About A Boy 5/26/2002
What’s Good: Hugh Grant really make's it work. 
What’s Not: Grant's character is so much more fun to watch when he's "got nothing to live for." 
Also Try: High Fidelity and A Simple Twist of Fate
Directed by: Chris and Paul Weitz
IMDb Plot: Based on Nick Hornby's best-selling novel, About A Boy is the story of a cynical, immature young man who is taught how to act like a grown-up by a little boy

     The film stars Hugh Grant as that lovable Hornby man-child, and his approach to the ever-sardonic Will Freeman, makes the film glow in playful nastiness. Will doesn’t take anything seriously and as normal friends are talking AT this guy, his “whatever” expressions and flippant answers give Grant the best performance of his career... yes, even Oscar worthy if you ask me. When his married pals tell him, “what is the point in your life?” then ask him to be the godfather of their newborn girl, he explains why he may not be the right man for the job… his reason being that when this newborn girl turns 18, he would probably take her to a bar and “try to shag her.” And he's serious.

     Just as in the book, there is a dual narration (something it seems no Hornby film adaptation can do without). One by a proud-to-be-lazy Will, and the other by an equally lost soul named Marcus. And Marcus, as played by Nicholas Hoult, is not just weird because the costume designer gave him a funny haircut and slapped obtuse glasses on. Far from that. I really felt this character's estrangement and felt even more, the bittersweet empathy for how his eccentricities made his life hell at school (but in a funny, Weitz brothers kind of way). The two begin a friendship after Will, thinking they would be easy prey, starts going to single parent meetings in hopes of hooking up with a female with low self esteem… and one example of this would be Marcus’ bohemian mother and her single mother friend whose pants Will tries to get in by inventing his own colorful imaginary child named Ned. Anyways, after the kid’s depressed single mom-- so well played by Toni Collete-- tries to off herself by swallowing a bottle of pills, the two start an unusual friendship. Don’t worry, this is not as sentimental as it sounds, not at first anyways. Will's initial annoyance with the strange young spaz Marcus is just enough to save this film from being a Bravo pick of the week.

     There are many more amusing subplots; I like, for instance, how Will came to be independently wealthy. You see, his dad apparently wrote a catchy yet irritating Christmas song a few decades back and the royalties off that jingle called “Santas Super Sleigh” keeps Will flush with money, nifty gadgets, and a buttload of fags (I mean cigarettes you bloody pervert). A fun running gag involves Will, and every time he goes out and hears that song, he slips into a self loathing funk. Small aspects like this, a certain slain duck, stolen shoes, funny homemade clothes... are utilized almost as well in the film as they were in the novel.
        Not everything came off this seamlessly though. Two subplots that don’t quite gel are Grant’s forced relationship with Rachael Weisz, a character who serves as “the one” for Will so late in the picture that I thought they had written this character out completely. Another is Marcus' adolescent crush with a punky high school loner, which found so much more cadence when it was in writing-- "They just sat on the pipes together, moving their bottoms when they got too hot, and waited until they felt like going back out into the world" Hornby writes, in a hopeful yet angst ridden passage that seems completely lost to the directors in this isolated case. The relationships that do come off brilliantly are between Will and Marcus, and the one between Marcus and his mum... and on the gravity of those two pairs alone, the film finds a deeply pleasurable groove. 

     By the end centerpiece, when we get to the potentially dangerous denouement where Marcus and Will perform the song "Killing Me Softly" at the grade school talent show in front of a unreceptive crowd, Marcus' mom Fiona, and Will's angry girlfriend who stands a good chance of been won over (Weisz) I felt a swell of cozy emotion. Now, I am the first to fault a film for solving every loose end with one uplifting song, but the moment works. I realized that I don't really care how much Hornby or the Weitz brothers are preaching their normal-doing ways, this moment of community and family is right for these characters. So if you look at the grade you will see that I'm choosing not to look into the matter any further than that.     

     Like Grant’s wonderful 1999 romantic comedy, “Nodding Hill,” “About A Boy” acts as an equally perfect counter programming choice as a film to be released the same week as “Star Wars.” And, sure this new "Star Wars" happened to be a better film, it still doesn’t contain half the heart of this glowing gem. I clapped till it hurt when watching "Star Wars Episode II," and I smiled till it hurt with this one.   

