Doogie D Reviews

Sin City (2005)

empty, empty, empty

[5/10 · 2 April 2005]

SIN CITY is an okay movie, but bothersome. It's just empty, vigilante nihilism, basically, except for Bruce Willis' character. It's a set-'em-up, knock-'em-down kind of movie -- establish protagonist, establish villain, establish heinous deed(s), kill villain heinously; next story. The three main stories which make the lion's share of the movie are also pretty similar, so it gets repetitive and feels too long. There are lots of acts of violence, but for the most part they're very cartoonish, so we can squirm happily and know that nothing's really at stake -- certainly not our notions of the world or anything.

This is the part that bugs me: stuff like this and Kill Bill are these constructs, these exercises, just as much as something like Wimbledon or Summer Catch are. It doesn't bother me so much that we as an audience will go see a fluffy romantic comedy as it does that the better directors in the machine are now cranking out vengeance scenarios with witless but kind of inventive brutality, and that's our popcorn. I'm not thrilled with what that says.

There's nothing there; it's not like the constructions of, say, the Coens or Kubrick, which you can argue are cold, but at least are recognizably informed by life and thought; this stuff is informed by movies, basically, so you get hallmarks of characters without any fleshing out which really lets you get lost in that world. There's not a lot to think about when it's over (except how empty it is). And I know the argument against wishing for more is "it's just entertainment." Well, okay: then that turns it back to us. What are we seeking out as entertainment? But, yeah -- I bought my ticket, so I contributed. I should have gone with my instinct.

Yep -- it looks good, but that pleasure disappears pretty quickly. It's not Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow -- which was ridiculous in a whole other way -- but it suffers a similar effect: good technology just can't take the place of a gripping story. If this movie had been as cleverly plotted and populated as, say, Blood Simple, and we actually gave a damn about the characters except as action figures, it could've been a masterpiece; it had all the elements except for some bad acting here and there (Jessica Alba, and especially Michael Madsen, who is just awful).

It's just sad.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

Poor, poor movie: poor characters, poor plot, poor writing, miserable direction

[3/10 · 10 July 2004]

I'm not amazed that people enjoy this -- there's always been a market for lowbrow entertainment with a sheer poverty of imagination (as opposed to lowbrow entertainment which really soars); still, it's almost an affront that the name "Kevin Smith" and the word "genius" are sometimes found together.

JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK is soulless comedy, almost entirely devoid of wit (that prologue with the two as babies saves the day, in this case). Comedy without wit gets trotted out anew for each generation, so maybe one can forgive thirteen year olds who don't realize that this sort of pairing -- the hyper-verbal lead coupled with the silent but sage second banana -- is a conceit older than Shakespeare. It's been done to death, folks, and it truly does take a genius to make it work for just walk-on parts; Preston Sturges himself would have been hard-pressed to squeeze 90 minutes out of it.

Nevertheless, these are the central characters, so let's see what they're up to. Ah yes: an entire movie devoted to making the mediocre feel superior to the mediocre. Lots of self-referential back patting going on. Inferior direction that could only aspire to blandness. Imagine Ed Wood stretching out to three or four takes, and you get the idea.

Gerry (2002)

Fine, haunting movie

[8/10 · 16 June 2004]

Boy, I like this movie.

Two guys out on a hike get lost. They're less than ill-prepared for anything like an overnight outing, and they make one huge "gerry" -- their slang for a mistake -- and they get so, so lost. The movie simply follows them as they succumb (a bit too easily) to nature. There's a bit more to it than that, but I won't spoil anything.

Some people refer to "the title character" (both men are named Gerry); I couldn't help wondering if the movie's name was a noun or a verb.

I don't see it as pretentious at all. It's so simple that I think the effort to read anything oversized into the movie is probably the stroke of death. Does it have to mean anything? Aren't people interesting enough anymore? If Bergman can make a chamber piece like SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (tons of dialogue and largely medium or close shots of actors' faces), why can't we have a story about two guys who screwed up and found themselves dying of exposure?

This is a movie that insists on slowing things down to life-pace -- not to say real time. But I thought it captured boredom and drudgery so well that I was constantly engaged. I like the long silences of two folks who know each other (and perhaps a little resentful of one another) and don't have to banter. Most humans, in real life, don't try to be "on" all the time for some imagniary movie-going public; I think it's great that we aren't insulted or asked to be charmed by our desperate Gerry's "witty banter."

