This film starts off well. Filmed in washed-out colors, it cuts quickly back and forth across four storylines, each of which seeems interesting. There’s the story about the honest Mexican cop in Tijuana (Benicio Del Toro) and his partner who decide to help a corrupt general wipe out the Tijuana drug cartel. Then there’s Michael Douglas, who’s about to be appointed Washington’s Drug Czar but whose personal life is crippled by marital problems and a daughter sliding deeper and deeper into degrading behaviors occasioned by her own need for drugs. Don Cheadle and Luis Guzmán (“El Cid” from Oz) are two LA cops trying, with some initial success, to take down the major players from the Tijuana cartel on the American side of the border. Catherine Zeta-Jones is the socialite wife of the drug lord who heads the American side of the Tijuana cartel; when her husband is arrested, she struggles to maintain the family business with the help of her husband’s lecherous lawyer (Dennis Quaid). Unfortunately, as the film proceeds, the quality of the different elements here becomes uneven.
The scenes with Del Toro are probably the best in the movie, at least if you can overcome the implicit racism of a cinematographic technique that shifts to brownish tones whenever the scene shifts to Mexico. The banter between Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman ("El Cid" from Oz) is also good. Michael Douglas, however, is stiff as an actor, and his character seems a little too clueless given that he’s supposed to be a state supreme court judge. Catherine-Zeta Jones is pregnant in the movie, just as she was pregnant in real life as the movie was being filmed. This means that she has to rely on her acting ability, and not (as in earlier films) on her body to make an impact on the audience; if only she had any significant amount of acting ability, it might have worked.
The movie is loosely-based on Traffik, a British production that appeared on TV a few years back. It wouldn’t be fair to say that the TV series was better; the production values are better in the movie, and there’s certainly more action. Moreover, to its credit, the movie does a far more credible job of developing the non-Anglo characters than did the series. One thing that’s missing from the movie, however, and something that was an important part of the series, is an emphasis on the fact that the “war on drugs” usually has the greatest impact on the poor farmers who grow the initial crop (and who have few other economic opportunities in today’s world economy) and little impact on everyone else higher in the chain. Presumably it was felt that this was too complicated an idea for North American audiences, and in any event, not easily reducible to soap-opera.
I didn’t expect to enjoy this movie for two reasons: reviews had not been good and no movie that ends in “2000" is a good bet. Still, I did enjoy it. It starts off in the first half as a reasonable updating of the original Dracula story. The basic idea is that Dracula can’t be killed, but in 1897 Van Helsing imprisoned him in a coffin and the owners of the Van Helsing antiques firm has kept the coffin in their underground vault for a century. Alas, all that security leads a group of baddies to suspect that something valuable is being guarded, and they steal the coffin. Naturally, Dracula is eventually let loose on the world again.
Still, there are some twists. The grandson (Christopher Plummer) of the original Van Helsing looks a lot LIKE the original Van Helsing (and then there the matter of the leeches and needles that he keeps fiddling with). There’s also the mysterious woman in New Orleans that our Dracula (and, by the way, even given the sexual metaphor that underlies ALL Dracula stories, this Dracula is REALLY good looking) seems linked with in some way. Finally, in what at first appears to be a sloppy confusion of “Dracula” with the “Wolfman” this Dracula’s changelings can only be killed by a shaft (as in arrow shaft) made of pure silver.
The second half of the movie incorporates an original (if not entirely convincing) explanation of Dracula’s origins that comes to drive the plot. This new explanation, by the way, itself explains why the movie had to make “silver” something that frightens off Dracula and his vampirettes (I will say no more; my lips are sealed).
NB: Jeri Ryan (Barbie-in-a-skin-tight-space-suit, aka, Seven of Nine
on Voyager) plays one of Dracula’s babes. Can she make the transition
from TV to movies? Apparently not.
This movie tells the tale of a laid-back Democratic president, played by Jeff Bridges, who likes to eat (a running joke throughout the movie), who is at the end of his term and who must replace a deceased Vice-President. Very quickly he bypasses a well-liked governor, played by William Petersen, in favor a long-time Senator, played by Joan Allen. Establishing a woman as VP, the President feels, will be his lasting legacy. This doesn’t sit well with the chair (Gary Oldman) of the Congressional committee who must pass judgment on the President’s choice. Oldman’s character is convinced that the better person has been bypassed in the name of political correctness - and the battle is on to dig up some dirt on the Senator. This quickly surfaces in the form of photos showing the good Senator having group sex at a Frat party during her first year at college.
The message that this movie wants to get across is a good one: the standards used to judge - or mis-judge - sexual behavior should be the same for both males and females but aren’t. Is it effective in making the case? Unfortunately, in my view, no. Suppose, for instance, photos of a naked Al Gore having group sex with young girls were to fall into the hands of his political opponents. Would they be tempted to leak the photos to the Internet (which is what happens in the movie) and would the photos then become the topic of comment in the press and in Congress (as also happens in the movie)? I think so. True, it might well be the case that the general public would judge this sort of behavior differently in the case of a male than a female, but then I don’t think THAT issue is really explored in the movie. Another problem is that toward the end the movie wraps things up all-too-neatly by means of two plot reversals (my lips are sealed) that have nothing to do with gender inequality and so which undercut the whole point of the movie.
