Archive for September, 2002

The Tuxedo

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted September 27, 2002 at 6:45 am

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:Rated PG-13 for mild kung-fu violence, excessive cleavage use, a chick who likes rough sex, and a horse urinating
Starring: Jackie Chan, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jason Isaacs, Debi Mazar, Peter Stormare
Directed By:Kevin Donavon

Final Grade:

This movie opens with a shot of a horse urinating. Let me restate this for safety’s sake…This movie opens with a horse urinating.

Now that I’m past that, let’s talk a bit about The Tuxedo, Jackie Chan’s latest in a string of “Wow, if I put someone else next to me that American audiences know then I will get more money” films. After teaming with Chris Tucker and Owen Wilson, Chan gets a film with a less comedic partner, the ever-enticing Jennifer Love Hewitt. Chan plays Jimmy Tong, a cabbie turned driver for Bond-like agent Clark Devlin (Isaacs in a fun role). Devlin possesses a tuxedo which makes its wearer both a ass-kicker and soul singer/dancer (There could have been a lot more done with the suit, but these two possibilities take up enough of the plot as is.). When Devlin goes down in the line of duty, Tong must replace him, in his tuxedo, and team with rookie agent Del Blaine (Hewitt), to take down a ruthless tyrant who wants to (you guessed it) conquer the world.

The Tuxedo is one of the most ludicrous plots ever put on film. Not that that is a bad thing. Several films with more ludicrous plots have worked, going back to the king of ludicrous plots, Time after Time. The Tuxedo is a silly idea, but it is also a well-conceived one, and gets bonus points for imagination.

The film goes astray at many points unfortunately. The entire scene where Tong tries to get information from the villain’s fiancee is insanely idiotic, and even someone as nuts as I has to wonder why it made the film. There are also little problems (Tong’s friend at the beginning magically disappears from the film after his one scene…why he was even there baffles me) that take away from the quality of the film. The direction is standard for a film of this sort, and outside of an unnecessary slow-mo shot of Hewitt walking next to the pool in a quasi-revealing dress, none of the filmmaking stands out.

For what it is, the film is well acted, but it’s nothing to write home about. Chan does his usual, and Hewitt is adequate for what she’s supposed to be. The annoying Debi Mazar shows up in a role that is never explained, and Peter Stormare is wasted as an underling of the villain. The aforementioned villain, played by Ritchie Coster (who’s biggest role before this was as a newspaper vendor in 15 Minutes), is bad, but luckily he doesn’t have much to work with.

What The Tuxedo does have is an air of lightheartedness. At a time of year when we’re being bombarded with franchise pictures like Bond, Potter, and Lector, It’s good to see something with a fresh and fun outlook. It’s not a blockbuster, and it shouldn’t be, but at least it’s innocent and fun.

When I look back at this film, I realize a good time was had. It had some fun actions scenes (The chase between Devlin’s car and an unmanned skateboard is a standout, An excessive amount of the overly-hot Hewitt (Did I mention yet that she’s HOT?), some fun supporting characters (Devlin and Stormare, despite being underused), and a hilarious post-climactic “operation”. There’s no reason not to recommend this movie. Well, except the fact that it’s not a good movie. But that’s inconsequential! Besides, someone on this website has to say something nice once in awhile!

1 Comment
Filed under: Action, Comedy, Movies

Sweet Home Alabama

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted at 6:26 am

A Film Review By Michael Haley

Rating:PG-13 for language and sexual innuendo
Starring:Reese Witherspoon, Josh Lucas, Patrick Dempsey, Ethan Embry, Candace Bergen
Directed By:Andy Tennant

Final Grade:

Reese Witherspoon has always been a joy to watch on the screen, for unlike many actresses of the studio system, she knows how to provide performances that are not only entertaining but usually contain a deal of artistic merit (except for maybe Little Nicky). Heck, she was even able to make me care about a ditzy blonde in Legally Blonde, and let me say that is no small achievement. Thanks to that role she is emerging as a full blown star, and is now faced with the film that typically comes along at such a point in a rising star’s career…the feel good stock situation film that while technically hasn’t been done before, we all know where it’s going anyhow. Is she able to pull this off? Almost, but not quite.

Reese stars as Melanie “Carmichael” who makes her living as a fashion designer in “the big city.” Her sweet thing Patrick Dempsey is the mayor’s son, and is planning a career in politics. He proposes to her and they are quickly engaged, but she has a slight problem…she is still technically married to her high school sweetheart down in Alabama, whom she has left behind seven years ago without finalizing a divorce. Therefore, she must go down to Sweeeeeeeeeeet Home Alabama to get said divorce. However, during her stay she begins to get in touch with her old roots that she desperately wanted to escape from, and begins to wonder if maybe Alabama’s where she truly belongs.

