Movie Review: Vanity Fair

Vanity Fair (2004) 

Directed by Mira Nair

Written by Julian Fellowes

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Eileen Atkins, Jim Broadbent, Gabriel Byrne, Romola Garai, Bob Hoskins

Release Date September 1st, 2004 

Published September 1st, 2004 

In its day, William Makepeace Thackeray's Vanity Fair, written in 1847, was a witty and scathing rebuke of the British society in which it was set. In the ensuing 157 years, even as society in Britain and elsewhere has changed, the wit of Thackeray's words has remained and Hollywood has taken notice more than once. First adapted in 1935 in the very first film ever in Technicolor, Thackeray's novel was renamed for its heroine Becky Sharp and won an Oscar nomination for star Miriam Hopkins.

The book found its greatest exposure in the mini-series format where it has been adapted three times. Because of the large number of characters, subplots, and endlessly witty dialogue exchanges the mini-series seems to be the truly ideal format for this story. A perfect example of that is the latest film adaptation of Vanity Fair by Mira Nair and Oscar-nominated screenwriter Julian Fellowes which evokes the images of the story but has no time for the depth and breadth of it.

Reese Witherspoon takes on the difficult role of Becky Sharp, the razor tongued social climber who in the book is not the most sympathetic creature. In the film, after a little back story about how Becky was the orphaned daughter of a starving artist sent to live and work in a finishing school, we find Becky taking advantage of the one friend she has made in her life Amelia Sedley (Romola Garai). In this scene at least Becky seems genuine, if a bit devilish towards her ex-schoolmates and teachers.

Becky is leaving the school to join Amelia and her family for a week before she begins life as a governess for Sit Pitt Crawley (Bob Hoskins). In the week with Amelia's family, Becky hopes to take advantage of her friend’s kindness and find herself a way into high society. Becky's chance opens up when Amelia's brother Jos returns from his military post in India. Jos is shy, overweight and easily mislead, the perfect patsy for Becky who would marry anyone to get into high society.

Unfortunately for Becky, Amelia's fiancé George Osbourne (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) is far savvier than Jos and helps the fat man see through Becky's scheming. With no fiancé to help her climb the social ladder, Becky is off to the home of Sir Pitt Crawley where a whole new scheme must begin. It doesn't take someone of Becky's street smarts long to insinuate herself into an important position in the Crawley household. She makes an especially strong impression on the most important Crawley, Sir Pitt's sister Miss Crawley (Eileen Atkins) the one with all of the family's money.

Miss Crawley and Becky are fast friends as both have a quick and savage wit. Miss Crawley claims to detest the class system and any system that would place her dull witted clan ahead of someone like Becky simply because of breeding. However Miss Crawley's true feelings are tested after Becky elopes with Sir Pitt's youngest son Rawdon (James Purefoy) who was Miss Crawley's favorite and the one most likely to inherit the family fortune.

This is a lot of plot and I have not yet mentioned Rhys Ifans as Major Dobbin and Gabriel Byrne as Steyne both of whom are pivotal in the book but get a bit of a short shrift due the films 2 hrs 17 min. runtime. Even the plot I have already described is embellished a bit on my part from what I know from reading the book. Having read it, I can fill in the gaps that Ms. Nair and Mr. Fellowes rush over in order to get a more salable runtime.

Clearly there was some sort of studio mandate on runtime because there is simply no other way to make sense of the cuts made by the talented director and writer. People who have not read the book will often be left wondering what just happened as the plot points are introduced and left behind in mere moments as the narrative jumps ahead years in leaps and bounds. Important plots about deaths, births and cross-continental moves are left on the cutting room floor leaving the audience unsatisfied, with little to no catharsis or consideration.

To be fair Thackeray wasn't much interested in catharsis as he was in the witty, sexy, and devilishly clever banter of his characters, especially Becky Sharp. At the very least in the book, you have Thackeray as narrator offering some commentary on these life-changing events, usually with a very witty aside. There again points to another problem with the film, it lacks Thackeray's voice which is the books true source of humor. Like the cattiest of gossips, Thackeray's narration let us inside the thoughts of each character and spelled out important motivations.

The filmmakers rely heavily on their actors to deliver the characters inner lives and while this is a talented group of actors who communicate insight, intelligence, and humor the audience members aren't mind readers and the filmmakers can't just assume people will get it. That is unless you read the book then maybe you do get it. Maybe the film’s biggest issue is the way Thackeray's biting satire has been softened to appeal to a more mainstream audience.

That appeal to the mainstream extends to the casting of Reese Witherspoon as Becky Sharp. Ms. Witherspoon is a terrific actress who has the perfect face to play Becky Sharp, with that devilish glint in her deep-set eyes and that hint of a snarl in her smile she evoked my vision of Becky. The problem is her star power and presence overwhelms the lesser-known cast members that surround her. In scenes where the film shoehorns in the subplots about Romola Garai's Amelia or Rhys Ifans as Dobbin we are left wondering where is Becky. Also to accommodate someone of Ms. Witherspoon's obvious likeability, many of Becky's sharp edges have been softened so as not to offend her fanbase.

The only cast member that is able to make a real impression outside of Ms. Witherspoon is Eileen Atkins as Miss Crawley, probably because she is the only character other than Becky allowed to employ Mr. Thackeray's wit. Other characters make strong impressions in the book but have no time to do so in this film and may hav been better off left on the cutting room floor. More focus on Becky and her plot would seem to be the only way to make this film work.

Ms. Nair nails the period in her direction and embellishes it with the Indian imagery that she is known for from her wonderful Bollywood movie Monsoon Wedding. Thackeray himself was born in India and includes a number of references to British military outposts in that country and how the culture was part of the zeitgeist of the time amongst British aristocrats. That zeitgeist is well captured in a scene that wasn't in the book, a dance scene in which Becky and other high society woman perform a traditional Indian dance for the King of England. For a film budgeted at a mere 35 Million dollars this a lavish production.

The crux of the problem with Vanity Fair is a war between the filmmakers and the producers with Ms. Nair and the creative team looking to do a faithful adaptation and producers fighting to make the film more commercial. The many compromises made along the way, run time, casting amongst others, are obvious and distracting. The films ending is definitely a victim of these compromises as it comes completely out of left field and depends on one credibility testing bit of luck and timing.

Vanity Fair was supposed to signal the beginning of the Oscar campaign season. However when the film missed its original fall 2003 opening and was dropped into the first week of September, many in-the-know Academy watchers threw up red flags. Our suspicions were correct, Vanity Fair is unlikely to challenge for any of the major awards at the end of the year. Compromise, it seems, is not always a good thing. 

Movie Review: The Whole Ten Yards

The Whole Ten Yards (2004) 

Directed by Howard Deutch 

Written by George Gallo 

Starring Bruce Willis, Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet, Natasha Henstridge 

Release Date April 7th, 2004

Published April 7th, 2004 

The Whole Ten Yards is the perfect example of why we hate most sequels. Whereas sequels such as the Star Wars episodes, Matrix or Kill Bill Volume 2 are natural extensions of their originators, most sequels are greedy attempts to capitalize on a previous success. The Whole Ten Yards would not exist without the success of the first film, it exists solely because of the greed of the producers and has no artistic aspiration whatsoever.

Rejoining the story of dentist Oz Oseransky (Matthew Perry) and his wife Cynthia (Natasha Henstridge), we find the happy couple in Los Angeles where Oz has fortified there home. He skittishly awaits mob reprisal for the death of Yanni Gogolak (Kevin Pollak). Cynthia is terribly annoyed of Oz’s constant fear and longs for the adventurousness of her ex-husband Jimmy “The Tulip” Tudeski (Bruce Willis).

Unknown to Oz, Cynthia has been in contact with Jimmy who is hiding out in Mexico with his new wife Jill (Amanda Peet). The two have settled into domesticity with Jill doing the contract killing and Jimmy becoming Martha Stewart. However it might be that Jimmy’s new attitude is all a ruse as he and Cynthia concoct a plan centered on the prison release of mob boss Lazlo Gogloak (Yanni’s brother, also played by Kevin Pollak). There’s something about Lazlo having $280 million dollars and Jimmy and Cynthia inventing a way to steal it, but the plot and the film as a whole are horribly convoluted.

Director Howard Deutch knows bad retreads having directed unnecessary sequels to Grumpy Old Men and The Odd Couple. Deutch brings nothing new or interesting to his work in The Whole Ten Yards except a relaxed attitude toward improvisation by his cast. The cast must have needed the improv if only to entertain themselves.