-- not that the film is without humor, either. There's an oft-mentioned long take in which one Gerry, stranded on a rock, is coaxed into jumping. The camera doesn't move, and the scene is a masterpiece of economy, suspense, and wit. It's a beautiful mini-movie inside the larger film, and, as mentioned elsewhere, is alone worth the price of admission.

I think the best way to watch GERRY is to let it dictate its own terms and not demand that it function the way movies usually do. Meet the film on its own terms, and I hope you're as riveted as I was.

8 out of 10.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Pretty good film; likely to be murky for the uninitiated

[5/10 · 26 February 2004]

Judged as a film alone, The Passion of the Christ is wanting: there's not a lot of context for why this man is submitting to martyrdom. Yes, a shrouded figure whispers that "one man can't take on the sins of the world alone," but that's about all the viewer gets to hang onto for the two-hour ride.

Judged as a spiritual piece -- well, it strikes me as much more religious than spiritual. It's probably going to be remembered as a pretty effective footnote for illustrating, to some extent, the pain that Jesus or many other political prisoners have gone through; but there's not much of a sense that this man is really anything More. So when Pilate utters the crucial line, "Behold The Man," it sounds like Jesus is being given Honorable Mention in Scourging, since he survives an awful lot without much of a squawk.

In Scripture, Pilate's utterance is much, much more resonant. We have the sense that this Jesus, by the governor's estimate, is the very epitome of perfection of Man, and that includes the spiritual aspect which is part of our fabric. Pilate sensed that this Jesus truly did have it all, so to speak, and he was amazed.

Scripture brings me to another problem I have with the film. Why, when time and again someone sets about to "get it right," do they continue to add to the text? This film is littered with scenes which do not appear in the Gospels, if, indeed, in Scripture at all; it seems to me that artistic gifts of faith like this movie actually show a marked LACK of faith for not trusting that God has told the story the way He intended it to be set down. Christians, time and again, try to "help" God by fudging details of what happened, what was said, or "the hard sayings." -- What they really need is to heed the great editor mark, "stet."

For God's sake -- if this is for God's sake -- can we quit adding the jots and tittles to the whole of our faith?

I'd give this a C+.

The Rules of Attraction (2002)

Dull, and hardly as provocative as the filmmakers must have hoped

[3/10 · 17 October 2002]

I sat through RULES OF ATTRACTION and thought it was very, very poor. It's an adolescent idealization of sorts of college sexual experience, barely connected to reality. The characters are so unenlightened and, within the film, unmotivated, that it's really difficult to care; there are plenty of despicable characters in films out there which don't undermine sympathy toward the filmmakers' vision, so it's more than a bit disingenuous to argue that if someone doesn't like the movie in spite of its anti-heroes (ahem), that there's a generation gap or they're Missing The Point. Maybe folks who DO like this film are missing the point: there's a soggy symbolism at work in this movie ("Viktor: The test came back positive!" everyone at the door fails to register), and a cheapness in motivation which undercuts any good will the movie almost gets going. The girl's suicide is the result of myopic obsession, and we never noticed her because the film didn't either, until it's too late (and if that implies OMNISCIENT UNDERSTANDING or EMPATHY or TRAGEDY, then why are we spending so much time with the three leads?); people who are barely even introduced suddenly feel the world will come apart if their lust is unrequited; and the final stroke betraying the Lauren character as equally unaware as the rest of these folks is either a crime pulled on her character or a revelation that her performance wasn't so hot after all, since absolutely NOTHING pointed toward Lauren as delusional. Undoubtedly the film was supposed to be something of a bludgeoning sledgehammer, and instead it's more like being asked to watch as a second-year film student (I'll give Avary that much) performs with a moist towel. The worst film I've seen this year next to FULL FRONTAL. Pseudo-hip fetish-worship regurgitation. 3.5 out of 10.