Most of the film takes place in the South namely Alabama, and this film makes sure you’re aware of it in every frame. We get every stinkin’ Southern attitude, moment, and what not at every step of the way, from numerous references to the Confederacy, redneck hicks, the song “Sweet Home Alabama” performed not once but twice, and let’s not forget the good old plantation. Maybe I’m wrong here, but do real Southern people remind themselves and everyone around them that they’re good old Southerners at every single possible moment? But of course this is done to draw the sharp distinction between New York “Hoity toity snobs” from Alabama wonders of nature and pig slop. The film argues that the pig slop is obviously the correct and moral way to live life without giving them New York bastards a fair chance, even though the New Yorkers are shown as decent folk.

I’m thinking too much about the social threads running through the film, which only wishes to be a sweet romantic comedy about an intelligent woman who seems awfully unintelligent when the plot requires it. That I can buy, because this is a standard Hollywood film, which usually dictates characters by plot rather than personality. However, despite being pegged as a sweet romantic comedy, the film runs into two problems. One is that the movie really isn’t that funny, aside from a chuckle or two. Second is the surprising amount of mean-spiritedness running through Reese’s character. One scene has her get drunk and say all the wrong things to all the right people, and although she might have issues with sweet home Alabama, this scene struck me as a false note. Without giving anything away, she comes forth with several secrets about several characters including Ethan Embry’s, his of which could be particularly damaging. This didn’t make a great deal of sense because a scene shortly before it worked in establishing a nice rapport between the two, and then she quickly becomes hoity toity bitch when she’s drunk…booze may bring out inhibitions, but in this case it wasn’t the booze, but the screenwriter wanting to inject a superfluous conflict into the film. Also, her contempt for her family in addition to the previous scene throws the tone of the film off-balance…it’s as if director Andy Tennant couldn’t decide whether he wanted a sweet, feel good comedy or a mean spirited film and tried to have both, but as a character says in the film, “You can’t ride two horses with one ass.”

Also, the plot is predictable (you’ve seen this already in some form or another for the past sixty years) and implausible. How come everyone in Alabama is so quickly understanding and humane towards Ethan Embry’s revelation, which in reality, might have left him tarred and feathered? Why does Reese pick the person she does at the end of the film, when the other suitor is indeed not only a more logical, stable choice, but a nicer one as well? Reese and her ex-husband have a nice chemistry as good friends, but ex-lovers? Soul mates? And why does Bergen’s character have to be so one-dimensional? The only purpose she serves in the film is to provide grief to these people, and because she’s the mayor and involved in politics, that supposedly makes her more evil.

If anything saves this routine and spotty plot, it’s Reese’s performance. She manages to make her character sympathetic and likable, even when the audience disagrees. Also, she manages to take one scene and raise it from its formulaic roots, where she visits the grave of a former pet dog that died in her seven year absence. She brings the right note to the scene to elevate it beyond cheesiness, and struck me as one of the few truly genuine moments in the film. I admit I’m biased there, because although it wasn’t a dog, I had a similar experience last October at a cemetery, so keep that in mind when determining the validity of my opinion. By the time the credits roll, however, Sweet Home Alabama comes off as merely average. I didn’t have a lot of affection for it, but it does have a moment or two. Reese is good, but if you want to see her and a film that’s good, stick to Election or Pleasantville.

No Comments
Filed under: Movies, Romance

The Dancer Upstairs

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted September 23, 2002 at 2:20 am

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating: Rated R for strong violence, and for language.
Starring: Javier Bardem, Laura Morante
Directed By:John Malkovich

Final Grade:

The Dancer Upstairs marks the directorial debut of popular actor John Malkovich, but you’d never know it from watching the film. Malkovich’s production of Mexican political drama is gorgeous in scope and exquisite in pacing. It feels like a film by someone with a great deal of experience, never failing to look or feel the part of the classic independent drama.

Javier Bardem stars in the film as an honest, good detective, assigned to investigate the beginning of a revolution. The revolution seems to be the work of someone called Ezequiel, who is a mystery that no one knows the truth about. The only clues to his identity that the detective and his team can find are references to philosophy, along with a large number of dead dogs and cryptic messages. The film draws deep from the well of Bardem’s character’s life, helping us at every turn to understand his actions and motivations. It reminds me of several other recent films about police officers who allow themselves to be enveloped by their work, and put the task at hand ahead of everything in their life.

I think what I liked most about this film was the ease with which it moved in plot. It’s difficult to follow, especially with the strong Spanish accents of the characters involved, but it’s also a taut story that keeps the interest of the viewer. The subplots involving our lead character’s family and the other members of his police team could have been drawn upon further, but the main mystery is intriguing enough to keep us involved. It ends rather simply, but the ending fits in accordance with what our character has dealt with throughout the film. A couple of postclimactic scenes are also very welcome additions to the plot, and everything is tied up in a nice, neat package at the end.