The cast is the film’s one strength. Perry, Willis, Henstridge and Peet have great chemistry and obviously enjoy working together. The obviously improvised moments are far funnier than anything in the script is. Amanda Peet is especially wonderful as Jill who is desperate for her first real contract killing after a number of spectacular failures. Peet was the best thing about the first film as well, which many people will only remember for her spectacular breasts.

Thanks to the cast, The Whole Ten Yards is not a complete disaster. Sadly, even as talented as the cast is, they can’t save this threadbare comic premise. They especially can’t overcome the obvious cynicism behind the film’s creation. I’m giving the film a four, one star for each of the principle cast members.

Movie Review Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) 

Directed by Kerry Conran

Written by Kerry Conran

Starring Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Giovanni Ribisi, Bai Ling, Michael Gambon

Release Date September 17th, 2004

Published September 17th, 2004 

Call me a Luddite if you wish, but I just don't like the way computer technology is encroaching on modern filmmaking. With the release of Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow, we have our first example of a movie made with real actors and no real locations. We are not far from a film with no real actors. Final Fantasy was technically speaking animation, I am speaking more of technology of the kind used in the little seen Pacino movie Simone where America's top actress was entirely created on a computer.

This is disturbing to me because when you pay so much attention to technology, what most often gets lost is real art. Dialogue, characters and acting are the casualties of too much technology. Look at Bruckheimer films, so much attention paid to blowing things up and not nearly enough attention to creating plots, dialogue or characters. Some could point to Pixar's animated features as an example of great plot and dialogue combined with top of the line computer technology and they have a point. Still, an animated character will never replace a great human character like Indiana Jones or The Bride from Kill Bill, at least not to me.

That brings us back to Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow, which is technologically well realized. However, when it comes to dialogue, plot and characters, the film is shallow and conventional.

Gwyneth Paltrow stars as intrepid reporter Polly Perkins. Polly has stumbled upon the story of the century, the world's top scientists are disappearing and Polly has the inside track toward finding the supervillain behind the kidnappings. Her story is interrupted when giant metal robots invade New York City and only Joe Sullivan (Jude Law) a.k.a. Sky Captain can stop them.

Joe and Polly have a personal history, they used to be an item years earlier but broke up badly. Now because Polly has information Joe needs and Joe has the story Polly needs, the two are reunited and bickering like a divorced couple. Regardless, they must work together to find the missing scientists who will lead them to the supervillain known as Totenkopf. They are aided by Joe's sidekick and gadget man Dex Dearborn (Giovonni Ribisi) and British flying ace Frankie Cook (Angelina Jolie) who, like Polly, has a personal history with Joe.

For a film as unconventional in its technological creation, its plot is actually rather mundane. It's an adventure lifted directly from a 1940's Errol Flynn movie. A nice homage but it fails to hold up for a full-length modern feature. The plot is highly predictable and relies on any number of contrivances to arrive at its predestined outcomes. The technology has evolved but the ability to create a screenplay that doesn't rely on an obviously stupid decision by a character that should know better still persists.

The acting is a little off, likely because of the technology. There is a big difference between acting on a set and acting against a blue screen. You’re reacting to things that aren't there and when you're forced to remember exactly where you're standing or where the fake tree is or the fake animal attacking you is, it's difficult to concentrate on delivering lines and reacting to real flesh and blood co-stars.

The technology has improved so that acting against a blue screen is not as awful looking as it was in the 60’s drive-in movie era. However, just because everything looks seamless onscreen doesn't make the acting any easier and the strain is evident on each of these actors.

Jude Law, who I believe is in every movie being released this fall, has the kind of glamorous good looks to play the heroic Sky Captain but there is something in his performance that is just a little off. Law has this mischievous glint in his eye, he's always had it and it's always been an asset. However, in a role that calls for earnest heroism, that glint seems out of place. There is just a hint of irony to everything he says, an irony that is out of place in a film that is so ingrained in its faked time period.

Gwyneth Paltrow, one of my favorite actresses, also is just slightly off. Her trouble comes more from the script than from her performance. Her Polly Perkins is required to do things that keep the plot going, things that if the character were as smart as she's supposed to be, she wouldn't do them. She does these stupid things because if she didn't, the movie would be over. If you can't make the plot work without compromising your characters then you need to keep working on it. Of course, when you have so much technology to worry about you just don't have time to devote to your plot.

In a recent column, I wrote of how disturbed I was about Sky Captain using the image of the late Sir Laurence Olivier as a character in the film. I am happy to report that my concerns were greatly overblown. The film does not employ Sir Laurence's image in any way that is overly disturbing or abusive. I don't want to give anything away about how he is used because it might reveal too much, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be.

The computer technology of Sky Captain is impressive. Some of the imagery is quite striking. I especially enjoyed the flying British aircraft carriers and the blimps. Very impressive stuff. I also enjoyed the film’s gauzy look that makes it feel aged to its 30’s. The film looks like one of Ted Turner's colorized black and white movies, and although colorization is blasphemy, this film just has a similar look.

Writer-Director Kerry Conran is clearly a fan of classic sci-fi of the 30's and 40's and if you share that love you are going to like Sky Captain a whole lot. There are numerous homages to old movies like King Kong or Errol Flynn's numerous adventure movies. The Wizard Of Oz is used effectively in more ways than one. This love of film classics is admirable and quite enjoyable if you know your history. Keep your eyes open for a number of visual references to classic films.

With the technology and the homages to classic films, I can't be surprised that some things would get lost in the shuffle. Unfortunately, what gets lost is characters, dialogue and plot. There is no doubt that if you’re into technology you will be blown away by what you see in Sky Captain and what could possibly be done with this technology in the future. For me though, no amount of technology can replace the thrill of charismatic characters delivering smart dialogue inside a complicated plot.

Movie Review: Van Helsing

Van Helsing (2004) 

Directed by Stephen Sommers 

Written by Stephen Sommers 

Starring Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Will Kemp 

Release Date May 7th, 2004

Published May 7th, 2004 

When Universal Pictures decided to remake one of it's stable of classic monster movies, The Mummy, Stephen Sommers was a rather unlikely choice as director. Prior to that film, Sommers' only experience had come on a pair of low budget Disney family pics and the disastrous horror comedy (unintentional comedy) Deep Rising.

To the surprise of many in May of 1999, Sommers delivered one rollicking adventure flick that combined the classic mummy with Indiana Jones-style heroics. His sequel, The Mummy Returns however, was a completely different story. The sequel delivered what many had expected of the original, a big, dumb, loud, action movie with more special effects than real adventure.

Whatever your opinion of The Mummy Returns, there is no doubt the film was a hit. So it was no surprise that when Universal decided to revive a few more of their classic characters they would turn to their in-house blockbuster director to deliver a spectacle that would give the classic characters their fist blockbuster big screen treatment. The resulting film is Van Helsing, a 200 million dollar adventure that brings Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolfman to the screen in ways fans of the classic characters could have never imagined. Whether that is a good thing is up to the individual viewer.

Hugh Jackman stars as Gabriel Van Helsing, legendary hunter of evil. Working on behalf of shadowy figures inside the Vatican, Van Helsing tracks down demons, warlocks and other evil forces that no one but he and the Vatican know exist. His most recent assignment was retrieve the legendary scientist Dr. Jekyll who sadly has been completely overtaken by his alter ego Mr. Hyde (Robbie Coltrane in voice only). The assignment ends badly, once again cementing Van Helsing's outlaw persona amongst everyone but his Vatican handlers.

After regrouping at the Vatican, Van Helsing is teamed with a Friar named Carl (David Wenham) to go to Transylvania where Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) is out to kill the last remnants of an ancient family of vampire killers. The Valerious family has hunted Count Dracula for centuries and now only Anna (Kate Beckinsale) and her brother Velcan (Will Kemp) remain. If Dracula finishes them off the family will remain in purgatory for eternity.

Count Dracula meanwhile is searching for Frankenstein's monster (Shuler Hensley) whose creation is linked to Dracula's ability to give birth to millions of Vampire babies (don't ask why, it doesn't matter). The monster is thought destroyed but hides out beneath the ruins of the windmill which villagers torched in an effort to kill him. Once Dracula finds him, it's up to Van Helsing and Anna to save him before Dracula can use him for evil. Deterring the rescue is Dracula's pet, The Wolfman, whose real identity makes killing him very difficult.

Stephen Sommers not only directed Van Helsing he also wrote the film’s screenplay and this is where the film gets into trouble. While Sommers certainly knows how to incorporate actors and CGI effects into a terrific action scene, his writing is more than suspect. His dialogue is full of plot-point-delivered monologues in which characters deliver backstory in entirely unnecessary speeches that stop the movie dead, if only for a moment, before the next bit of eye candy special effects kick in. Don't even try to make sense of Sommers' plot. He didn't bother so why should we?