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

The worst Star Wars film to date

[3/10 · 30 June 2002]

I'm stunned that so many people like this movie. Lucas has linked a few psuedo-set pieces together, drained all of his actors of the least shred of charisma, and used horrible dialogue, motivation, and plot advances as the mortar. Yes, an awful lot of the dialogue from the earlier movies was poor, but folks like Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, Alec Guiness, James Earl Jones, and Peter Cushing made it work. Here, none of the story works -- everything is absolutely on the nose.

SPOILERS: There are huge problems with the characters behaving inconsistently with the framework. Amidala needs to go into hiding and so hands her vote over to the one person who has proved most unreliable in the past? Anakain was a fiesty but basically okay kid in PHANTOM MENACE, and now ten years of the universe's most elevated spiritual training has turned him into an insufferable, reblious brat? Obi-Wan stumbles onto a planet which is hatching a conspiracy, and the aliens basially just lay out the welcome mat and guide him through everything, entirely unsuspicious of his obvious ignorance? -- after they haven't seen any money or had any communication with their employer in ten years? Yoda suddenly turns into a rabid ferret, incredibly agile and limber, only to sigh and return to limping about with his walking stick when the fight is over? Monsters just happen to attack the prisoners' chains first, freeing them for a fight?

I could go on and on. This was the first Star Wars movie in which I was actually bored the entire time. The only thing that kept me from walking out was that so many people had written about the last thirty minutes or so being incredible. It wasn't, except in terms of hubris. RETURN OF THE JEDI was a silly, hammy mess, but it had drive; PHANTOM MENACE was terribly flat, but it was at least interesting; ATTACK OF THE CLONES is empty, soulless, and visually packed in a way which cries desperation.

There is one moment of wit -- one. Obi-Wan encounters a man in a bar selling deathsticks (subtle, eh?). He performs his mind trick on the man, sending him home to rethink his life. That was funny, and that was all.

Chasing Amy (1997)

Not bad, but still sad

[6/10 · 7 November 2001]

It's hard for me to remain objective about this movie. Kevin Smith has his legion of followers, and the why of it is inexplicable. His direction is largely of the point-and-shoot variety which some do well but he does not; his occasionally-good dialogue indicates that he is much smarter than he allows his movies to be; the acting all seems to be winking at the audience in a manner of pseudo hip self-congratulation. Lots of talking is done about emotions we're supposed to be seeing rather than emotions actually emoted. (For instance, Holden and Banky, we're told, have been friends for ages -- a companionship Banky says they've been "building;" I never believed there was any depth beyond an actor-fake repartee -- Smith and Lee were entirely unconvincing as soul mates.)

So there were a few chuckles and now and again a nicely turned phrase or thought. But mainly I found myself angry that this filmmaker is fashionable and admired. I'm angry that this attitude -- being intelligent but uncommitted to that intelligence; instead, glibness rules -- is popular, considered desirable and hip. Yep, I'm upset because I write rings around this guy but can't land a deal. There you go. Which makes my criticism no less valid.

Rating: 6 out of 10. Objectively.

Winston (1987)

Great looking exercise

[5/10 · 20 October 2001]

"Winston" is a terrific looking black and white short Soderbergh shot, and is a sort of dry run of themes which arrived full blown in SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE. Here, the exploration is a little awkward, and the strained relationship isn't quite believable; there's not much chemistry between the characters in the sense that they have a shared history. It's better than a curiosity, however, and most young directors would be pleased to have this as a calling card, however oblique it turns out to be.

The Deep End (2001)

Stretches plausibility 'til it breaks

[5/10 · 26 August 2001]

This is the story of a woman who manages a coverup for her son at great expense; this is set in motion by a decision in which she must choose to cover tracks or report an incident to the police. The problem is that the tracks are neither hers nor her son's, and we are expected to empathize with a woman who essentially covers up an accident, and then the coverup spirals out of control. I sat the whole time wishing she'd simply been honest and brave enough to let the incident stand as fact. Instead, she comes off as rather stupid, or at least horribly foolish.

The movie's subject matter is pretty unpleasant -- a 30 year old man has been having sex with her perhaps-of-legal-age boy (the movie skirts this issue, but we know he's ready for college) -- and the mother can't bear for her son's ever-absent father to find out. I can understand a mother's disgust at being shown video footage of what a criminal calls his "blossoming sexuality," but I simply never believed that a mother would commit some of the acts which she does to protect his privacy or reputation or whatever.

