someone like Tom Hanks, and actor with 1/20 the amount of range that Willis has. This time around, Willis plays William McNamara, a captured Colonel who is the secretive and harsh leader of a caged battalion. As a prisoner, this man is allowed much autonomy by his Teutonic captors. So much so that at times, he seems to be running the camp. McNamara seems to be making many (perhaps too many) life or death decisions regarding his men and possible escape. Problem is that when we do find out what Willis was up to, the details are as murky as that crappy green soup the Germans served to the soldiers. I hate to say it, but even an animated film like "Chicken Run" contained more logic.
Willis, as with his role in “The Siege,”
remains a back seat driver. Besides the title, the trailer and billboards did a
good job of covering up the fact that Willis doesn't really have much to do in
this story-- all of his actions occur off screen apparently. The real lead is
Colin Farrell, and he almost saves the film from tedium. Farrell plays
Lieutenant Tommy Hart, a recent high ranking addition to the muddy POW camp.
Willis and co. are skeptical of his loyalty due to the fact that the Germans
released him from interrogation way to soon. Hart may be a rat, but at least he
has a conscious. Farrell is on screen 90%
of the time and he seems like a strong actor that is obviously struggling with a
thinly written character. This guy, like most others in the film, didn’t seem
to have filled in personalities. I never got the impression that anybody in the
film was actually thinking or feeling anything on the subsurface. This is routine
stuff but Farrell has tremendous promise as a leading man; he just needs a good
script.
Some of the cast members had real
promise though. What could have been an interesting development was Lieutenant
Lincoln Scott (Terrence Dashon Howard) as a black airmen who is sent to the camp
and treated better by the Germans than his fellow prisoners. He is charged with
murder and goes on trial but the details of the case was trite and shallow.
What's not trite, though, was Marcel Iures as the complex German Commandant who
raises valid questions of Americans who thinks their culture pure, yet their
treatment towards other races in their own country remains far from perfect. I
also liked a scene between Iures and Willis where he talks about his dead son.
This unique German character should have gotten a lot more screen time in this
film and after his role as a relentless terrorist in “The Peacemaker”
(playing the best villain of 1997) I have a feeling that Inures, like Willis, or
even Farrell, is capable of just about any kind of role.
Director Gregory Hoblit, who did a fine job with the father/son sci-fi drama “Frequency,” may not be affluent at depicting war or needless carnage, but up until this film, his sense of character and surprise was astonishingly in tune. Besides “Frequency,” this guy also directed the ultra cool “Fallen” with Denzel playing a cop chasing an evil spirit. Both those films had stories that twisted and turned with intrigue and this film is bland by comparison. I figure, if in this decade, your gong to make another war picture it would be nice to approach it from a fresh angle. And after hearing who was directing the film, my hopes were slightly dashed by what I just witnessed.
“Enemy at the Gates” was by no
stretch of the imagination, a brilliant film, but it showed us snipers in Stalingrad
and I can honestly say that besides learning a lot. That film was entirely
gripping. That being said, “Hart’s War” smells way too much like a
exploitation genre picture; part soppy prison picture, part cheesy courtroom
drama, and a whole lot of serious faced, 12 O’clock shadowed close-ups with
vain nazi soldiers. McQueen and his baseball glove are sorely missed?
Grade: C-
Collateral
Damage 2/9/02
What’s Good: The film may suck but Schwarzenegger
is still cool.
What’s Not: A colorless mess of an action film. An otherwise
decent villain is utterly waited.
IMDb Plot: Firefighter Gordon Brewer is plunged
into the complex and dangerous world of international terrorism after he loses
his wife and child in a bombing credited to Claudio "The Wolf" Perrini.
If one thousand nuns got raped and a week later a harrowing movie about nine hundred and ninety nine nuns getting raped happens to be released (I’d cast Cameron Diaz as the lead nun, but that's just me) I would give it an A+ if the movie disserved it. Makes sense, right? But someone with an agenda like the LA Times critic Kenneth Turnan, would pan it, if only to sound significant and noble. Many self important critics think what there doing and what they say is important when they let visceral emotions marshal their opinions; forgetting the number one factor, which is they are only writing about movies for christ sake. I'm growing so tired of reading contemporary criticism that I'm beginning to think that the better critic may the soulless one who live in a bubble. After reading endlessly shallow, critic friendly lines like "'Collateral Damage' is a relic from an earlier if not kinder gentler time," I give up.