Worse than that however are the liberties Sommers takes with the stories of these legendary characters. It's one thing to re-imagine Bram Stoker's aged Dracula hunter Van Helsing as a young stud played by Hugh Jackman, that is to be expected when your trying to turn him into an action hero. With the name change to Gabriel Van Helsing, it's usually Abraham, you could argue it's not even the same character.

It is however, the liberties taken with Count Dracula that are most disturbing. There is a reason why New Coke was a miserable failure. Why KFC does not screw around with it's 11 herbs and spices. Because certain formulas just work as they are and that is the case with Count Dracula. There is a reason the Count has been portrayed in the same way ever since Bram Stoker created him, it's because that is the most compelling and interesting way to portray the character. 

In Sommers' take on the character in the person of actor Richard Roxburgh, the character is a laughable mess that lacks any of the menacing or seductive qualities that made Count Dracula an icon. Roxburgh can draw nothing but derisive laughter with his over the top performance, unarguably the worst Count Dracula ever brought to the screen.

Frankenstein is just as bad, although his look is not bad. Sommers' take on the look of the legendary monster is interesting with just enough of a nod to the original combined with modern effects. However, when the monster speaks he loses all credibility. Yes that's right. The monster speaks! Has there ever been a Frankenstein's monster that chewed scenery like Jeremy Irons on a bender? Well there is one now.

Is the Wolfman even worth talking about? Not really. There isn't much depth to the character or much of any take on the backstory. Though there are new twists on the Wolfman's ability, he is according to this film the only being able to kill Dracula, so that's new. Other than that however, the character of the Wolfman is nothing more than a CGI cartoon much like the Mr. Hyde character which receives an inauspicious death at the beginning of the film. These classic characters deserve better.

Amazingly Sommers, as I mentioned earlier, does know how to shoot a compelling action scene. There are a couple of really good action scenes that combine the best of CGI effects and pure adventure fantasy. However, there are far more effects that just pummel the audience with non-stop visual razzle-dazzle. It all grows rather tiresome, especially at the film’s climax. I can't forget to mention Steven Silvestri's film score that, much like the CGI effects, pounds on the audience begging to be noticed, not a good thing.

I really liked the first Mummy film from Stephen Sommers and Van Helsing has some of that film’s spirit, especially in Hugh Jackman's heroic appearance. Sadly though, too much of Van Helsing reminded me of The Mummy Returns which was also way too wrapped up in it's effects at the expense of it's compelling characters and the adventurous spirit of the first film. A little more adventure and a little less effects and Van Helsing might not make for a bad franchise blockbuster. As it is, Van Helsing is yet another disappointing big, dumb, loud blockbuster lumbering it's way toward a huge opening weekend at the box office.

Movie Review Mean Girls

Mean Girls (2004) 

Directed by Mark Waters 

Written by Tina Fey 

Starring Lindsay Lohan, Rachel McAdams, Tim Meadows, Amanda Seyfried

Release Date April 30th, 2004

Published April 30th, 2004 

Rosalind Wiseman's book “Queen Bees and Wannabes'' is a sociological study of the lives of teenage girls. The book covers important teenage girl topics like cliques, fashions, friends, sex and drugs and provides parents with helpful advice for understanding their teenage daughters. I'm told it's a good read, entertaining even, but as a non-fiction book, it was an unlikely and difficult choice for a big screen adaptation.

This difficult task fell to Saturday Night Live head writer Tina Fey whose challenge was to create characters and a story arc from what were essentially intellectual observations of behavior. The characters and the story had to incorporate the book’s many important themes and ideas. Oh, and it had to be funny.

Lindsey Lohan stars as Cady Heron who, for her entire school career, has been home schooled...in Africa. Her parents are Zoologists who have decided to move back to America and enroll their daughter in a real high school. Once inside poor Cady must navigate the wilds of high school cliquedom from the popular kids to the nerds to the various sub-groups of each. Cady quickly realizes that high school is quite similar to the African bush with any number of obvious and hidden dangers. The jungle comparison is a good joke the film uses more than once.

After a rough first day Cady finally makes friends with a pair of outcasts, Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese), who help her navigate the difficult waters. The first lesson is to avoid the "Plastics," the meanest clique in the school and also the most popular. The plastics are three super hot girls, Regina (Rachel McAdams), Gretchen (Lacey Chabert) and Karen (Amanda Seyfried), who run the school. Later when Cady is being harassed in the lunchroom Regina saves her and the Plastics invite her to join their clique.

Though Cady isn't quite comfortable with the Plastics' way of belittling people and their constant focus on clothes and their bodies, Janis tells Caddy to stick with it as a way of exposing the Plastics as the evil that they are. However once inside, being popular becomes kind of fun for Cady and her time as a double agent becomes more and more out of control until she has alienated pretty much everyone.

The film sets up along the familiar territories of high school movies but with Tina Fey's sharp-eyed observations sprinkled in along the sides. Fey, who also has a small role as a teacher, uses this setup for a number of outside the plot observations, the best of which are quick parodies of the stereotypical homeschooled kid. Also, Amy Poehler of SNL shows up in the role of the Mom who desperately tries to be her daughter’s friend entirely at the expense of being a good mother.

Fey's observations are witty, smart and at times a little uncomfortable. Tackling the thorny issue of teenage sexuality, Fey glosses over the rough spots but makes a very cutting observation of how teenage girls in the post-Britney era have become hyper-sexualized. Check the scene where the Plastics with Cady perform a dance routine to the tune of Jingle Bell Rock wearing outfits more at home in a strip club. Any adult male who is not a little bit disturbed by this scene needs to take a step back and imagine that it’s your daughter on that stage. The point hits home quickly.

Many reviewers have drawn comparisons between Mean Girls and the 80's classic Heathers because both films share a cynical edge. Heathers is far darker than Mean Girls but it's not a bad comparison.

I would like to introduce a different comparison between Mean Girls and a high school movie of a very different genre, Thirteen. With its serious source material, Mean Girls addresses some of the same issues as Thirteen but from a comic perspective. Both films detail the way new friends shape how a young girl becomes a woman and how a seemingly normal teenage girl can in a short time become an entirely different person.

Being a comedy, Mean Girls cannot give these issues the depth that Thirteen has. But as a funhouse mirror version of Thirteen, Mean Girls has value to it beyond entertainment. I like how Mean Girls avoids melodrama while acknowledging its serious source material. Serious for parents of teenage girls who may find watching Mean Girls, and its candy coated satire, a convenient way to raise important issues with their daughters.

Most importantly, though, the film is funny. Tina Fey has a quick wit and a great ear for satire. With so many characters to manage, the character development tends to get lost but each of the actors is likable enough to sell the jokes and the character types they inhabit. Lindsey Lohan shows the same acting chops and comic touch that places her a step ahead of her teen rivals Hillary Duff and Amanda Bynes. If Lohan can continue to choose good material, she could have a very good future.

It's Tina Fey however who may have the brightest future. Taking the themes, observations and conclusions of a non-fiction book and creating characters and a story arc that employ those important elements and managing to make it funny is a monumental task. For the most part, she succeeds. The film lacks a realistic edge to provide a real catharsis, especially in its ending which raps up a little too neat, but it's still funny and smarter than most comedies of recent memory.

Movie Review Resident Evil Apocalypse

Resident Evil Apocalypse (2004) 

Directed by Alexander Witt

Written by Paul W.S Andersn 

Starring Milla Jovovich, Sienna Guillory, Oded Fehr, Jared Harris, Mike Epps

Release Date September 10th, 2004

Published September 12th, 2004 

As bad as the first Resident Evil film was, written and directed by Paul W.S Anderson (ugh), could the sequel be any worse? Paul W.S Anderson stepping aside as director was a good first step, as is a script and story more faithful to its videogame source material. However first time director Alexander Witt, who's assistant director resume includes Speed 2, XXX and The Postman seems uninterested in improving on the original, unless you call being bigger, dumber and louder an improvement.

We begin where the last film left off. Our heroine Alice (Milla Jovovich) has just escaped from the Umbrella Corporation's evil underground lab The Hive, where she spent the previous night fighting the undead. Temporarily captured by Umbrella's evil scientists for a quick genetic upgrade, Alice finds herself in the chaotic remains of Racoon City, which has been overrun by zombies.

With most of the once peaceful town infected, and the evil Umbrella scientists having closed the only way out of town, Alice must team with the remaining survivors to fight the zombies and find a way out. With Alice are former cop Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), armed forces specialist Carlos Olivera (Oded Fehr), former pimp L.J (Mike Epps) and a small band of cannon fodder who are picked off in rather predictable fashion.