Indeed, the audience is insulted: The son is portrayed mainly as a simpering fellow, his eyes always on the verge of tears; his lover is a club owner with enough vanity to drive a swell car and wear nice clothes, but apparently pride not sufficient to remind him of the occasional brushing and flossing. In short, no one needed to yank my chain to make me feel this boy is puppy dog vulnerable and incapable of facing adulthood ramifications of his actions; no one needed to make sure the older lover was slimy enough that I'd be aware of all levels of inpropriety. It's always much more interesting if characters are played against type, but instead we have a club owner who, in every exchange with the boy, must address him with a pet name like "Precious." (But never the same pet name -- we'd hate to risk characterization.)

I had a surge of hope when the mother confronted the blackmailer with the reality of her situation -- how she was going to "try harder" to raise the $50,000 he wanted to steal from her -- and for a little bit, the movie kicked into a nice gear. Suddenly it was fresh and plausible.

But not for long. I won't reveal the ending, but it's like the anti-deus ex machina, even allowing lips to gently brush one another in the wake of tragedy. There were titters in the Oakland theater at the contrivance, and audience members were sort of looking around -- "Do you believe this?"

No, I didn't. I believed a few minutes of the story -- the acting generally is not the problem here -- but those few minutes just weren't worth it. As overrated as GHOST WORLD, this one will soon be forgotten. 5/10

Ghost World (2001)

Unsatisfying story of detatchment

[5/10 · 13 August 2001]

GHOST WORLD could have been so much more than it is; quite a disappointment.

Enid and Rebecca are disaffected young ladies facing (or not facing) life after high school graduation (or near-graduation). Quietly superior to the strip mall folk around them, they sit through life sort of enjoying kitsch and irony. Fine.

The movie fails because it centers on Enid, who so stubbornly remains detatched that she can't even engage with those she wants to engage with: she can't follow through on a crush and instead terrorizes her object of affection; she can't commit to as simple a dream as sharing an apartment with her best friend; and the man whom she calls her hero she ignores as soon as she beds him.

The problem is that the film remains almost as detatched as Enid, who eventually drifts off into her ghost world of non-commital. There's a terrific film of great humor and pathos to be mined from this subject; GHOST WORLD, however, is not that film.

The Score (2001)

Fine heist movie with a very satisfying ending

[7/10 · 22 July 2001]

Heist movies can be tricky things, because the audience for the most part really can't get ahead of the characters, and the pros involved really need to have access to professional knowledge, as if this really is their job. So, in "The Conversation," (not a heist movie, but bear with me please), you really believe that Harry Caul knows surveilence equipment intimately and he's worked the job for years. You believe the guys in "High Fidelity" have worked that counter and knit together as a dysfunctional unit. That's the touch which finally sells the audience.

I believed De Niro, Norton, and Brando here. I could see that they knew their work. It was terrific to see the practical application of knowledge in preparing the heist. How do you know you can break into a safe? Build a scale model! How do you know you can smuggle necessary equipment into the building? Plant a harmless-seeming, somewhat ineffective employee no one would ever suspect. Indeed, the employee is beloved enough that he's literally handed the keys.

The film ticks away slowly and patiently and sets up an ending which is satisfying without being smart-ass about its own ingenuity. Man, I wish IMDB would give us 1/2 stars, because this is another that would go on my 7.5 list.

I'd like to have seen about ten minutes shaved off -- the film feels about that much too long. I never got restless, per se, but there were moments when I felt that the point of the scene had been made, and they could get on with it. The actors were probably having too much fun, and the acting alone ws worth the price of admission. The fact that good thespian skills were hung on a strong frame just makes it all that much more enjoyable.

Frank Oz does a good job here, and with this and "Bowfinger" he's creeping onto my list of directors to watch. And that, too, is a nice surprise.

Sexy Beast (2000)

Pointless and overrated

[3/10 · 22 July 2001]

I dunno. My friend and I thought this was pretty pointless. It's basically a character study, which is usually fine by me. The movie started in a pretty unappetizing manner, and characters were introduced, and the dreaded "Don" (Kingsley) was referred to again and again with great dread. Fine. In that vein, it goes on. And on. And on. Finally Don arrives on the scene, and while he obviously could use an anger management course, it's not a true crisis. So they argue and argue. I'm assuming there's going to be quite a payoff, so I'm being patient. About an hour in, I asked my buddy, "Is this going anywhere?" Finally, events occur or are revealed, there's an okay twist at toward the very end, and that's basically it.