In recent times, Turnan, along with
just about every other major American critic has lost his or her objectivity and for a
critic that’s bad news. Since last year, they watch movies through different
eyes and although that may be a perfectly natural response, it annoys me. It’s
sad when movies and real time politics get confused as something that’s interrelated.
Ideally, a film's quality should speak for itself. But if that were true,
"Fight Club" would have been a critical and box office success.
That being said, what do I think
about “Collateral Damage,” a film buried in comparisons to recent terrorist
events? Well, first off, it is a FICTIONAL Arnold Schwarzenegger action film
about a fictional terrorist that blows up a fictional fireman’s family, along
with nine others fictional civilians. While the film shouldn’t have been
delayed this long (I would have loved to put it in my ten worst films of 2001)
it would have been awful no matter what happened in the news. It's a joyless
boor of a movie that's sucks no matter where you are or when you see it.
I have fond memories of all those Schwarzenegger
films where he becomes a one-man army and takes the law into his own hands. But
that’s just what they are, memories. After practically being raised on those
kind of films ("Predator" and "Total Recall" never get old) it may be time to move on. The man is passé at this point and his only
hope is doing sequels to the films of his that once clicked-- besides a third
"Terminator," I would love to see another "True Lies" and
"Total Recall." But for the time being, the man really looks tired in
this particular picture. And even if the honeymoon of nuvo Schwarzenegger films is
over, I felt that his last one, “6th Day,” was an exceptional
triumph of cheesy sci-fi action. A great looking film that brought Arnold into
an updated, non-eighties era and managed to contain an inventively funny
storyline about cloned humans run amuck (his puns hadn’t been this funny since
“Commando”).
What is Arnold doing in a quasi-serious film like this
anyways? “Collateral Damage”
falls short of the quality mark because it forgets that the star's personality
only works when he’s the great big joke of the film. James Cameron’s “True
Lies” was worked for me because Arnold played a self-aware spy with a family that
also couldn’t take him seriously. Plus, it was
stylish and a nicely paced action film. This film may move along quickly, but
Arnold takes his character way too seriously and from an ascetic standpoint,
it's ugly all over. The Columbian jungle has never looked this dull.
The film was directed by the great action veteran Andy Davis (he did "The Fugitive" and "Under Siege") and he brings along a tired formula that involves the main character infiltrating another enemies headquarters, slapping a bomb together for reasons that are unclear (this way way way over trained fireman should have been with a swat team, that at least pays better), then escaping and/or outrunning the fire ball from that bomb he just detonated. Yawn. Arnold, like Davis' other hero's, Harrison Ford Steven Segal and even Keanu Reeves (from the beyond bad Davis film called "Chain Reaction"), are all essentially out to clear their names, then thwart the villains evil plans, and along the way, make their lives a living hell by acting as a wrench in the works. Arnold, the scowling fireman not only manages to sneak into an anti-American Columbia (it cant be that easy, can it?), takes on the whole drug cartel without even needing use a gun, and just for the fuck of it, stumbles into the naive terrorist contingency and blows the shit out of them too. As the wife of the big bad terrorist points out, both hero and villain are "consumed by hate, driven by rage." And that would have to be true for a "normal guy" to go to so much trouble for some sort of half assed reaction revenge. Yet the anti-morals of this film is nowhere near as cool as something modern like "Payback" or "Way of the Gun" because Arnold's anger is all too forced-- Mel Gibson's character seemed genuinely empty inside so he really had nothing to loose by breaking the law. Arnold's character switches to fury mode way to easily. I need more than a close-up shot of squinty eyes.
There’s not much more to say other than I was bored all throughout a picture full of explosions, double
crossings, grenade tossing, ax throwing, and ear biting. The
80’s action formula is officially dead with this one.
Grade: D
Ghost
World 2/4/02
What’s Good: Freaks laughing at freaks, now that’s my kind of
movie.
What’s Not: The film and comic book from which it was based, may
have been too afraid to hit upon any solid point regarding the final act and
future of some characters. This I suppose was deliberate.
IMDb Plot: After High School ends Enid strays
away from her plans when she meets Seymour, a musically obsessed middle-age man.
There’s a romantic relationship in this film, but it’s not like your normal Hollywood relationship. Thora Berch plays a misanthrope who has just graduated high school and her life seems to be going nowhere. All I need to say is that my proclivities for cinematic losers, slackers, and aimless asses dictate that I liked this movie on principle alone.