As the survivors battle the zombies, the chance to escape comes from a former Umbrella scientist Dr. Ashford (Jared Harris). The good doctor will get them a helicopter if they will go to the town’s only school and retrieve his young daughter Angie (Sophie Vasseur). Standing in their way are an assortment of zombie children and a return of those feral organs-on-the-outside Dobermans from the first film.

Let's start with some good things like star Milla Jovovich who, though she has limited range as an actress, is amazingly hot and has a terrific physical presence. She's agile and good with a gun and a believable action heroine. In a better action movie she could be quite effective, but in the midst of this film’s mindlessness she's reduced to repeating herself into tedium.

The supporting cast of Sienna Guillory, Oded Fehr and Mike Epps don't have much time to make an impression in between all of the explosions, zombie bites and gunfire. Epps at least has a couple of humorous moments that he is well suited to deliver. The film could have used a little more of Epps' humor but that would require a far better script.

We cannot be surprised that a script this witless and banal was written by the master of witless banality, Paul W.S Anderson. Every line of dialogue, every moment of exposition is just killing time till the next explosion of big, dumb, loud violence. This can work if you have the slightest bit of wit or sense of irony but Anderson has none. Director Alexander Witt doesn't have any either. His visuals consist of properly framing for the explosion and.... well, that's it.

This plot is at the very least more closely related to the popular video game, a fact that might appeal to fans of the game but is of little comfort to non-fans. Compared to the first film, this Resident Evil manages to be bigger, dumber and louder than the original and that is certainly not an improvement. On the bright side it's still a better video game based movie than Tomb Raider.

Documentary Review My Date with Drew

My Date with Drew (2004) 

Directed by Brian Herzlinger, Jon Gunn

Written by Documentary 

Starring Brian Herzlinger, Drew Barrymore

Release Date August 5th, 2004

Published November 15th, 2004 

In reviews of Brian Herzlinger's documentary My Date With Drew words like 'charming', 'sweet' and 'cute' are often used. On the other hand, so are the words 'creepy' and 'stalker'. There are clearly two camps on My Date With Drew and I find that I agree with the creepy/stalker side. Yes, My Date With Drew has the admirable quality of extreme low budget filmmaking but it plays more like the audition tape to some dopey reality show. Was Brian Herzlinger making a documentary or just trying to get on MTV before he turned 30.

Brian Herzlinger has had a major crush on Drew Barrymore since he was six years old and first saw E.T. Who can blame him, she was adorable in that film and after some dark detours in her life she has remained adorable. So I can understand Herzlinger's fascination. However that is where we part ways. Where I am happy to admire Drew Barrymore's beauty and talent from afar, Brian Herzlinger took the 1100 hundred dollars he won on a game show and used it to land himself a date with Drew Barrymore and the idea for My Date With Drew was born.

With a camera borrowed from Circuit City that must be back before the 30 day return policy runs out, Brian and his friends set out on a variation of my favorite college drinking game: six degrees of Kevin Bacon--only replacing Kevin with Drew. Operating on the theory that everyone in L.A knows someone who knows someone who's cousin knows someone's facialist, Brian sets out to meet anyone who can get him close to Drew. Indeed he even talks to Drew's actual facialist.

The film features interviews with people like Drew's cousin, who has actually never met Drew despite the relationship. Brian interviews actor Eric Roberts who is on a TV show with Andy Dick who it is rumored is friends with Drew. Roberts offers little other than the fact that he may be slightly creepier than Brian. Roberts is also no help in getting Andy Dick who refuses an interview request. Somehow Brian works his way down the Hollywood food chain to Corey Feldman who dated Drew for two months sometime in the 80's but is no help in contacting her now.

That hint of irony that Brian brings to his encounters with Roberts and Feldman betrays the premise that My Date With Drew is really sincere. Feldman and Roberts have that desperate quality of the C-list celebs who will make time for anything they can put on the resume, and Herzlinger seems to exploit that in scenes that are more sad than funny. Therein lies the biggest problem with My Date With Drew, Brian Herzlinger's lack of sincerity.

I simply did not believe the whole thing was anything more than a career-making stunt. I appreciated his ingenuity but thought his abuse of Ms. Barrymore's persona was creepy and self serving. That eventually Ms. Barrymore see's his motives as pure and clever does not sway my opinion. The film lives and dies by Herzlinger's sincere feelings about Drew Barrymore and her work and I never bought it.

Yes, Brian gets his date with Drew, and her love for the project and sincere appreciation of Brian's persistence nearly made me like him and the movie. Barrymore takes the perspective that Brian is merely ambitious and ingenious and she is happy to help that. But that idea is at odds with much of what came before. Is this about Brian sincerely wanting to meet his favorite celebrity, or is this about his career? The film blurs Brian's real intentions.

There is a story of how Matt Stone and Trey Parker managed to get South Park on the air. They made a tape for some industry guy who passed it around Hollywood. It landed in the hands of George Clooney and, from there, onto the desks of the people at Comedy Central. That rough tape never aired but it opened a lot of doors. One of the reasons I found My Date With Drew to be less than sincere is that it plays a little like that South Park tape. It's rough but quite clever and plays like Brian Herzlinger's ploy to make a name for himself and not as the sincere childhood pursuit of a dream that Herzlinger claims it is.

I did enjoy Brian Herzlinger's encounter with Drew. She seems genuinely enthused and leaves any kind celebrity pretense out of it. She is truly what you would hope a big star would be like if you met her, and seeing that makes me want to like this little movie. Unfortunately I do not, because she is not the star of the picture.

When on the actual 'date', Drew talks about how chasing a dream and having the drive to make it happen is a wonderful thing and I don't disagree. That Brian Herzlinger set a difficult goal and achieved it is quite admirable but what does it say about that dream if realizing it is merely hero worship and opportunism. The emptiness of Herzlinger's goal and the creepy stalker-esque way he goes about achieving it brings a whole other vibe to the movie that I'm sure is unintended.

The very funny comedian Eugene Mirman once said that some percentage of stalking has to work. Brian Herzlinger may just be the proof of that. Okay, maybe it's a little harsh to call Herzlinger a stalker. The film never portrays him to be dangerous or deranged. The word I would use to describe him is misguided. I would think that someone of Herzlinger's imagination and sticktoitiveness could find something more constructive to do with his time than pursue a celebrity.

I can tell you this: I wish I'd had other, more constructive things to do than watch him pursue a celebrity.

Movie Review I, Robot

I, Robot (2004) 

Directed by Alex Proyas 

Written by Jeff Vintar, Akiva Goldsman

Starring Will Smith, Bridget Moynihan, Bruce Greenwood, James Cromwell, Alan Tudyk 

Release Date July 16th, 2004

Published July 14th, 2004

Will Smith says he only has a few more years of running, jumping and shooting before he needs to find another niche. Let’s hope it’s more than a few years because he is one of that genre's most-welcome stars. Yes Bad Boys 2 stunk but his latest film I, Robot, makes up for that piece of trash with a smart stylish Sci-Fi action movie.

Smith stars as Detective Del Spooner, your average everyday Chicago Police Detective. Looking around his messy apartment and his old school casual clothes you would never guess he lives in the year 2035. That is until he steps out into the streets that teem with commuters and their walking, talking robot counterparts.

In 2035 robots will be an important part of everyday society, assisting in everyday activities such as cooking, cleaning and various menial jobs that humans would prefer not to do. This might sound good to most people but Del hates it and he hates robots. His prejudice stems from an accident that is hinted at in his dreams.

It is ironic then with Del’s dislike of robots that he would be the detective forced to investigate the apparent suicide of the top robot creator in the world, Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell). Spooner knows Dr. Lanning, how they know each other is explained later in the film, and Lanning has left him a holographic projection that may hold an important clue to something even bigger than his own suicide.

Spooner, ever suspicious of robots, chooses to investigate the case as murder. He is allowed into Dr. Lanning’s labs under the watchful eye of the company’s owner Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood) and Dr. Lanning’s assistant Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynihan). It’s preposterous of course that a robot could commit a murder because they are implanted with Dr. Lanning’s three laws of robotics (They are of course the creation of writer Isaac Asimov who wrote the short story “I , Robot” which is part of this film’s inspiration but not it’s direct source).

The three laws are:

1. A Robot may not harm a human being or through inaction allow a human being to be harmed.

2. A Robot must obey the orders of a human being unless those orders violate the first law.

3. A Robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not violate the first two laws.

Of course as Detective Spooner cleverly points out, rules are meant to be broken. Dr. Lanning must have agreed because prior to his death he created a robot he called Sonny (Voice by Alan Tudyk) who can think, feel and make choices that may allow it to reconsider the three laws. The Robots, especially Sonny, are some of the most spectacular examples of CGI that we have ever seen. Lifelike and eminently believable, the robots of I, Robot stand alongside Spider-man and the creatures of George Lucas as examples of what amazing things CGI can do

Director Alex Proyas may be the best director working in the science fiction genre today. If you haven’t seen his Dark City, finish reading this and run to the video store because that film is a must see masterpiece. I, Robot is not a masterpiece but as a genre piece and a Will Smith movie, it is spectacular.