Supplementary Rant #12 (To quote off Weezer's new album: "Get yourself a wife, get yourself a job, your living a dream, don't be such a slob.") 

     So, is Will's carefree life based on some sort of shameful artifice? To the directors, yes. To Hornby, oh yes. To me, no... that is to say, shameful is something arbitrary and cultural. If everybody is doing one thing (working) and Will isn't, therefore he should be seen as a wasteful outsider waiting to be "redeemed" by a mother and her child. And it is this hostile undermining of people who haven't yet conformed, that ultimately makes these stories destined not to be a classic. Rather, they are just great for a quick fix. These people are saying that the true higher calling of a human beings involves them having a baby seats in their car. And when you look at the people creating this one side message, everything becomes illuminated. Like a Greek philosophers proclaiming that the highest state a human can reach on these mortal plains is through the mind (which can only be reached by a philosopher, how about that?), this film ends up spouting off self important notions of "your nobody till somebody loves you" which, no doubt, all the people in this film think they have (Chris Weitz and his buddy Buck, how about that?). Although somewhat critical, there's no denying that I have cherished everything that has come from Hornby (even Fever Pitch) but where is he coming from? No doubt some kind of solipsistic reformation into family life, and the only reason I continue to read this author is because nobody today is capable of writing a more pleasurable first half of a book--so good that the fact that all of his second half's suck, is but a side note.  

Grade: B+

Insomnia 5/24/2002
What’s Good: Al Pacino make it work. 
What’s Not: A killers and mind games go, this archaic detective drama is a bit ho-hum considering "Se7en" came out, like, two hundred years ago. 
Also Try: 1997's Insomnia
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
IMDb Plot: Brought in to investigate the murder of a young girl, a celebrated cop accidentally kills his partner and is blackmailed by a sadistic killer who witnessed it.

     "Insomnia" doesn't stray that from the formula of the looking-for-the-killer, looking-for-clues, genre, and it isn’t exactly cutting edge cinema (sure Pacino couldn’t fall asleep, but I sure was came close) but what sets it apart as a memorable entity, is Pacino's bravura performance... his most subtle ever (with "Devil's Advocate" lying on the other end of that over-acting spectrum). I know, I know, saying Al is great is as out there as saying that Senator Jar-Jar was annoying but the fact that his presence elevated this generic material above mediocrity is saying something. I saw “Insomnia” the much better Norwegian version, and loved it for its inventiveness and dark outlook. So going into an equally drab (and non dumbed down) American remake of a film that I already saw on the day after finals, the odds were against me liking this film… I was more in an “About a Boy” mood. But the minute I saw Al’s tortured eyes, something changed. The droopy and tuckered Prometheus figure, Al, bringing all this dimension to the character that Stellan Skarsgård couldn’t (and Skarsgårdis brilliant in is own right).

     The routine plot offers little more than an “original” HBO action film starring some ex-football playing prick. “Insonmia” is about two big time LA detectives that have been punished by being given a case in hell… Alaska. The case involves the brutal murder of a 17-year-old and the locals cant handle the truth. Al and his partner, Hap (another underused actor, bigg upps for Martin Donovan) are under indictment for past indiscretions and Donovan is about to come clean with internal affairs before he is “accidentally” shot in a thick mourning fog when trying to apprehend the killer (played by the reformed Patchaholic Robbins Williams who, for effect, shouldn't have been listed in the credits... remember Kevin Spacey's name in "Seven?" Nope) in a river valley. One welcome difference is that this film plays with the notions of Hap's death, we are never told if it was an accident or intentional. 
        At this point, Al has a lot on his plate. He must solve a slippery case, deal with the consequence of his own accidental shooting, handle inner diamonds of the past and present; secretly cohort with the killer who saw Al shooting his partner an now is blackmailing him; and all of this with no sleep in a insipid land that never sees the moon. The pressure builds, but Al handles this like a complete pro… few other actors could do this good a job. Again, those eyes.  

