Featured Post: REVIEW: Professor Marston and the Wonder Women
Featured Post: Halloween Street. Episode 5 – Friday the 13th
Featured Post: THOR: RAGNAROK World Premiere Photos
Featured Post: Review – Wormwood, Gentleman Corpse: Mr. Wormwood Goes to Washington #1
  • Thumbnal: REVIEW: Professor Marston and the Wonder Women
  • Thumbnal: Halloween Street. Episode 5 – Friday the 13th
  • Thumbnal: THOR: RAGNAROK World Premiere Photos
  • Thumbnal: Review – Wormwood, Gentleman Corpse: Mr. Wormwood Goes to Washington #1

Comments Off on Entrapment


Posted by: |

I would like to preface this review by reminding my Gentle Readers out there that I am a heterosexual female. I would then like to say that Catherine Zeta-Jones, her butt in particular, is the best thing about this movie. This does not make Entrapment a de facto bad movie, but had some other female creature been contorting her way across a deadly web of infra red security beams, this movie would have rated a little lower. Sean Connery is playing his sage “I was James Bond once, you know” character who naturally finds Ms. Zeta-Jones pleasing to the eye. No stretch there, but then when an übermortal such as Connery is trying to woo an überdeity like CZ-J, well, I mean, she would make Superman feel inadequate.

Sitting in the theatre, I enjoyed the movie, but as occasionally happens I totally forgot I saw it and therefore did not review it for over a week. This to me bodes ill for the longevity of the movie. I recall thinking it is a delicious mix of kick ass locations, interesting double and triple crosses, and a wild pastiche of poorly explained motivations that still added up to keeping me interested and involved. The amazing twin towers in Malaysia, the tallest structure on earth, is a major setting and that stuff alone it’s worth catching on HBO. Did I mention Catherine Zeta-Jones’ ass? It’s truly not fair. I do my part – I work at a computer all day, see a lot of movies, read, drive everywhere, and eat my American share of fatty and sugary foods – why should that Welsh bit look so much better than I do and still make it look natural? Doesn’t she realize how much higher the standards for women’s’ appearance have just risen?

Connery is old but he’s no slouch – he does some pretty cool stuff and the castle on the loch in which he makes his home is also a delicious location. Overall, the movie was very entertaining and utterly forgettable. Ving Rhames and Will Patton are in it, yeah, and well, uh, and they do some stuff, and there are some really cool cat burglary scenes which I am a sucker for in general. Zeta-Gives-Men-A-Jones is feline and fulla moxie. I found myself sucked in even as my rational brain screamed “No! Give me a break!” Scientifically speaking, that would make this movie a perfect start to the air conditioned soporific known as the summer movie season.

“Pretty girl! Pretty places! Neat trick! Ooh tension! Oh a surprise. Cool….art. Pretty places again!” I had no idea all the signs on everything in Malaysia were in English. It’s always a bad sign when I can’t generate 500 full words, but if you think Catherine Zeta-Jones (last seen in Mask of Zorro) is pretty, you will like this movie quite a bit.

MPAA Rating PG-13
Release date 4/30/1999
Time in minutes 113
Director Jon Amiel
Studio 20th Century Fox

Comments Off on Never Been Kissed

Never Been Kissed

Posted by: |

“Full Price Feature?” you ask, agape. You have forgotten what I mean by my ratings again – dollar value for what you seek! Never Been Kissed is a brutally hilarious look at the pain of being a huge dork in high school and what would you do if you got the second chance. Drew Barrymore is totally perfect as our intrepid undercover reporter who goes back to high school – and frankly she probably does a better job at fitting back in than most of us would, I am sure. It’s got social commentary, slapstick, horrible flashbacks to her own actual high school days, all kinds of great emotional plays. Then of course is Michael Varnet – he could get me to do post-graduate work any day! Sure, that teacher has some general boundary issues with his students, but we all know how it should turn out, so we are OK with it.