Smith’s charisma continues to mature as he does as an actor. Smith is such a welcome reassuring presence that you can forgive a few screenplay contrivances that manipulate his character into particular situations. You can also forgive a few of those all-to-well-timed one-liners that occasionally feel out of place in this straight-faced film.

Many critics have complained that this film strays too far from Isaac Asimov’s brilliant short story written as part of his Robot Dreams collection. Indeed this is Asimov’s “I, Robot” in name only. This I, Robot is cynical about technology, robots specifically, where Asimov always played the robots as conflicted good guys that may have occasionally struggled with the three laws but protected humanity.

The script for this I, Robot written by Jeff Vintar and Oscar winner Akiva Goldsman has an almost Luddite view of technology. The script shows a fear of technology more in the vein of Osamu Rezuka’s Metropolis than Asimov, though both ask similar questions. Can robots think, feel, or love?

I, Robot, doesn't have the time to answer those questions. It’s a little too busy being an action movie, but it does have its thoughtful moments and the banter between Smith’s cop and Moynihan’s scientist does offer moments of good debate about the nature of humans and robots. The film is not exactly deep but it has more interesting ideas than most big summer blockbusters and for that we should cheer.

Movie Review King Arthur

King Arthur (2004) 

Directed by Antoine Fuqua 

Written by David Pranzoni 

Starring Clive Owen, Keira Knightley, Stellan Skarsgard, Hugh Dancy, Til Schweiger, Ioan Gruffaud 

Release Date July 7th, 2004 

Published July 5th, 2004

Jerry Bruckheimer’s slavish devotion to commerce may satisfy capitalistic business plans, but as for making enjoyable films, those have been few and far between. Okay, I can’t deny that Pirates Of The Caribbean was a slick, exciting bit of entertainment fluff but I cannot forget the nightmare that was Kangaroo Jack or the most dreadful blockbuster in history, Armageddon.

Bruckheimer’s latest film, King Arthur, combines the commercial slickness of Pirates with the dreary sadness of most of the films that carry his name. King Arthur is an attempt at an authentic historical epic, the so-called “real” story behind the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of The Roundtable. However, the film has no answer to the question “Why would anyone want a history lesson from the man who brought us Con-Air?”

Clive Owen stars as the legendary British/Roman King, Arthur, the greatest warrior in all of the land. Arthur’s legend has grown as he and his loyal band have helped to secure Roman rule in Britain. However with the slow decline of the empire and the encroachment of a warrior horde called the Saxons, the Romans have decided to pull out of Britain. Though Arthur and his knight were to have completed their service, they are asked for one more battle while Rome runs for the hills.

Arthur’s knights include his loyal second Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Tristan the lookout (Mads Mikkelson), childish Galahad (Hugh Dancy), brave Daganet (Ray Stevenson) and tough guy Boers (Ray Winstone). Together they have never lost a battle but this mission is more dangerous than ever before. The final mission, saving a family whose son may be the next Pope, takes them not only toward the vicious Saxons but also into the midst of Merlin and the Britons whom the Romans had been fighting for control of the country.

Once they reach the family they are to save, Arthur finds these religious people may not be as pious as they seem. As the Saxons quickly advance, Arthur and his men rescue a number of abused slaves and captive Britons, including the lovely Briton warrior Guinivere (Keira Knightley). With the slaves and the family in tow, they must outrun the Saxons and eventually form a tenuous pact with the Britons to fight the common enemy.

Jerry Bruckheimer and director Antoine Fuqua have a number of surprises in store in King Arthur but few of them are welcome. Most shocking is the outright overt hatred of religion, specifically Christians. Every religious authority in the film is corrupt to a disturbing degree. The Knights despise religion and as for Arthur, he considers himself loyal to the Pope but also follows a man who is considered a heretic.

When his religious superiors are exposed as bad people, Arthur doesn’t just question his faith; he abandons it with little inner turmoil. As an atheist, I am sympathetic to the film’s looking down at religion but this blatant hatred of religion will turn off a number of everyday filmgoers, and worse, it’s entirely unnecessary.

Another controversial element of King Arthur is its PG 13 rating. Jerry Bruckheimer, the commercial whore that he is, somehow wrangled a PG-13 from the geniuses at the MPAA for a film filled with R-rated violence. Just because there is very little blood actually seen doesn’t make the film less violent. Those are still piles of bodies lying on the ground, those are still guys catching flaming arrows in their chests.

I’m no prude, in fact I wish the film had been more blatantly violent, the punches pulled are purely commercial in nature. The film would have been helped by some honest bloody violence instead of trying to pretend no one really got hurt. Families who go to see King Arthur thinking it’s appropriate for 13 year olds will get a disturbing surprise.

Director Antoine Fuqua is a competent technical director who films action with a professional flair. His actors, especially Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, and Ray Winstone, are pros that easily sell you on their character’s heroism and toughness. It's a shame that they are given a script by writer David Franzoni that is amazingly scattershot.

The script ricochets from staid drama, to well-conceived violence then tosses in cheesy dialogue bits and the unnecessary religion bashing. Director Fuqua and his actors actually hold the film together pretty well. Well enough to give the film the conventional blockbuster look that is portrayed in the film’s advertising. Watching the film however, you will be surprised at how unconventional, or if you’re so inclined, offensive, the film is.

This is definitely not your father’s King Arthur. Forget what you know of the mythic Knights. This is a grittier, more realistic telling of the legendary story. Obviously liberties are taken, I doubt Guinivere was really the kind of girl-power heroine she is portrayed as here. As played by the gorgeous Keira Knightley, Guinivere is the kind of post-feminist heroine that is badass, politically correct and easily marketable.

Of course anyone relying on the producer of Kangaroo Jack for a history lesson gets what they pay for. Bruckheimer’s approach is all about the Benjamins, which probably means that history occasionally took a backseat. Of course Bruckheimer’s commercial approach makes the film all the more curious considering how non-commercial much of the film’s content is. Did he read this script or just commission the poster?

Movie Review: White Chicks

White Chicks (2004) 

Directed by Keenan Ivory Wayans 

Written by Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans 

Starring Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Terry Crews, Frankie Faizon 

Release Date June 23rd, 2004

Published June 23rd, 2004 

This may be an unpopular admission, but I like Shawn and Marlon Wayans.

After their disastrous hosting job on the MTV Movie Awards a couple years back, the boys were savaged by many. The second film in the Scary Movie franchise did little to help their reputation. Still in their short lived TV series, the first Scary Movie and in countless interviews, the brothers have come off as likable, intelligent and funny. So I like them. Which makes White Chicks a difficult film to review because the brothers are far less than likable in this dreadful cross-dressing comedy.

Shawn and Marlon play brothers and undercover FBI agents Kevin and Marcus Copeland. When we meet them they are undercover in a grocery store where a drug deal is supposed to go down. Too bad the guys grab the wrong guys and the real bad guys get away. Worse yet, their undercover mission was not authorized by their boss (Frankie Faizon) and they are almost fired.

Barely retaining their jobs, Kevin and Marcus are stuck with a crappy babysitting gig far from the action of the big case. The brother’s job is to escort bitchy socialite sisters Brittany (Maitland Ward) and Tiffany Wilson (Anne Dudek) to the Hamptons where the sisters are bait in a kidnapping sting. Of course Kevin and Marcus screw up, a car accident leaves the girls slightly banged up and they refuse to go to the Hamptons. This leaves Marcus and Kevin with only one option, call a bunch of makeup and costume artists and take the girl’s place.

Okay so there were a number of better options but this was the only one that got our heroes into white-face and drag. Now the boys must convince everyone from their FBI partners to Tiff and Brit's closest friends and enemies that they are the Wilson sisters. This is where the film completely tosses plausibility to the wind in favor of impossible contrivance.

Yes I realize there is a thing in Hollywood movies called the willing suspension of disbelief, but this is ridiculous. Anyone who could mistake Shawn and Marlon Wayans in their drag get-ups as these two attractive women, Maitland Ward and Anne Dudek, would have to blind, deaf and dumb. That is a little bit too much suspension of disbelief for me. I might be willing to overlook it a little in Marlon's case, his slight frame is better suited for drag, but Shawn Wayans looks only like a man in a bad drag outfit.