Now, I give a great big damn about character and nuance, and am willing to jettison a certain amount of structure for the sake of getting to know the people better. Some of my favorite films are "Diner," "A Woman Under The Influence," "Nashville," "McCabe and Mrs. Miller," "What's Eating Gilbert Grape," and "sex, lies and videotape." So it's not that I find the genre anathema or anything. Yes, Kingsley is very good, but that's really about all I can truly applaud. Why this thing is so overrated is beyond me.

Ladyhawke (1985)

Crying out to be remade

[4/10 · 20 July 2001]

This is precisely the sort of film I would like to see remade: one with a decent idea at its core, but marred so badly by overall execution that its legs are chopped out from under it.

What's right: the cinematography is terrific (see the widescreen version), and the lead performances are, on the whole, good. Matthew Broderick is charming much of the time in a role which requires charm -- often a recipe for disaster. Here, by and large, it works. Pfieffer and Hauer are servicable. Some of the minor performers are grating, however.

What's wrong: oh, Lord, where to start? The music, since it provides the first truly teeth-grinding moment. The inventive opening credits are rolling along, nice and evocative, and the music is dim and unobtrusive. Suddenly, this horrid contemporary studio pop kicks in, and my first thought was, "This is going to be a long movie." Then I saw the Alan Parsons credit and I groaned. I used to like Parsons' better stuff, but his worst is pretty unlistenable. Chalk up the score to Ladyhawke among his worst. He creates a theme for the movie and hammers it again and again -- for the first third of the film, with very little variation. And it's so far forward in the mix, I had to wonder -- Richard Donner was proud of this? Or the studio? Who, exactly, thought this worked?

Onward. The script isn't very well fleshed out, and the surprises -- few and far between -- aren't particularly thrilling. Some moments are incomprehensible -- a guard searching for Broderick's character sees him about to raise the grate and enter a cathedral, where he can easily be captured; the guard steps on Broderick's fingers, however, allowing him to fall back into the labyrinth where he can now afford escape. Um, huh?

Steven Soderbergh is currently taking a old dud and reimagining it as a new piece, which is really the thing to do. Leave alone our Psychos, our Rashomans, our Shops Around The Corners. Fix up promising but failed dreck like this.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

I take it back

[8/10 · 2 July 2001]

I'm posting second thoughts; I hope folks will forgive my indulgence.

What I had written before was that the last minutes of the film were so bad, Spielberg should be punished. Not only is a comment like that not cool, but it ignores just how terrific the rest of the film is. A second viewing confirmed it, and I've re-rated this one as an 8/10.

A.I. is absolutely packed with thought provoking ideas. There are a couple of missteps besides the very bad final minutes -- there's no explanation of why Gigolo Joe would be implicated in the murder, for instance -- but the story itself is fairly thrilling. It felt, in its way, like THE WIZARD OF OZ -- a road trip movie. And Kubrick -- a professed atheist -- might disagree, but it seems to me that the film is saying that if we kill off our fairy tales (e.g. God), why would we need our souls? And as our souls, starved, die off, we will die as well, and the next step of evolution will be the artificial intelligence we leave behind. And, as they continue to evolve, they will long for the souls we have discarded. In a sense, what's the point of having a soul if there's no heaven?

Perhaps Kubrick would have liked to have been a machine. There's little doubt that the creator of the Star Child and the surviving mechas would have liked to be part of the next generation, so to speak. But here at the end of his life, he finally contributed to a soulful production indeed. It's a little messy, but people are only human, right?

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Spielberg shoots himself in the foot

[8/10 · 30 June 2001]

I wavered between giving A.I. a 6 or a 7, finally deciding on a 6 because Spielberg needs to be punished. Seriously.

The film is inventive and packed with ideas, whatever its flaws. The real betrayal has been commented upon elsewhere, and I'll repeat it here:

A.I. has three opportunities to close. The first ending -- the narration over the Ferris wheel -- would have been terrific, however grim, and the audience could have left satisfied and tantalized, if a little glum. At that point, the film -- warts and all -- would have been thought-provoking, evocative, and even mythical.