Drew is funny and brave enough to get ugly, way ugly, truly fugly, and sexy enough to pull off her sweet naïveté as an adult. She has a great supporting cast back at the office, and a moderately good cast at school. The requisite popular girls aren’t as sociopathic as the ones in Jawbreaker, or as cold as the ones in Heathers, but they are funny, in their small bits. The movie has a lot of fun with its subject matter, as well as some fun with the perennial wackiness that kids endure during these
particularly charged years of their lives.

David Arquette, fresh out of the Slovakian wilderness (Ravenous), plays her brother, and he’s very funny and cool. They were both well-cast, as they can look like adults or like high school kids with the flip of a hairbrush – much more so than the cast of Grease, I should say.

Great things to notice:
– The costuming at the prom – my god, that scene alone is worth frame by framing the DVD for.
– The end credits – you’ll see what I mean. Time to play “there’s your boyfriend!”
– The costuming in the flashbacks.
– How “the one major guy” in school is never actually cute.

Never Been Kissed is loads of fun, never pandering (though it does have a message), and always funny. I went with six other women (look out!), some of whom had to tell significant others that they could not join us – guys actually want to see this movie too, and it’s OK. You don’t have to be a girl to appreciate the pain of high school stigmas, or the gross echoes of our youthful disappointments that still reverberate in adult life (unless you had a chance to address them). After the movie we stood around
comparing awful prom stories (my dad had to rent my date’s tux or he couldn’t go) and then moved on to general humiliation stories. If we didn’t identify with Drew, we identified with someone. Despite being past all that, it still hits a chord. It’s nice to be able to laugh at it. It’s also nice to get to look at that Varnet dude – woof!

I am constantly amused by the fact that the swarm of teen movies (which regular readers will note I have been utterly sucked into) nearly all require an 80’s song or a remake of an 80’s song in their preview or soundtrack. I know the films are being marketed to the Breakfast Club as well as the New Kids in Tha Hood, but come on! I was recently asked by an adult (for naturally at 29 I could not possibly be an adult) what “jiggy” meant, and I really had to dig around for the answer. But the answer lies within the teen movies, I should have said. I gave her the 411 and wasn’t that dope of me?

Go see it.

MPAA Rating PG-13
Release date 4/19/99
Time in minutes 107
Director Raja Gosnell
Studio 20th Century Fox

Comments Off on The Matrix

The Matrix

Posted by: |

I can’t tell you what the Matrix is – you have to see it for yourself. Wiser words were not said.
Movies like this, and Blade, I have to step back and remind myself (and by extension, you, my Gentle Readers) why I rate movies by dollar value. I am here to tell you now that The Matrix is exactly what you should be paying your hard earned dollar for – it is what you want it to be, and even pretty smart and self-referential as well! Take Strange Days + Terminator 2 + Dark City + Brazil + Lawnmower Man + Alice in Wonderland + John Woo + The Net minus the stupid stuff in Strange Days and Lawnmower Man & The Net and then add that unique end of the millennium malaise that so many of us trapped in a black and metal cubicle (as I am – are you not? save me!) have. It’s really cool.

“Keanu Reeves at his least bothersome!” screamed the headlines the next day. Folks, if you are boycotting the Matrix because it has Keanu Reeves in it, get over yourself now. As one of my companions so wisely said, no one says “whoa” with the gravity and truth that Keanu does. And he has plenty of great reasons to do so.