One day, as a prank she responds to a man looking for his
long lost love in a penny saver type newspaper, and sets up a meeting with him
only to watch is disappointment. Berch and her equally unimpressed with life
friend (nicely played by Scarlet Johansen; much better here than in “American
Rhapsody”) joyfully watch this man arrive for a meeting that will never
happen. Cruel, yes, but these girls are not exactly careless wantons. They too
are frightened and frustrated with life. And
that hatred is a byproduct of their fear. Anyways, the man leaves in a fit of disappointment
(well not really but for the purposes of this review, he does) and the girls
follow him home… and to make a long story short, Berch works up the courage to meet
this lonely wreck, and becomes really good friends with him. There’s something
intriguing about him and we see her fascination even if we describe exactly
where the attraction is. Something is fascinating about this personality. That man is played by Steve Bucemi, and he is
beyond good here. Busemi is playing against type (no, he’s not a crazy blackmailer
who ends up in a wood chipper) and his future as a character actor shines bright
with this role.
Later on, when a down on her luck Berch asks
Bucemi why he never made a pass at her, he says, “I couldn’t imagine you’d have any interest in me
except as an amusingly cranky eccentric curiosity.” This is a thoughtful
transaction in a thoughtful film that’s adorned in sadness and darkly morbid humor. The
film is not a shallow freak show like the similar “Welcome to the
Dollhouse.” These people are hurt but at least the are able to laugh at
everybody else including themselves. I saw purpose in these characters lives,
and the director really cares about them. R Crumb would be proud for the characters
in this film inhabit some of the same qualities he did in the amusing
documentary on his live called “Crumb” directed by none other than Terry
Zigoff, who also added his odd flavor to this film.
Bucemi has long been due for critical acclaim and general respect other than being called that funny looking guy with the fucked up snagle teeth (he should have gotten a nomination for “Fargo”). And if this role earns him an Oscar nod, I figure it’s better late then never because the movies wouldn’t be the same without this guy around—even when he’s in movies like “Con Air” and “Domestic Disturbance.” In the films world, we care about this character but he is not all soft and sympathetic. Bucemi finds just the rite tone and his desperation is not overdone. He’s not a puppy dog, he’s a fleshed out guy with a few social quirks—a finny scene has him screaming at a family slowly crossing the street in front of his car. “Why don’t you have a few more kids!” he screams. The complexity of this character makes it impossible to simply call him a dork or a looser.
Great as the Bucemi is, in the end, I think the real
cred should go to Thora Berch. I loved her in this movie because she has an
uncommon valor and dark spirit. She’s not a chipper young thing like the
exasperating phony that is Kirsten Dunst; and she’s not the annoying apathetic
Darla from that MTV cartoon. I hope Berch’s upcoming career doesn’t find her
doing best friend duty as Jeanine Garafallo ended up, and this film is good
insurance against that path. Berch is not beautiful but she’s strong and best
of all, memorable. All I can say is that she is capable of true greatness if
projects like this keep coming her way.
Throughout the picture I couldn't
help but noticed that a lot of "Crumb" (the story about an eccentric
comic book artist) was in this film. His distain for suburban
umplesentrys like power wires; a town being “taken over by malls;” and even
broader issue like “the decline of western civilization” by way of the fact
that all towns and their normal citizens exist in this sort of ghost world where
everybody and everything seems to be on autopilot. Soulless commercial
establishments, and confident naïfs are aplenty and this is a powerful visual theme. If you’ve seen
both of Zigoff’s films, you’ll know what I mean. Anyways, all this skepticisms comes
trough in many scenes and in many characters and I was grateful to be able to
indulge in an alternative to normal teen movies. Like “Election,” “Ghost
World” will be around for a while because it understands all the rich
storytelling that can be found in angry teenagers.
The film ends with no resolutions; no answers; and I had
the fight the urge to be angry with it. With packed shots of lonely bus stops
and aimless busses, Berch’s life remains in limbo and her destination remains
unknown. To be honest, after seeing the film I had to give it a night to sit
with me before I even thought of assigning a grade. I usually get an immediate
sense of where a film stands with me and “Ghost World” was teetering between
brilliance, and slight disappointment. I certainly liked the film enough to
recommend it, but I also realized that vagueness is not always related to
meaning.
Grade: B+