Even if the drag bit were a little more convincing, the plot and the various comic situations are so dreary that it wouldn't matter. After dressing Shawn and Marlon in drag, co-writer, director and big brother Keenan Ivory Wayans can think of nothing funnier than having them win a dance contest and act black stereotypes under the guise of being white woman. The running gag is that the guys can't help but revert to being themselves in situations where they are supposed to be acting like white chicks.

The kidnapping plot is far less inspired, involving a career low performance from John Heard as well as the smoking hot Brittany Daniel and model Jaimie King. The only actor that walks out of White Chicks better off is former football star Terry Crews who tops both Marlon and Shawn in the number of laughs, even with far less screentime. 

Crews' character Latrell is a basketball star with a fetish for, ahem, white chicks. When he takes a liking to Marlon in the guise of Tiffany, it leads to the film’s best scene, the restaurant date so prominently shown in the film’s trailer. There is more to that what is seen in the trailer and it's almost worth the price of admission. Just wait till Crews sings, by far the film’s biggest sustained laugh, or maybe it's only sustained laugh.

The problem comes from the idea of parodying Paris and Nicole Hilton who are the oh-so-obvious templates for the film’s bitchy heiresses. Paris is already such an outsized character, on TV every week making a continuing fool of herself and not caring or realizing. Parody of her behavior is far less interesting than the real thing. Worse yet, the little satire that they include has no bite. It's in fact sympathetic to the stick thin, shopping obsessed socialites that are supposed to be its targets.

I know the Wayans Brothers are funny but they need to cultivate better material. Shawn and Marlon are credited with the script with big brother Keenan but there is also a lawsuit soon to hit the courts from a couple guys who claim they submitted this idea to the Wayans’ production company. Why anyone would want to claim this script is beyond me, but on the bright side maybe all these bad jokes weren't entirely the Wayans fault.

Movie Review Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) 

Directed by Alfonso Cuaron 

Written by Steve Kloves 

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman, David Thewlis, Gary Oldman 

Release Date June 4th, 2004 

Published June 3rd, 2004 

When Chris Columbus announced that he would not direct the third Harry Potter film, Alfonso Cuaron was not the first director who came to mind. His most recent work, the coming of age drama Y Tu Mama Tambien, earned an NC-17 rating. Not exactly the sensibility one would bring to one of the largest family movie franchises in history. A closer look however at Cuaron's body of work shows that he indeed may be the best choice they could have made. Cuaron's innate understanding of teenage emotions and adolescence are exactly where the Harry Potter series is headed with its young characters and the combination is electric.

As we rejoin our hero Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), he is back in the world of muggles, living with his awful Aunt and Uncle. This is not the same Harry Potter however who has cowered from his family's unreasonable behavior. Harry is becoming his own man and when a family friend insults Harry's late parents, he exacts a revenge that could get him kicked out of Hogwarts.

After running away from home, including an exciting ride on a ghostly wizard bus, Harry is told that he won't be punished for his illegal use of magic and he will be allowed to return to Hogwarts. The intimation is that Harry's destiny is so closely linked to that of Hogwarts that he can't be kicked out.

Soon, Harry is reunited with his friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint). Before the kids leave for school Harry is told that the criminal Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has escaped Azkaban prison and may be looking for Harry, though it is unclear why.

On the train to Hogwarts, Harry meets one of his new teachers, Professor Lupin (David Thewlis). He also meets an entity called a dementor, a ghostly creature that is supposed to be hunting Sirius Black but whose actions are uncontrollable. Professor Lupin saves Harry from the dementor's soul sucking attack and once on campus at Hogwarts, the Professor becomes a mentor and friend to Harry as Sirius Black looms. Both Lupin and Sirius Black both have links to Harry's parents that are revealed late in the film

The first two Harry Potter films had the feel of self-contained action movies. One could exist without the other. This third film in the series however feels more connected to the series as a whole. There is a transitory feel to the story with more backstory and fleshing out of the characters. This is why the film feels deeper and richer from a character standpoint than the first two films but also why it has less narrative force.

The building of the backstory and characters shove this film’s main plot into the background. The main plot is supposed to be Harry's confrontation with Sirius Black yet Gary Oldman's character only comes into the film in the third act. The thrust of the film is laying out the characters not only for this one episode but also for the future of the series.

There are a number of good things about this film on its own. Alfonso Cuaron's artistic sensibilities bring a more artistic look to the series. His visuals are richer and deeper than ever before. His use of colors reminded me a little of his underappreciated remake of Great Expectations in 1998, a film that used the color green as the third lead character. This is a beautiful looking film and yet the visuals never overwhelm the characters, they deepen and enrich them.

There has been talk that the young actors (Radcliffe, Watson and Grint) may be getting too old for their characters and may be replaced when Mike Newell directs the next film in the series. I hope that isn't true, as each becomes increasingly comfortable as these characters. Especially good is Watson who has stardom in her future. Her spunk and smarts make Hermione shine even brighter than the star in name. Daniel Radcliffe is improving with every outing. While he still at times looks a little overmatched, another film and he could really show us something.

If I were to choose my favorite Potter film, I would say Chamber Of Secrets, which is the most artistic and exciting movie Chris Columbus ever made. That said, Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner Of Azkaban is the most visually impressive of the three and it's the most deeply emotional. It lacks only the narrative force and adventure of Chamber. If this is the way the Harry Potter series is going to evolve, the best of all may be yet to come.

Movie Review: The Stepford Wives

The Stepford Wives (2004) 

Directed by Frank Oz 

Written by Paul Rudnick 

Starring Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler, Roger Bart, Glenn Close, Christopher Walken

Release Date June 11th, 2004

Published June 12th, 2004 

The troubles of a troubled movie project tend to go public long before the movie itself. Such is the case with the remake of the 1975 domestic horror movie The Stepford Wives. The signs of trouble began with gossip about onset bickering between the stars and director Frank Oz. Then, when the film ballooned from a three-month shoot to a six-month shoot, the gossip turned to outright fact. Finally, there was the kiss of death, the announcement of reshoots to change the ending.

Whatever chance the film had of reaching blockbuster status went out the window when the reshoots were announced. Now the best that the producers can hope for is that the editing, which when added to the time spent shooting brought the project to more than a year's worth of work, could salvage something salable, or even moderately watchable. That they did a little better than that is a miracle.

Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick star as Joanna and Walter, a married couple who also work together at a television network. Well, Joanna works, she's the head of the network, Walter works for her. However after an incident with a crazed reality show contestant, Joanna is fired and Walter quits out of sympathy. After Joanna recovers from a minor nervous breakdown, the couple take their kids and move to a gated community in Connecticut called Stepford.

Right off the bat, the place is weird. It's too neat, too orderly, too...clean. Not just clean but frighteningly clean. There is more weirdness as the family meets the Stepford welcoming committee in the form of Mrs. Claire Wellington (Glenn Close). Picture Martha Stewart on a serious caffeine bender. While Walter is shuttled off to the Stepford men's club, Joanna joins Claire at the Stepford day spa where the women of Stepford work out, though not in a way any normal woman works out.

Though her husband takes quickly to Stepford's ‘50s country club feel, Joanna is not completely alone in her alienation. Also new to the neighborhood are another pair of transplanted New Yorkers, Bobbie (Bette Midler) a cynical, slovenly, Jewish writer and Roger (Roger Bart) an outré fashion conscious gay man and well-known architect. Bobbie came to Stepford with her schlubby househusband Dave (Jon Lovitz) and Roger with his barely out of the closet lawyer Jerry (David Marshall Grant).

Being the only three normal people in all of Stepford, they commiserate over the oddity of the woman in Stepford. They all dress like housewives from 50's TV ads. They bake like it were their only job in the world. And strangest of all, these gorgeous woman are all having amazing sex with their doughy, dopey husbands, as the three accidentally witness on an uninvited visit.

Things only grow weirder though when both Roger and Bobbie disappear and then reappear in the Stepford mold with all of their personality sucked out. All of this oddness has something to do with the Stepford men's club and especially it's founder Mike Wellington (Christopher Walken), also Claire's husband. Though most of you know the film’s secret, I don't want to ruin it for the uninitiated. Needless to say, the film comes down to a battle between Joanna, the men's club, and indeed her own husband.

The biggest surprise about this film is not it's twist ending but rather how good the film is until that twist. There are a number of funny moments in Stepford Wives and most come from Kidman, Midler and Roger Bart whose biting comments about the woman of Stepford are very funny. The best scene in the film is when the three attend the Stepford woman's book club where the book of the week is all about Christmas ornaments.

Glenn Close turns in a performance that rivals her turn in Fatal Attraction for it's over the top lunacy. It almost goes without saying that Christopher Walken is good. Yet again, Walken has another of those speeches that only he could deliver. It's not as good as his tooth fairy bit in The Rundown or his masterpiece of death speech in Man on Fire, but for sheer Walken inspired lunacy it's a real highlight.