The effects are luscious – sure, we’re all sick of the Gap “Khakis swing” ad freaky rotating freeze, but you knew someone was going to use it in a movie as soon as you saw it, didn’t you? Enemy of the State uses it, and it feels forced. The Matrix uses it (only three times) and it totally fits within the framework of the story. You’re not going to get any story out of me – the surprises are one of the best aspects of the film. However, judging by the fact that it opened Friday and as of Sunday I knew of THREE SEPARATE social groups of people seeing it for the 3rd time, this leads me to believe that it is to guys as Titanic was to chicks. For those not impressed by the phrase “kick ass visual effects,” consider this: the movie is by the same folks who brought you Bound (a Full Price Feature itself, and vastly different from this movie) and it shares Bound’s wonderful and interesting camera work, cool angles, the total love affair that the DP has with the shapes in his frame. To sum up: Guys, this flick has some seriously boss CGI action – and some awesome mano a mano as well. Gals, the mise-en-scene is spectacular, and you get to see Keanu partially naked (though the scene is not all that, um, hot). For the record, another scene reminds one visually of a Gap or a (shudder) Old Navy commercial, which amused the crap out of me. Talk about subtle product placement!

Notable new face is Hugo Weaving – who IS this guy? What a total bad ass! At first, I thought Agent Smith was just a guy trying to be Gary Cole (boss from Office Space, dad from Brady Bunch) – but by the end of the movie, he is like a whole new beast of menacing cool. Remember how you thrilled as Robert Patrick (aka the T 1000) just looked like a guy, but somehow the lack of animation was more chilling than any Al Pacino histrionics? Hoo-ah! Weaving better be in one of the next Star Wars movies! Laurence Fishburne as well (with his kick ass sunglasses that reflect everything at once) speaks with a smooth, inhuman monotone that, to me, really drove his character home.

The other best thing about The Matrix was how they somehow squeak along the fine, fine line that separates archetype from cliché. For example: everyone wears shades, black leather outfits, listens to cyberpunk music, and has some horrific web handle. If I were in this movie, I suspect my name would be Crabby or Tampon or something lame. So, even though our hero, Keanu, has been named Neo, it’s still OK. There is a reason that sunglasses are an overused icon for coolness – **because they are cool!** Name someone whose face is not improved by just the right sunglasses and I will say, “whatever, you’re still wrong.” Folks wearing black just look good. Slick, modern, bad ass. It is true, why fight it? Think of the angels in Wings of Desire and you know why they kept that idea for City of Angels. It’s *cool*. The Matrix takes stuff that should be tired and somehow it’s still cool. I am also pleased to announce that for a “virtual reality movie” that spends a significant time “online” (those who have seen the movie know why those are in quotes), the 2 hrs plus flick fairly skims along. Remember The Net, frantic and ultimately static scenes of typing, looking much like you reading this review right now? Yawn! But the filmmakers saw the pitfalls the movie would fall into via the inevitabilities presented by its subject matter and they somehow avoided them.

Basically, it’s a lot of fun, it’s great to watch, it doesn’t insult you, and it even explains deja vu. How’s that for dollar value?

MPAA Rating R for sci-fi violence and brief language.
Release date 4/6/99
Time in minutes 136
Director Andy & Larry Wachowski
Studio Warner Bros

Comments Off on 10 Things I Hate About You

10 Things I Hate About You

Posted by: |

Based very loosely on The Taming of the Shrew (you know, by that guy, that old English dude), 10 Things is the millionth movie of 1999 to have a prom scene in it and the zillionth romantic comedy where the lovebirds start out bickering, but you know what? I still enjoyed the hell out of it. I will admit – the beginning of the movie is wildly uneven! The guidance counselor featured so prominently in the previews is really a throwaway character, and the beginning uses quite a lot of the weak-looking preview material. The result is the usual dry-heave of unfunniness when a preview gives away jokes, and a weird mish-mosh that looked like it was trying to be style and ended up being kind of retarded. But! Never you fear, Earnest Fans – the movie picks up pretty soon after that. Of course we know how it’s going to turn out – that is so not the point of a film like this. As with life, the joy is the journey. Purists may be upset that Mr. Verona (ha ha) didn’t lock Ms. Stratford (hee hee) in a closet and break her will, but we have come a long way, baby, after all.