     Now, the film is not subtle with its symbolism: the fog represents moral relativity, the sun coming thought the blinds in a harsh ray of light as Al is lying there, wide awake, represents his own damaged conscious (though the sun didn’t force Al’s character didn’t kill any Arabs); the constantly stark light represents the fact that Al has nowhere to hide, not even the darkness… heavy handed, yeah, but all of this is great stuff and the cinematographer (Wally Pfister) puts assembles the look beautifully, to the point where we too feel dead inside. Having gone through my own self imposed sentence of insomnia during finals week, my respect for how the film and Al relayed the sleepless dementia, really hit home.

     So is Nolan “there” yet? No way, but a film like this so soon after a film like “Memento” is a good start… I'd bet that the longer one waits, the more daunting it is to top a masterpiece and time is the worst thing a director should endure, just ask Tarentino (who, hopefully is making his come back with “Kill Bill”). I say bully for Nolan, who threw himself into this film before “Memento” even became a cultural phenomenon. I just wish he could have done that two times in a row. What am I saying, its not like this guy is David Fincher.  

Supplementary Rant #12 (The Katt Effect) 
     The supporting cast is as good as a detective film has been since "Zero Effect." Sure I could sing the praises of two good actors, Robbing Williams and a the surprisingly capable 90210 alum, Hillary Swank, but I need to focus on two other actors. First There’s Nicky Katt, playing a straight shooting Alaskan cop. Since Katt in this film, and I have an obligation to like any film in which the actor appears (Code #1122 in the critic handbook decrees) I was assured from the moment I saw his name that I would be entertained on some level. It seems as though the best thing about George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh producing this film is that Soderbergh gets, like few other directors do (Linklater excepted), what Katt can do for a picture. Even when he’s character is totally forgettable-- as in this film-- he elevates the material in ways I can’t explain. And Katt even gets to tell a joke towards the end of the film that rivals the one he told in "The Limey" which goes, "What's the smartest thing that has ever come out of a woman's mouth?" with the punch line being "Einstein's dick."
Second, is Maura “the machine is still on” Tierney. Every since Tierney’s stint on one of the five best shows in TV history (“Newsradio” thank you very much) I have had my eye on her. Again, I cant explain it but she’s just cool to watch, even when her part isn’t doing that much. Tierney, in this film, plays someone who works in the hotel that Al’s staying at. And even if Tierney is just listing to Al complain about his day, she has this look of haunting sadness that is cute but in a very dark way; if I remember correctly, her line, “There are two people in Alaska: those who were born here and those who came when they are running from something... I wasn't born here,” is the best thing in the movie.      

Grade: B

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones 5/18/2002
What’s Good: Beautiful, fun, and exciting; the best summer movie to come out in years/ Its rare when an American audience actually watches a movie together, but, for me, watching this film with others, I  felt a real sense of community/ I haven’t had this much fun since Cinemax was free.
What’s Not: A less than stellar romantic subplot/ The fact that “Spider-Man” will be considered more successful.
Also Try: This film is more Empire Strikes Back than Return of the Jeddi.
IMDb Plot: Ten years after the events of The Phantom Menace, not only has the galaxy undergone significant change, but so have our familiar heroes Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman), and Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) as they are thrown together again for the first time since the Trade Federation invasion of Naboo.

     Some call "Attack of the Clones" meandering and tedious, and I can understand where that grievance is coming from: The first half of this film does, after all, consists of the Jedi team of Obi-Wan Kenobi and his protégé Anakin Skywalker standing around, protecting Amadala from a prolific bounty hunter and talking about what there going to do next. There’s even a quasi-detective mystery aspect that Obi-Wan’s character gets involved in and it leads him to a planet that that looks something like the original Waterworld; now, this was entertaining but didn't exactly further the story. So, yes, all this talky walkie exposition stuff may have lacked energy for some, but I found it to be enriching and can honestly say that, despite some predictably stale dialogue, I was never bored. What can Lucas do here? Too much action and fastidious critics will call his film mindless. Too much dialogue and it's called a boring mess. No matter what Lucas does, someone is going to take a shot at it. But remember: many of the same people who said the original films sucked are now saying that these new films aren't as good as the old ones. Hum, maybe critics are full of shit.  