The problem that weighs down upon the film is the development of the characters within its realm. Besides Bardem’s lead, no characters are really truly understood, nor is care taken to explain to us what these people are doing in the situations we find them in. The titular dancer, played by Laura Morante, is the most touched upon character, most visually in her relationship with the lead, but we’re never truly led to understand why she does what she does throughout the film, especially when we look back at her once the credits have rolled.

The Dancer Upstairs is also a slow film, moving its plot at the pace it feels necessary. I’m sure many will admonish the film for this pace, but to me it seemed like Malkovich knew exactly what he was doing (at least in terms of the plot) when he put each scene together. The film feels longer than its runtime of just over 2 hours, but if you allow yourself to become immersed in its web of intrigue you won’t mind.

I think I expected more out of this film than I got, but I still enjoyed it. The criminal underworld was dealt with excellently, and Bardem gave us a very convincing performance in the lead. It’s not a film that will make money, or become a classic. But if you’re looking for something deeper than the Summer blockbusters that dominate multiplexes at present, head out to a quiet little theater and check out The Dancer Upstairs. If nothing else, it’s a good step for John Malkovich, who proves that he can be successful behind the camera as well as in front of it.

No Comments
Filed under: Drama, Movies

One Hour Photo

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted September 22, 2002 at 6:01 pm

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Starring: Robin Williams
Directed By: Mark Romenek
Rated: R for language violene and nudity

Final Grade:

Walking into One Hour Photo I was one of the most excited people in the movie line. Since this was at Varsity theaters, needless to say the line was not long, but there was still a line. I had heard so much hype about this film, and so I had set my expectations high. A few hours later, and very impressed I headed back to my room and started working on the review for this movie, yet I found myself at a dilemma. What do I give this movie on the rating scale? And was the grade I was giving it due to the fact that I had hyped the film so much, or was it because it was an actual quality flick? After spending some time reflecting on this, I finally came up with the answer. But If I told it to you now, none of you would continue to read my review right?

The storyline is fairly simple on the surface level. We are introduced to Sy Parish, or “Sy the Photo Guy,” at a One Hour Photo lab in a department store. Sy is obsessed with his job. Sy feels that people take photos for a reason and they should be perfect. In fact, Sy is obsessed with perfection. But unfortunately perfection isn’t the only thing he is obsessed with. Sy becomes obsessed with one of his customers, the Yorkin family, and through their photographs he finds the life he could only wish he had. But when Sy’s life takes a sudden turn for the worst, everything in his world changes.

Robin Williams was brilliant in this film. After an impressive performance earlier this season with Insomnia, his return to the screen once again, proves to be a joy as well. Never before have I seen someone bring a character to life so well, as I see Williams do to Sy in the film. If you are looking for the happy go lucky, Patch Adams, Mrs. Doubtfire type Robin Williams though, you are in the wrong place. Mr. Williams has seemed to have found a new nitch. The 50 year old actor found that after a certain age, a 50 year old man starts to lose some of his fans when he is type cast as a Hollywood funny man, and decided to once again broaden his horizons. This is working well for him, and I hope to see more from him in the future. After his performance in Insomnia and now One Hour Photo, It would be sad to not see Williams name in the Oscar Nominations.

The imagery and color, lighting and elements of cinematography were wonderful as well. It enhanced Williams’s superb performance. For this being Mark Romanek’s first film, I think he did a wonderful job. Every color had a meaning; every line had a point to it. There wasn’t a lot of filler, pointless dialogue or pointless segments of the film.

Now of course you didn’t think I was going to leave this film without making any gripes against it right? Every film has flaws, some more than others but never the less, still flaws. One Hour Photo kept you on the edge of your seat all the way through the film, kept me in suspense all the way through, and then just like that, it dropped me off somewhere and told me to go home unsatisfied. The ending of the movie was very obscure, after thinking about it, you can piece it together, and I really felt as though they left me hanging with a mediocre ending. No one likes that! If I wanted to see a mediocre film I would watch something like Mr. Deeds again. I came looking for quality, and up until the last 5 minutes I got just that.

After my reflection of the film I realized Williams performance is enough for me to give it a passing grade, and enough for me to say go check out this film. It is a film that has a lot to offer, and is worth you time and your money. Sure, the ending is a little vague, a little crazy, but it keeps you entertained. Go check it out and enjoy. Spend you $6 on One Hour Photo, I think you’ll be glad you did. But then again when your other options are quality flicks like Swimfan, I think its safe to say anything is better than Swimfan…

No Comments
Filed under: Drama, Movies, Suspense

Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted September 20, 2002 at 11:33 pm

A Film Review By Michael Haley

Rating:R for lots of pretty pictures of things going ka-blooey. 
Starring: Antonio Banderas, Lucy Lieu, Ray Park, Taliso Soto, Terry Chen. 
Directed By:Kaos (or Wych Kaosayananda, whichever you prefer.) 