The movie must be given credit for the many references - not all of
them approving - to contemporary and very much “real life” personalities.
On the other hand, as in the West Wing TV series, the Democratic liberals
in this movie are to a person reasoned and calm individuals with hearts
of gold, a sense of decency and a driving concern for fairness. Conservatives
(like the Oldman character) are basically two dimensional characters who
like to rant and rave and who have no sense of underlying decency. Just
in case all this is too abstract, the point is driven home by further references
to food. The Allen character quickly establishes a sensible eater who -
like so many decent people - eats pasta and vegetables; the Oldman character,
by contrast, is shown, more than once, at meals where he stuffs his mouth
with - GASP! - enormous gobs of red meat! It all strikes me as a bit simplistic,
but I have no doubts but that limousine liberals (people, usually white
and usually middle-class, who adopt liberal postures but never in
the end say anything truly controversial or anything that really challenges
the distribution of power in a system that - ultimately - works to their
benefit) will find it appealing.
Betty Sizemore (Renee Zellweger) is a much-loved waitress married to a sleazeball husband in a small Kansas town. Her only solace is a soap opera that originates in Los Angeles and that focuses on a good-looking doctor (Greg Kinnear). One night, while watching the soap, her husband is killed in the next room by two hitmen (Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock) anxious for the return of some “merchandise.” Betty witnesses the crime, but since the hitmen don’t realize that, they leave in search of the car in which the husband had stashed their stuff. Traumatized, Betty adopts the role of one of her soap’s characters and goes off in search of the doctor. She ends up in LA and does make contact - surprisingly - with characters from the soap, although the killers are in hot pursuit (she’s taken the car that they want)..
This is a movie that could have worked. Zellweger certainly does as much as she can with the role, and Kinnear is, well, good looking and as always that almost carries him through. The problem is Freeman and Rock. Freeman’s strength as a actor is authoritative presence that he brings to each of the characters he creates on screen. In this case, however, he is undercut by a script that keeps flipping around in regards to his relationship with Zellweger. One moment, she’s a fantasy object with whom he seems to be falling in love; the next, she’s important only because she’s his “last job” before retiring; then, he’s willing to forgo killing her because he admires her spunk - and then we run through all the options again. Rock’s strength as a stand up comic, such as it is, is his willingness to adopt an “in your face” attitude towards insipid pretentiousness, whether he finds it in whites or blacks (his remarks on Bill Cosby being a good example of the latter). Unfortunately, he’s not allowed to run amok here, and we’re left only with his abilities as a actor, which are minimal. Given how much screen time is devoted to Freeman and Rock, all of this makes hash of the movie.
I thought that I would like this movie. I enjoyed
the original "Highlander" movie, and even thought the next two were passable.
I also enjoy watching the TV series in reruns. Given this, the idea of
merging characters from the TV series with Christopher Lambert (from the
movie) seemed intriguing. Alas, it's not. Although the movie has a few
good moments, and (like the TV series) uses flashbacks effectively, it
ultimately fails. At least part of the problem has to do with the fact
that the plot was in the first instance likely something quite different
than what we now have. Judging from the scenes in the trailer that never
appear in the movie, the "first" plot appears to have had a strong
supernatural element that simply did not make it to the final cut. (And
incidentally, "Highlander: Final Cut" would - for obvious reasons - have
been a MUCH better title.)
Surprisingly, I enjoyed this movie. Tom Green plays an inept guide at
Ithaca University who tries to redeem himself with his tour group by regaling
them with the tale of a "road trip" undertaken by a few of his buddies
the year (or so) before. Although the story of the trip itself, told
in flashback, contains a few gross scenes (all of which appear in
the theatrical trailer), the story is nevertheless a good variant of the
"on the road" genre and provides a number of pleasant laughs. One
interesting feature is that we are clearly meant to understand that several
of the details in the story reflect Green's own preoccupations (which
are heavily weighted towards adolescent male fantasies) than anything else
(Do women taking showers in college dorms really stand around naked
discussing how to take revenge on the men who done them wrong?)
Someday Hollywood may make a film that provides a balanced view of the American Revolution, but today ain’t the day. This film purports to be the story of Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson), a retired-fighter-turned-farmer living in South Carolina, who initially opposes THE Revolution but then becomes involved when a family member is killed. The character is loosely based on the historical Francis Marion, who was the focus of the old Disney “Swamp Fox” series. Presumably because historians were quick to point out that the real Marion brutalized his slaves and hunted Indians needlessly, “Marion” became “Martin” and “the Swamp Fox” became “The Ghost” in this movie.