     Truth is, I loved every bland minute and here’s why: Never before has the Star Wars universe seemed so palpable and full. We are literally swimming in the galacticly eclectic atmosphere and in the previous films, the surroundings existed only to baby-sit characters as they went from one action set-piece to another (that bar scene in the first star wars, and the Ewok village in the third comes to mind). But here, the gorgeous and crisply rendered environments play a critical part of the story’s essence; all the best realized and best looking ideas come from the capital planet (sorry, I forget the name) where the Jedi headquarters are, and I loved even the small scenes here, like when Obi-Wan walks into professor Yoda’s class which is full of young Jedi’s, for some help on his homework assignment which involves locating Jengo Fett in a star system that has been deleted by some naughty Jedi. 
        But there are so many more sets. Since every new playful scene offers something inventive and delightful to look at, I didn’t care that 90% of them involved actors “phoning in their performances” while, in actuality, they were talking with a green screen behind them. The actors may not be living it up either (Portman looks like she's about to commit seppuku) but at least the film is conferrable with its milieu in the way that it treats the CG backgrounds, not as a cutting edge special effect, but as another well conceived, and well storyboarded location. Its great looking without being too showy. Last week, in my negative “Spider-Man” review, I said “I wondered whose film this really was: director Sam Raimi, the underpaid sap behind the computer doing all the shabby CGI work, or the cheekily gesticulating stuntmen pretending to be Maguire or Dafoe, and acting against a green screen?” and, you know what, that’s true here too but to be honest, most programmers could direct better a better film than George Lucas. Fact is, Lucas was never a great director and Sam Raimi was. Hence the disappointment with that film and pleasure with seeing Lucas Forrest Gumping his way into getting this one right for only the fourth time in his career.      

     Ewan McGregor, a great actor that I figured would be the central figure of the prequels but I was a bit let down when, in the last film, he was relegated to tedious sideline duty that involved hanging out in that stifling airship and talking to Liam Neeson about midiclorians. This time, while Obi-Wan has a more instrumental part as a tough-love father figure to young Anakin, he is still supporting all the way. He bitches at Anney when the young padawone drives the speeder too fast, and tells him to "stay out of trouble" more times then I could count. The Yoda posing pragmatist seems to prefer calm, level headed solutions to situations where Anakin just wants to kick some alien ass. In other words, McGregor is playing a Brit. I still feel that McGregor delivers the best human performance in the film; and for fun, watch for a scene outside of a bar where, for a split second, he pulls off a masterful Alec Guinnes impression.

     There are two major differences from the last quasi-mess, and thankfully there for the better. I know its cliché to say this but I reviled Jar-Jar more than "Pearl Harbor" on a Monday night. So, it goes without saying that I was elated to learn that Jar-Jar not only got the shaft, screen time wise, but Lucas gives Senator Jar Jar (yes, that dolt is a senator now) the ultimate, cosmic fuck-you when he has Jar-Jar foolishly pass a pro-storm trooper bill that will ultimately be a major cause for the whole system being brought down by the dark side… RIGHT ON! Also gone is Jack Lloyd, the awful (even for a child actor) slave who played the last Anakin as sincerely as if his mother put a gun to his head and said “either do this or a Toys-R-Us commercial.” In his place is Haden Christensen. Although I would have preferred a more sinister and better actor (Ryan Philipe), I understand the need to pick up a no name—few ties to the actor's past body of work. Haden was likable in the corny melodrama “Life as a House,” when he played a pissed off teen who regularly defies his dying father, and here the actor is basically doing the same thing. The kid has a natural talent for brooding and bitching; I’ll even go as far as to excuse him for being Canadian. His relationship with Luke and Lea’s future mother, Amadala, played by a lost Natalie Portman, is weak but not enough to significantly impair my experience-- I’d say its at the level of a “Titanic”--  and at least the generically quixotic dialogue, “I wish I could just wish away my feelings but I can't,” and smooches felt more realistic then when those two droids in “Spider-Man” hooked up. Few will get the impression that Amadala and this little whiney punk have realistic chemistry, but then again, he does have a reckless abandon for the force and can, umm, manipulate things from across the room so… I’ll leave it at that.