Final Grade: 

I’ve always been an avid reader of Roger Ebert’s film reviews, and when good ol’ Gene Siskel was alive, enjoyed listening to the two critics’ bickering. Somewhere throughout the years I ran across Siskel’s question to ask of every film, and that is “Is this film more interesting than a documentary of the filmmaker’s eating lunch?” Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, although Jackass: The Movie would have been a more appropriate title, is a colossal failure on every level, and makes Kaos’ eating habits seem like Citizen Kane in comparison.

he film stars Antonio Banderas as Ecks, a retired FBI agent, who’s had it with the business (sound familiar?) He mourns the death of his wife and chain smokes, drinks, and a bunch of other stuff that comes straight from film noir (and brutally rapes film noir in the process). He’s brought back in, and has to look for Agent Sever (Lieu) and kill her or something. Kaos never really gives us a clear cut reason, or even an abstract one. After the first half full of car crashes, bullets fired, and pointless destruction, we find that Eck’s wife is alive (and thought that he was dead, in a ridiculous flashback) and remarried to the villain who wants Sever dead so he can have his kid back. I neglected to mention the kid earlier, to give you a sense of how jerky the plot is. Then the second half begins, and proceeds exactly as the first. I won’t tell you how it all turns out, but hopefully, you won’t care.

’m going to be honest here…Ballistic is one of the worst movies of the year, and a hot, steaming pile of one hundred percent grade A bullshit. It’s one of the worst action movies ever made, and that’s saying something. It’s one of the sorriest excuses for film ever produced, and you will not only be dumber after viewing this, but $7 short as well, not counting snack money. So why is this thing so horrible? Surely Antonio and Lucy, fairly big stars with noticeable appeal, could recognize such an awful script (that took three people, Kaos among them, to write!) had no potential? That the lines are purely expository with no character development, drama, comedy, or intelligence? To make matters worse, it has some of the worse exposition uttered thus far in an action flick. The gifted writers crank out such sparkling dialogue as “Run,” “She’s not a killer, she’s a mother” (after she kills countless people) and “We need to find her!” Director Kaos lives up to his name by giving us nothing but brutal carnage with no purpose, and fails to make his action even remotely entertaining. The real kicker is that Antonio and Talisa Soto, whom are both of foreign descent, somehow make a kid who’s a 100% white All-American.

I’m getting sick of reviewing the film itself, because it doesn’t work as anything and is giving me a headache thinking about it. No, my question to the audience is “Why do you continue to patronize this crap?” Countless people are blown to bits and die horrible deaths in the film, but not Ecks or Sever, whom survive every fight with “style”…why is this entertaining? The cityscape, inhabitants, and honest members of law enforcement are all sacrificed in the name of entertainment. Dammit, I’m sick of this people. This film doesn’t give a damn about these characters, their lives, or the lives they are destroying at the moment…Sever’s got a brand new, high-tech missile she just gots to fire! Kaos merely uses everyone and everything as tools to achieve something that’s going to be “cool,” which not only fails as being hip and cool, but fails on a human level. Why are honest films like Frailty or One Hour Photo cited as being “creepy” and “disturbing” while the American public swallows this tripe down their throats, when the characters are more violent, more chaotic, and mass murderers? Because Antonio’s too sexy! And Lucy kicks ass girl style!

I’m not saying violence should disappear from film, but only the callow attitudes that inspire it. While Kaos gets so excited about a shot that follows a guy as he plummets from a rooftop and falls into the top of a car, no one in the audience even cares to think that “Wow, someone just died,” because Kaos doesn’t allow them to care…it’s cool! It’s exciting! Not only is this ironic (assuming Kaos knows what irony means) detachment from reality completely ridiculous, but naïve as well. Don’t give us movies from a director who doesn’t care about the people, not characters, he is filming, and whom is more concerned on whether or not the shot has substance before style.

I know what you’re probably thinking…“Lighten up, dude, it’s just an action movie. You knew what you were getting, and this movie delivered. All that death rocked man.” First off, there are action films that are better than this…Face/Off and True Lies come to mind…simply because they take the time to give us people instead of failed hipness. However, I say to those of you for which this is just another “harmless action movie”…this film is basically about mass murderers who love to blow things up, apparently because they can. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE to waste your time on this movie, regardless of how many things you thought looked good in the preview, or if you liked a star or whatever. The film is an abhorrent, ridiculous, vapid failure, and doesn’t deserve your time, thought, or amusement. It makes Serving Sara, which also got a failing grade from me, look respectable. Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever gets only one thing right…it ends. 

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Movies
?>