But it keeps going. Again, it could have ended when a statue shatters; not as good an ending as before, but a halfway decent crescendo which still would have had some resonance thematically.

And it keeps going. Now we're in the realm of total grafting and adolescent science in which, by God, we're going to get SOMETHING of a happy ending, however slim.

With that, the increasingly creaky contraption breaks down and sputters out, wooden Oedipal overtones and all. Spielberg betrays his story and audience.

This is one of those films in which, when it ends, the audience can't get out of their seats fast enough. At the screening I attended, half of us were on our feet when the director's credit came on.

I may well buy the DVD when it's released, watch the movie and shut it off when its proper time comes. What will gnaw at me, however, is knowing there's that appendage on there -- a sixth toe I'm trying to ignore -- and I wish, like Kubrick -- that Spielberg would have the courage to lop off what's unnecessary even after it's in the theaters.

By God, sir, I will not abide another toe.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

unbelievably poor in every way

[2/10 · 26 May 2001]

I just lost three hours plus travel time on this movie, so I'll be brief here to spare myself a bit.

I'd read the reviews and properly lowered my expectations because a couple of friends wanted to see PEARL HARBOR. Even those lowered expectations weren't met. This souless thing... yeesh. Blows every opportunity it has. It saps the buildup toward the Japanese attack of any mounting sense of dread, manages to make four love stories unbelievable (including Ben and Josh's -- hey, folks, "best buddies" is a love story whether you like it or not), makes the full-on attack pretty tensionless, and insults the first decorated black soldier by pinning it on him while he's still alive. Jon Voight is pretty good as FDR, I'll say that, but even his makeup in his first scene is bad enough to be pretty distracting (it smooths out later).

My buddies wanted to see it for the action, and we all came away disappointed. The cinematography is mostly expert, though the decision to use a flawed lens in a key hospital sequence was, well, flawed. It muddled things to have characters drifting in and out of focus as they moved about in the frame, and rather than evoking (as TRAFFIC did), it distracts. Brave idea, though.

I dearly hope I've put someone off seeing this. My sacrifice will have been worth it. And if you've decided you'll just wait for the video, I'd strongly suggest not even bothering then. It really is that poor: poor of imagination, poor of craft, poor of humanity. With an epic war movie and love story, this kills.

Shrek (2001)

not bad, but, jeez, settle down, folks

[7/10 · 21 May 2001]

The animation is pretty terrific in Shrek, but the story is fairly straightfoward, marginal stuff. I don't know why critics and audiences trip over themselves to overpraise stuff like this and Chicken Run (which was a smidgen better than Shrek), and God, don't get me started on Spy Kids, Leaving Las Vegas, or L.A. Confidential. I simply have to think that the audience isn't as saturated in film and plot as I might be, and critics are so desperate for anything worthwhile that The English Patient starts looking really, really good.

Okay, so that's getting more personal than I usually like to be, so let's get on to the movie itself. Naw, let's just summarize: if you can grab a matinee and keep your expectations in check (the Emperor wears SOME clothes), this is a decent amusement. That's about it. I burst out laughing once, precisely (a certain scene involving a bird and its nest of eggs), and caught a few grins here and there. Word has been spread that the delight of Shrek is that it constantly does the unexpected; I simply can't agree. That sort of mania happens precisely once (see above); everything else I saw coming before I'd bought my ticket. It does its thing fairly well, but the main attraction here is the rendering process.

Spy Kids (2001)

Save your time, save your money

[5/10 · 22 April 2001]

I saw the ads and thought SPY KIDS looked awful. Saw the stills, thought they looked awful (just posing the kids defensively in front of the parents, all in a fighting stance, implies incredible irresponsibility). I kept reading these wonderful reviews about what a delightful confection this is, and eventually I got suckered in, thinking I didn't want to miss another BABE or something, and the film was probably being poorly marketed to get the kiddies.