     And then there’s Yoda. At first I didn’t want him to go digital, but after seeing this film, I didn't miss the moppet as much as I thought I would. Yoda usually sits around dishing out sagely advice in that questionable, backwards idiom (“Too sure of themselves they are” or "Clear your mind must be" etc.) but for the first time ever, the little fucker gets proactive, and, while philosophizing is all well and good, sometimes a child sized light saber does the trick and gives fans one hell of a novelty in one hell of a third act. Clapping will ensue. 
     Besides the whole Yoda thing, the film also closes with a gloriously epic battle between those old “roger-roger” droid things lead by Christopher Lee, an ex-Jedi, foolishly named Count Dooku (any relation to Eliza Dushku?) and the nuvo-fascist storm trooper clones (they are the good guys for now), not to mention a butt load of Jedi masters headed by Mace “Bad Mother Fucker" Windu sporting a cool looking purple light saber. Even the father/son teem of Jango and Boba Fett get in on the action by the end. All of this contributes to a truly staying experience that is more than enough to make me forget the slap-happy romance that just transpired. As all of this went down, I was sitting there, in a theater in Irvine thinking: “What else do I need in a summer movie?” I haven’t felt that since "Mission: Impossible," and that was over five years ago!     

Granted, this latest episode may only work if you give a shit about the "Star Wars" universe and the many smaller details that it is composed of. Those who are going in fresh (all two of you freaks out there) will be as indifferent in the first hour as I was when I trudged through “ Spider-Man. ” Now, I’m no "Wars" freak, but I was thrilled to be able to catch all the nifty foreshadowing to events that will happen in episodes 4, 5, 6, and beyond. This film offers a deluge of handy references (semi-spoilers ahead). For instance, we get to see the prototype storm troopers in their test tubes (cool!); in Freaud's favorite scene, we see that little prick, Anakin, go bugfuck when he vengefully slaughters a village of Tuscan Sandpeople (the term Sandmen is no longer PC) who offed his mum; the start of that infamous bi-play (and I do mean bi) between C3PO (next to Jar Jar, my least favorite character) and R2D2; the clandestine, future evil emperor Palpatine (an always great Ian McDiarmid) warming up to the future big-bad, Anakin by kissing some major ass; and even Yoda’s prophetic sense that Anakin somehow carries the balance in the force— yes, but does Yoda know there’s a mini-Luke/Lea swimming around in the guys gonads? Anyways, all of this great stuff is only made better with the help of that pushy composer, John Williams, bringing back remnants of those unforgettable motifs from the films past. The emperors song, Vader's song, its all back as if to say “remember me?” And that’s what this film is about, remembering and reliving past transitory experiences. The last "Star Wars" was adequate but didn’t really take me anywhere extraordinary. Growing up on this borrowed mythology, a part of me has been searching, ever since, to recapture the facile escapism of my youth. Even though this year’s model offers but a fleeting glimmer of that naive childhood magic, a glimmer was all it took to move a cynical nihilist like me into cinematic enlightenment. This film offers a mighty strong argument on behalf of zoning out and have fun in the Prust sense of the word. 

After looking through this way over long review (I rather do this than study for finals), I realize that perhaps I jumped the gun. Perhaps I loved this film because I wanted, or even needed, to love it. I guess the force loving spaz in me needed this. 

Grade: A
Star Wars Episode I: B+
Star Wars: Return of the Jedi: A+
Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back: A+
Star Wars: A New Hope : A

Spider-Man5/4/2002
What’s Good: As Spider-Man, Maguire is fitting. I was not impressed with this one but I think the franchise has potential. 
What’s Not: A boring film with enough phony, I Love NY patriotism to make Michael Bay weep (the last shot of the film was so over-the-top and pandering that I was embarrassed). Director Sam Raimi delivers his second worst film next to "For Love of the Game." And I really did want to like this film but I have a feeling I'm going to be the only one saying "nay" on this one.  
Also Try: Batman
IMDb Plot: When bitten by a genetically modified spider, a nerdy high school student gains spider-like abilities which he must eventually use to fight evil as a superhero.

Grade: C-