So what went wrong? Up until maybe the last 15 to 20 minutes Stepford Wives was a pretty funny comedy and then it flew completely off the rails. In his effort to distance this film from the original director Frank Oz makes a decision that is such a complete departure from the original film it's mind-blowing. The twist ending of the original film was what made it so memorable, it's why the film existed, for that one moment of shock. Obviously, that shock isn't going to be as good a second time, but the change made is so radical and so obviously tacked on that it ruins the entire picture.

Nothing of the first 50 or so minutes of the film’s run time makes any sense at all once the twist is introduced. This is a horribly misconceived change that I can't tell you how bad it is, you really have to see it for yourself to see what a garish and obvious mistake it is. So bad you wonder how a major studio and a professional director could make such a mistake.

The original Stepford Wives is a pretty good horror film. It's also very of its time. It's a social satire that drew from the burgeoning women's rights movement and the societal changes that were happening so quickly in the 1970's. When you look back on it this is not a film that should inspire a remake. The new Stepford Wives is not just filled with mistakes in its creation and final product. The idea to make it was probably the biggest mistake of them all.

Movie Review Saved

Saved! (2004) 

Directed by Brian Dannelly 

Written by Brian Dannelly 

Starring Jena Malone, Mary Louise Parker, Macauley Culkin, Patrick Fugit, Heather Matarazzo, Eva Amurri 

Release Date May 28th, 2004

Published May 28th, 2004 

As fans of Kevin Smith’s Dogma can attest, people do not have a great sense of humor about their religion. This makes the teen comedy Saved! a bold endeavor indeed. A religious satire set in a Catholic high school, Saved! is a savagely witty film about piety and acceptance, about being different and fitting in. Mostly though, it's just darn funny.

Jena Malone stars as Mary, a member of her Catholic high school's most popular clique, The Christian Jewels. The leader of the clique is Hillary Faye (Mandy Moore), a teen who takes her love of Christ more seriously than most girls take their first crush. Hillary has a brother, Roland, played by Macauley Culkin, who is in a wheelchair and she can't tell you enough how much she sacrifices to take care of him, whether he needs it or not.

Mary is an only child whose mother Lillian (Mary Louise Parker) is a dedicated Christian, recently named the number one Christian interior designer in the city. Her job takes her away from home often as does her faith. Also, Lillian has weekly meetings with the school's principal Pastor Skip (Martin Donavon). The meetings are poorly disguised trysts. Pastor Skip happens to have a son named Patrick (Patrick Fugit) who's the head of the Christian skateboarding team and has a crush on Mary.

Mary has a boyfriend, Dean (Chad Faust) who is the source of most of her troubles. While hanging out in Mary's pool Dean confides that he thinks he is gay. Shocked, Mary has an accident in the pool and has a vision of Christ that inspires her to try and save Dean. Her idea however is not the best, she thinks that having sex with him will cure him and that since it is in service of Christ, he will forgive her and restore her virginity. Instead she gets pregnant and Dean is sent to a facility that claims to cure homosexuality.

Also in the cast is Eva Amurri as Cassandra. She is the only Jewish girl at this Christian high school, there only because she has been kicked out of every other school. Cassandra is an absolute outcast and revels in her rebellious role and especially enjoys tormenting Hillary Faye. She really gets Hillary when she takes an interest in Roland and the two begin a tentative relationship. When Mary finds out she is pregnant she turns to Cassandra for help.

It's a terrifically funny setup that leads to a surprisingly softhearted ending. A slight disappointment but because the characters are so likable you can forgive the slight schmaltz. In its smart and savage wit the film evokes a little of the classic black comedy Heathers and the more recent teen satire Mean Girls. The religious setting gives the film some rich targets and it hits most of them with smart, funny observations.

This is a very funny cast of teen actors, especially Jena Malone whose indie smarts will guarantee her a long healthy career. Macauley Culkin is also a standout. Finally coming out of his own shadow, Culkin has a relaxed bemused manner and shows that he may still grow into a good actor. Mandy Moore deserves credit for taking a secondary ensemble role, eschewing her star status in order to take on a tough role.

The film’s best performance however comes from Eva Amurri. For a good portion of the film, Amurri is the conduit for the audience of non-Christians who can't stand the constant milquetoast piety thrust upon them. She savagely rips everything and everyone she sees and is hysterical doing it. By the end of the film she has softened a little but overall it's still the best performance in the film.

First-time feature director Brian Donnelly deserves credit for taking on a tough topic. Religious satire is often demonized and marginalized by controversy, Saved! has been lucky thus far not to have aroused the attention of the religious right. Donnelly, with his co-writer Michael Urban, has crafted a very funny teen movie with an edge that provides some very big and controversial targets. The film however does not rely solely on its setting to provide it's humor but smartly relies on it's talented cast to deliver the laughs. 

Movie Review Ray

Ray (2004) 

Directed by Taylor Hackford 

Written by James L. White 

Starring Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Clifton Powell, Harry Lennix, Terrence Howard, Larenz Tate

Release Date October 29th, 2004

Published October 28th, 2004 

There is an odd sort of verisimilitude to this week of reviews as we transition from a horror musical review on Wednesday of Rocky Horror Picture Show into a musical biopic which will remain as our theme headed into Friday when we discuss Bohemian Rhapsody, the new Queen and Freddy Mercury biopic being released nationwide this weekend. It’s rather fascinating to consider that these disparate phenomena, Rocky Horror, Ray Charles and Queen were contemporaries of sorts. Each was a facet of our vast popular culture at the same time, available to the same audience in different ways.

The story told in Ray stops well before the stories for Rocky Horror or Queen even begin but by the time they do arrive, Ray is established as one of the stalwart figures of the music business, a warrior who overcomes disability, racism and a drug habit to become an enduring pop institution. The movie Ray gives us that proverbial ‘warts and all’ look at the life and legend of Ray Charles and while the film is on the shaggy side, Jamie Foxx’s lead performance is one of the great performances of this young century.

Ray tells the story of Ray ‘Charles’ Robinson in a sort of a linear fashion. The film is populated by gauzy flashbacks to Ray’s tragic childhood in Northern Florida in the early 1930’s. In the linear story, we meet Ray as he charms and lies his way onto a bus from Florida to Seattle where he has a gig as a pianist waiting for him. Confusingly, the story flips between Ray’s bus ride to Seattle and the gig that got him the cash to go, playing in a redneck country band.

The structure of Ray at times threatens to derail the movie but Jamie Foxx is so remarkable and the music of Ray Charles so indelible and fascinating that it’s too good even for director Taylor Hackford to screw up. We watch as Ray learns valuable lessons about protecting his money, he insists on being paid in singles to assure that his pay was not shortened. We see him learn how not to be taken advantage of by friends and how they should not underestimate him because of his disability.

Finally, we watch with the most fascination as he creates a legendary catalog of hit music. The studio portions of Ray are magical, filmed with an eye for how historic this moment and time must have been. The cuts to Curtis Armstrong’s Ahmet Ertugen and Richard Schiff’s Jerry Wexler as they witnessed Ray cutting legendary songs in a single take capture the pure creativity that infused the music of Ray Charles. You don’t have to love Ray’s fusion of Jazz, Gospel and Pop to recognize music history in the making, his music crossed all possible boundaries.

If it looks easy it’s because Ray Charles always made it look easy. His blindness didn’t matter, he was one of those rare souls infused with music and an untameable talent for creation. In one of the great moments in the film and in music history, we witness Ray improv what would become one of his all time, bestselling classics, “What’d I Say,” as a way of filling time at the end of a gig that had ended too soon in the eyes of the promoter who threatened not to pay Ray and the band.

Some discount Jamie Foxx’s performance as mere mimicry or a broad impression but I don’t think that is fair. Foxx is stuck with a director in Taylor Hackford who has stuck him with a script that undermines him with a series of pop psych level flashbacks to his childhood that are supposed to infuse him with depth but instead come off as awkward and confused. Foxx overcomes this not by committing to those moments but by busting through those moments to get to the heart of Ray Charles.

Foxx captures both the Ray Charles we know, the gyrating, gesticulating, impish performer and the calculating, paranoid addict side of Ray Charles that the public only glimpsed in headlines. Ray could be cruel when he wanted to be, as demonstrated by his marriage and his relationship with various managers and hangers on, people who thought they were perhaps more than just employees but soon found themselves on the outs.

Foxx is incredible at maintaining our sympathy for Ray even as he does terrible things to himself and to his wife, played by Kerry Washington. It’s not that Ray’s behavior isn’t disappointing, along with director Hackford’s lame attempts to explain his behavior via those pop psych flashbacks, but rather that Foxx gives Ray Charles a vulnerability that not only we find irresistible but we can imagine others found irresistible as well. That’s not an easy trick for any actor to pull off, let alone an actor known at the time for sketch and stand-up comedy.