Well, kiddies might have a good time (though in the theater I attended, restless kids had to be told repeatedly to hush, and one child articulated in the aftermath, "I was hoping for more action"). But this is one where the adults will definitely need to shut their brains off. If you're on the fence about whether or not to check this out, I'd strongly suggest not going. It's not awful like CURLY SUE or something -- I laughed aloud once and got a couple of chuckles elsewhere -- but it is... well, it's poor. The adventure isn't manic enough, the inventions by and large not that incredible (a packet, when microwaved, becomes a McDonald's meal. Yipee!). SPOILERS AHEAD: Yeah, the thumb thumbs are kinda cool, but the villain is far too toothless. Kids' movies CAN survive real villainry and, in a way, need it: Wicked Witch of the West, anyone? And then when the villain goes soft and is revealed as NOT the villain, Villain #2 is even less frightening.

SPOILERS OVER. I guess one of the main problems is that the sense of threat is never tangible. The film has obviously been designed not to frighten children, giving no sense of real evil or malice onscreen (almost all critical physical contact happens either off camera or with simple karate flips). In cushioning every blow in this manner, SPY KIDS leaves no sense of tension, danger, or conflict. That's probably why the kids got so shifty during the screening and parents got testy; the kids saw that this emperor had no clothes -- or, more to the point, a candy colored but rather dull one-piece. 5/10

Memento (2000)

haunting and powerful

[9/10 · 2 April 2001]

I'll be a gentleman and not spoil anything, but I would like to address a criticism I've heard, which is that MEMENTO is a hollow exercise lacking emotional substance. I think the film is haunting, and that would be enough, but when we reach the denouement -- the beginning of the story -- we see that Nolan has something powerful to say about how rage can motivate us to do the things we do. There's a series of decisions Leonard makes in that scene which he knows he'll forget, and those decisions are recognizably human, and there's some terrific reverberation, particularly to a scene in which Natalie goes out to a car to wait. Obviously I'm being obtuse, but those who have seen the movie will know what I'm speaking of, and probably agree. I was stunned and thrilled by this one, and my friend and I had a great time hashing things out afterward. And you know, we still don't know for sure on some points, and that's great.

You Can Count on Me (2000)

Outstanding

[10/10 · 10 March 2001]

Calling this movie a gem almost trivializes its achievement. Rarely do we see films get it right in the way this one does, so accurately portraying "ordinary" life as the resplendent thing it is. A masterful screenplay, incredible acting, filled with wonderful moments and lovely touches. It reminded me of a good Anne Tyler novel. Its one misstep (the immediate aftermath of Sammy's dinner with her boss) was redeemed by the quality of the acting and, later, we can wonder about Sammy's motivations. Regardless: this film is very funny and touching, and the almost-last scene which so many posters have referred to is as lovingly wrenching as can be. I won't accuse anyone with dry eyes that they have no humanity, but I would be tempted to check for a pulse.

I haven't gone into details of the plot because there isn't much of a plot, per se, so much as life inexorably unfolding. But there's nothing shambling about it. Also, I went to see it knowing nothing about it with a full house when it opened; I had probably the second-worst seat in the theater and couldn't care less. This is one of the great sleepers to date, right up there with DINER -- the sort of movie with no buzz whatsoever during production that comes in under the radar and blows everyone away. A triumph.

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

interesting idea rendered pointless

[5/10 · 27 January 2001]

VERY MILD SPOILERS

The idea that Shreck was actually a vampire, thereby instilling Murnau's NOSFERATU with more than a bit of verite... well, not bad, okay. If Murnau had been von Strohiem, even better, but all right.

Now we come to this film's execution. They seem to get the mise en scene down pretty well, but Malkovich is oddly uncaptivating as the quasi poetic, pretentious Murnau. Not that these fellows' films aren't grand, but hearing directors wax on such as Murnau does here (or Cocteau does in his diaries)... I mean, please. Anyway, Malkovich's Murnau is too toothless to create a portrait of the legendary director. And, as most of the film focusses on him, most of the film falls flat.

DeFoe comes along to -- oddly, for a vampire -- breathe life into the thing, and almost pulls it off. His pathos is pitch perfect: the two best scenes are when Murnau tries to strangle him but finds that Shreck not only is unfazed by the throttling but welcomes the upping of the ante and the scene in which other crew members question him around a fire, asking about vampirehood while they all pass around a bottle of schnapps. But it's just not enough.