What this movie really is however is a remake of the Lethal Weapon movies with Gibson playing both of the roles that Danny Glover and he play in the LW series. This means that Gibson alternates between being “gonzo crazy soldier” and “cautious family man.” Also like the LW series, this movie has its “ONE EVIL GUY” who sets in motion all the bad things that happen. In this case OEG is a Nazi, eh, British, officer who routinely shoots civilians (he seems especially fond of shooting children), rounding people up in into buildings which he then sets on fire, and so on. Never mind that the British didn’t do this sort of thing (at least no more than the Americans), the formula succeeds because this is the way Americans (and Canadians too for that matter) like to see themselves: fighting Nazi-types in order to end injustice and secure liberty. Never mind either that this leads to patent silliness (e.g., the black workers on Martin's plantation, we are told, aren’t REALLY slaves; they WANT to work in his fields; it's worthwhile for a freed slave to fight in the Continental Army, one white guy intones, because he's fighting for a world in which things will change - even though slavery persisted for another 80 years or so, etc.).
One of the great mysteries of the current age is that Americans have long thought of themselves as the good guys in a world where the US government (almost always with Canadian approval) sponsors the invasion of other states, props up dictatorial/oligarchic regimes, and provides military and other aid to regimes that use this aid to make war against civilians. Blockbuster movies like this, which just ignore history and play to prevailing stereotypes, help to make that mystery a little less mysterious.
If you ignore the propaganda value of the film, however, and ignore as well the fact that the movie could easily have been cut by a good 30 minutes, there's enough action here to make it passably enjoyable.
Set in Boston (but filmed in Canada), this is the story of two Irish-American
(and vaguely Catholic) brothers who find their mission in life when
they accidentally begin a career of killing baddies - only to discover
that they come by it naturally (I will say no more). It's a sort of Reservoir
Dogs meets Pulp Fiction but with a lighter touch. Willem Defoe
is a bit too over the top as a gay FBI agent, but it doesn't spoil the
movie. One recurrent formula has us seeing the "after" scene (usually carnage-filled)
and then seeing the "before" scene. It works. In the second half of the
movie, Defoe actually appears in the "before" scenes with the brothers
as he reconstructs what happens. That works too.
Racist and rich white guy (Christian Bale) gets ticked off and kills
nice black guy at NY bar. Detective John Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson), nephew
of THE John Shaft (played by Richard Roundtree, who appears briefly in
this film), gets mad. With help of cop partner (Vanessa Williams), the
younger Shaft brings RRWG to justice, which mainly involves protecting
the one witness to the crime. Comment: Jackson looks good in long black
leather coats, but in the end his character is all style and nothing else.
As far I can recall, for example, he does one and only one clever thing
in the entire film (for those who go: it involves a moneybag). Williams
apparently decided that in this film she would NOT emphasize her looks
and would instead rely on her acting ability; it might have worked if she
was a good actor. Bale starts out strong (though with his performance here
and in American Psycho he’s in danger of being stereotyped as “buff
crazy boy”). In my view the movie belongs to Jeffrey Wright, who plays
a Puerto Rican drug lord with aspirations; though he's a bad guy, his character
displays an emotional range that is otherwise missing from the film.
There is no resemblance here to the old TV show here except for the shell: three hot babes (in this case Lucy Liu, Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore) employed as detectives/crime-fighters by the disembodied voice of John Forsyth as Charlie and managed by a lovable doofus (Bill Murray playing Bosley as a low-key Austin Powers). Surprisingly, the movie was better (as in "a more enjoyable experience") than I would have guessed from the previews
Think: cartoon show for adults, only using live-actors,
and choreographed by the same guy who did that fancy stuff for The Matrix
(which happens to be true). The commentary on the DVD version that I saw
suggests that Joseph McGinty Nichol (AKA, "McG" - the director) worked
to give each plot segment its own distinct feel (a distinctive architectural
setting, distinctive costumes, distinctive color schemes, etc), so that
moving from segment to segment was like turning to a new page in a book.
Assuming that we're talking about those books with thick cardboard pages
for children, he's likely correct. For example: imagine Lucy Liu dressed
in black leather playing a motivational speaker as dominatrix lecturing
a bunch of corporate geeks dressed in white shirts and sitting at white
desks. It sounds silly , and certainly seems to be
catering to Caucasian (male) fantasies about
Asian women - and yet, there is a self-mocking tone to the entire thing
that makes it work.
Tom Green plays (what else?) Drew Barrymore's
boyfriend in two scenes, and demonstrates (1) the sort of deadpan humor
that makes him popular with teenage boys and (2) that he has a VERY limited
range as an actor. Crispin Glover (the guy who played Marty McFly's dad
in the Back to the Future series) plays an energetic and stylish villain
who comes close to stealing most of the scenes he's in, which is a bit
of a surprise given that his character, though central to the action at
several points, has
no speaking lines whatsoever in the movie.