Foxx’s performance is unquestionably rendered better by comparison to the rest of the movie. Taylor Hackford drags out the story with his stumbling, flashbacks and detours, he spends a good deal of time focusing on the homes Ray Charles bought for his family, admiring the architecture and dwelling on the cost in scenes that are rarely necessary for moving the plot forward.

And then there is the treatment of the women in Ray Charles’ life. Taylor Hackford takes a pair of our most talented African American actresses and gives them little to play beyond cliches of the put-upon wife and the neglected mistress. Kerry Washington and Regina King struggle to bring depth to characters that the director appears to view as roadblocks for Ray to navigate in his redemption arc. Foxx doesn’t see them that way but he has no control over how the edit of the movie robs both actresses of moments where they can grow beyond their function to the story as impediments and aids to Ray’s faults and growth.

Ray is thus a mixed bag as a movie and a music biopic but as a showcase for an actor, it’s a remarkable piece of work. Hackford loves Jamie Foxx, he gives his lead actor every opportunity to exercise his limitless ability to capture the Ray Charles of our imagination and something so very real and true about the man. Foxx bites into the role with fervor and a powerhouse level of star-power and charisma. It took an outsized performance to capture the outsized legend and a remarkable talent to bring him into a real life, sympathetic context beyond the legend.

Jamie Foxx delivers a truly iconic performance as Ray Charles. Here’s hoping Rami Malek is able to do the same for Freddy Mercury whose life had some strange parallels with Ray Charles, though Ray was able to overcome his demons in ways that sadly, Freddy never got the chance to do. If Rami Malek can deliver even a fraction of Foxx’s power, we’re in for something great in Bohemian Rhapsody this week.

Movie Review Monster Man

Monster Man (2004)

Directed by Michael Davis

Written by Michael Davis

Starring Eric Jungmann, Justin Urich, Aimee Brooks, Michael Bailey Smith

Release Date February 13th, 2004

Published October 6th, 2003

There are a number of films released every year that we never hear of. Some of them like the little seen drama After April are very good, some like the street drama Rhapsody should never have seen the light of day. Many more are like the low budget horror flick Monster Man, a slightly above average little film that not many people have seen or may ever see.

Monster Man stars Eric Jungmann as Adam, a nerdy little guy on a road trip to tell the girl of his dreams that he loves her before she gets married to some other guy. Joining Adam on his trip is Harley (Justin Urich), a former friend who wasn't asked to come along. Harley also had a thing for Adam's girl and even had the fling that Adam never got. That's just one source of tension between the former friends, Harley's over the top obnoxiousness only makes things worse.

In fact, it is Harley's obnoxious behavior in a redneck bar that draws the attention of locals who don't take kindly to out-of-towners. It's not long before the two roadtrippers are being followed by a very pissed off redneck in a monster truck. After escaping the monster truck and hiding out in a hotel, the guys find they have a stowaway; a gorgeous hitchhiker named Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Boy did she pick the wrong car, as the monster truck driver continues his pursuit. Along the way, there are stops in more little redneck bars, gas stations and farmhouses, all with horrifying consequences.

Monster Man is a combination of Jeepers Creepers and Joyride but with a great deal more humor. Writer-Director Michael Davis attempts to do the impossible in Monster Man by combining humor and horror without sacrificing real scares and real laughs. The script is an excellent balance of scatological banter between the leads and disgusting blood and gore from the bad guys. It really is an impressive piece of work.

Unfortunately, the cast of the film isn't up to the task. Jungmann is way too much of a wuss to sell the physical moments of the film. His transformation from wimp to hero never registers. Urich is even less impressive, combining the obnoxiousness of American Pie's Stifler with the disgusting antics of Animal House's Bluto without a modicum of John Belushi's underlying sweetness.

As for Aimee Brooks, the former star of the camp soap opera Passions is a perfect fit for the delicate mixture of humor and horror. Michael Davis shows a real talent for scripting and shooting. With a better cast, he could make a truly terrific film. With his work, he elevates this rather unoriginal premise with great humor and plenty of blood, guts and creepiness.

Movie Review Man on Fire

Man on Fire (2004) 

Directed by Tony Scott 

Written by Brian Helgeland 

Starring Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Christopher Walken, Radha Mitchell, Marc Anthony, Mickey Rourke 

Release Date April 23rd, 2004 

Published April 23rd, 2004

Denzel Washington has become such a consistently brilliant actor that we have begun to take him for granted. Seeing Denzel's name on the poster, you know that he will deliver a great performance regardless of whether the film is any good. Case in point, his latest film, Man On Fire, in which Denzel is terrific but the film is an utter mess. Full of child-in-danger cliches and muddled visuals, it comes from Tony Scott, a once great director who has become a parody of his own best work.

In Man On Fire, Denzel is John Creasy, a former special forces soldier who regrets the number of people he has killed over the years. Living in a perpetual alcoholic haze, Creasy finds himself in Mexico City visiting an ex-army buddy named Rayburn (Christopher Walken). Rayburn has successfully given up the guilt of being a killer and is now a happily married family man. Rayburn feels he can help Creasy by getting him a job and finds him work as a bodyguard.

As the films jangled, sunburnt, out of focus prologue explains, there is a kidnapping every 90 seconds in Mexico City and one of the most requested services is that of a bodyguard. With Rayburn's help, Creasy gets a gig guarding Pita (Dakota Fanning), the daughter of an auto manufacturer, Samuel Ramos (Marc Anthony). Though he can barely afford to pay Creasy, Samuel hires him at the insistence of his wife Lisa (Radha Mitchell).

At first, Creasy does all he can to keep emotional distance from Pita but eventually her sweetness and smarts win him over. The scenes of Creasy and Pita bonding over swimming, homework and music are given great weight because of these two amazing actors but do little to mask the tragedy that is so obviously on the horizon. The film’s ads and trailer betray the tragedy of the film even before you enter the theater. You already know that Creasy is going on a killing spree, this is a revenge film so you can infer why revenge is necessary.

The revenge scenes are as brutal as anything in last week’s dark revenge fantasy The Punisher and much like that film, the scenes of brutality overstay their welcome. Director Tony Scott achieves a languorous pace that dwells on each bit of vengeance and regardless of how justified it may seem, it begins to wear on anyone with a conscience. The real betrayal however, comes at the end of the film which entirely betrays all that came before in one twist that makes you feel dirty for having been so involved in the film’s drama.

As always, Denzel is fantastic. I can't say enough good things about Denzel, he is consistently better in each and every role. It's unlikely that any other actor could have made this role tolerable. Because Denzel is so skilled and so trustworthy, we follow this character further than we would a lesser actor. It is truly sad how Director Tony Scott betrays Denzel's performance with cheap cliche and overheated visuals that border on the absurd.

I also can't say enough nice things about young Dakota Fanning who is so much better than the roles she plays. This preternaturally smart pre-teen is going to be one terrific actress once she learns to choose better material. Like her roles in I Am Sam and last year’s Uptown Girls, Fanning is far better than the characters written for her.

The rest of the supporting cast are merely cardboard cutouts, placeholders for plot points. Especially underutilized is Christopher Walken, who gets one good Walken-esque speech, the “masterpiece of death” speech seen in the commercial. Other than that, Walken is on the sidelines for most of the film.

Director Tony Scott has sadly lapsed into a parody of his better films. The man who directed True Romance, Crimson Tide and Spy Game has fallen in love with his camera and overuses it at every opportunity. Just because you can create unusual visuals doesn't make it necessary to use them. Scott can't help washing out colors, superimposing dialogue, out of focus shots and tricks with sound and editing. Maybe he felt the visual histrionics were necessary because the script is such an awful cliche.

Nothing is more cheap and manipulative than placing a child in a dangerous situation. Man On Fire is predicated entirely on a child being placed in the midst of gunfire and being the target of unnecessary violence. A screenwriter who can't achieve real drama falls back on this type of cheap ploy, this film is built around it.

The most ludicrous part of Man On Fire is not its cheap manipulative plot or awful twist ending, it's a little coda that appears prior to the final credits. On a black background, there is a message from the filmmakers thanking the wonderful people of Mexico City for providing such a great place to make a movie. The film portrays the city as a cesspool of corruption, a place where police officers conspire with criminals to snatch children, a place where a kidnapping happens every ninety seconds. Therefore, the thank you at the end is a rather backhanded slap as opposed to a real thank you. I doubt Mexico City is going to brag about having hosted the filmmakers behind Man On Fire.