I was amazed at just how lifeless and unfunny the film was. Perhaps that's a fault of its trailer, which suggests laugh-out-loud comedy, and leads the audience to prepare for something other than this. As I left, a fellow remarked to me, "Weird!" I didn't find it weird so much as rather cliched and predictable. Too bad.

5/10

All the Pretty Horses (2000)

Might have been a masterpiece

[8/10 · 25 December 2000]

ALL THE PRETTY HORSES is quite effective, though there are some serious gaping holes in the story. The story and characters insist that John Cole and Alejandra have fallen in love; we only get to see a swift montage of sex-making, which is not the same thing at all. Damon made me believe that John was in love through the sheer force of his acting, but the audience needed to be courted along in this romance. Also, Lacey Rawlins at one point crucially (suicidally?) antagonizes a fellow in prison, and we have no idea what bad blood has been brewing between these two.

There are stories about how Thornton's film was first cut at four hours, then the director agreed to deliver a three hour version. The financing studio balked at the length and sold it off to Miramax, who contractually required a cut no longer than two and a quarter hours. What is left runs 117 minutes. What happened? Twenty minutes would have certainly helped smooth out the few rough spots, and a two-and-a-half hour or three hour movie might have been some sort of masterpiece. As it is, some of the epic sweep is contained and the film remains remarkably moving, but may wind up ultimately not finding its commercial or artistic audience because of the compromises. A shame.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

fine, fast, and funny

[8/10 · 23 December 2000]

The wire work takes a little getting used to; sometimes it seems unintentionally comic. The times when I was most sold on it where when a character would race up the side of a wall, spinning, the wall suddenly the plane which the ground would have been. This makes the most sense; if, to whatever degree, we're dispensing with gravity, then why is all of the flying simply up/down rather than on other planes?

That aside, the story is quite good even if I have some reservations about the ending. That ending probably reads differently to Westerners than Easterners; what we see as a final selfish act might be considered noble halfway around the world. Regardless -- good acting (especially by the fellow who plays Lo) and a good dose of humor throughout keeps things pumping. Good stuff, among the year's ten best.

Cast Away (2000)

good idea, wobbly execution: spoilers?

[5/10 · 23 December 2000]

The premise for this one intrigued me, then I went and saw the darned thing. Hanks gets stranded and we see his ingenuity as he figures out some survival skills and befriends a volleyball; this seems to take place over a period of maybe a week, maybe a month. Cut: four years later, and he's the master of the universe, Crusoe-style. It's a jarring leap, and I felt a little cheated. Sure, I could fill in some gaps and surmise this or that, but... Then he's off the island on a treacherous journey and loses his volleyball. Sorry, but I never fully bought that, and when he's screaming furiously and choking sobs over this loss, I had to wonder why he never developed a similar affection for the photo of his fiance. Just a thought. His return and reconnection with the fiance (Helen Hunt) are absolutely awful. Hollywood and Hanks are actually expecting her to break up her home to run off with him; when Hanks realizes she won't, his tone is accusatory. Not to worry; there's another dame, another tide rolling in, so he can trade off. Yech.

Bless the Child (2000)

Well-intentioned misfire

[4/10 · 2 September 2000]

BLESS THE CHILD is a cross between THIS PRESENT DARKNESS and THE EXORCIST, with all that implies. Like DARKNESS, CHILD is earnest and has enough of a plot to hook us along, but has all the artistic savvy of a fifth-rate Stephen King piece. Plot holes, dead performances, and overall hack work abound, which is too bad; the basic premise is, like THE EXORCIST, standard stuff which could have worked if someone had taken the time to buff up the writing and inspire the acting. The film looks pretty good, and has one or two actual moments in it (I'm thinking of a couple notes of grace the little girl has when she hugs a homeless man and a sick girl), but unless expectations are very low, this will surely disappoint.

It's interesting, too, that the script is shot through with authentic Christianity but plays fast and loose with a significant detail: according to Scripture, King Herod, attempting to assassinate the child Messiah, has all boys in the kingdom killed who were born within a two-year span. The film's mouthpiece, a former seminary student, reports that Herod had one specific date rather than the two-year net. (See Matthew 2:16)