I appreciated the movie not using any of the NeoBrat Pack like Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jennifer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prinze Jr. and Katie Holmes and so on. None of these kids except the nice young man from that TV show, uh, 3rd Rock from the Sun? are even recognizable, for the most part. the fact that our hero Patrick (Heath Ledger – what a great romance novel name!) has an Australian accent doesn’t hurt either – a soft gentle one like Olivia Newton-John, not a brash Outback one like Paul Hogan. Our heroine Kat (Julia Stiles) is everything that we 10 -yr.-reunion veterans wish we were and know will ultimately be regarded as The Babe – she’s beautiful, wild, speaks her own mind, really smart, and fun to be around. Between the two of them, it’s actually a nice little match. For all the characters’ around them insistence that they are freaks and mutants, it doesn’t take long for us fogies whose prom smelled of Breakfast Club to recognize who the mutants are. Stiles is a role model (except she’s a little more hostile than I am sure she should be – but so am I)!

Another thing that will be unappreciated by many: the father is rabidly protective – but, unlike a movie like She’s All That, it isn’t just “how he is” or just for the sake of comedy – it’s explained. Everyone has a motivation, everyone has a character and many of those characters develop. Despite the patchy editing at the beginning, it all comes together quite nicely in the end. Again, with the embarrassingly unfunny and unnecessary exception of the normally fabu Allison Janney as Ms. Perky, this is quite a nice little movie. The relationship grows in a totally natural way – everyone’s transformation is much better than the cookie cutter rendition of Pygmalion of She’s All That (despite Freddie Prinze Jr.). It’s not brilliant, high comedy – it is still a will-the-teens-get-together movie that culminates in a prom, but so what? It’s a member in good standing of the huge panoply of will-the-teens-get-together movies. Double bonus – the clothes are basically realistic too. No freaky $200 a piece cyber slut clothes like Jawbreaker, no impossibly beautiful people made to look like hideous wretches merely through accessories – just plain old jeans and tank tops and jackets and skirts. Refreshing, really.

Some genuinely funny bits are scattered throughout the film, a mildly obtrusive “buy me” soundtrack is prevalent but not totally distracting (and it was even infectious!), and what a gloriously gorgeous setting! To save you the trouble, I waited to find out – it was shot at Stadium High School in Washington state. You cannot imagine how totally awesome Padua High is – it looks like a wonderful old English university with a California bit of flair. Wow! Someone asked why so much of the action took place hanging out by the athletic field (seeing as these characters aren’t cheerleaders and jocks) – the answer to that is – wouldn’t YOU hang out there at every
opportunity? What a view! One of my favorite scenes is in the stadium seating and it’s kind of your typical Ferris Bueller stunt but it cracked me up!

See it, and enjoy!

MPAA Rating PG-13
Release date 3/31/99
Time in minutes 94
Director Gil Junger
Studio Touchstone Pictures

Comments Off on Go


Posted by: |

For the first time, a movie that is trying to be Pulp Fiction actually succeeds in a weird way, without seeming derivative or stupid. Go is about one night, and three stories that intertwine of crazy club kids, the drug culture in L.A., and how “life begins at 3 am” (or so says the promotional swag). I’ll go ahead and say right away that what turned me off the movie for the most part was my constant sense of peril – any one of the characters seemed to be getting into a bad situation at almost any point, and no one seemed immune from sudden and horrible death. Directed by Swingers’ Doug Liman, I admit I was hoping for the same fun, reckless reflection of natural people doing interesting and even outrageous things. Instead, I had a bunch of kids throwing themselves in the way of harm so often I couldn’t even feel sorry for them or worry about them by the 3rd reel. Instead of glorying in the reckless fun of a car chase, say, I was too worried about them to have any fun. It is inevitable that Go will be compared to Swingers, so why don’t I just step in and do the
honors now.

The movie looks like it wasn’t even fun to make – I can’t explain it. I know it will be a huge hit, kids will think taking X is the be-all end all of awesome, and parents will blame Go for just being a terrible influence. It wasn’t bad, however, and I probably could enjoy it on a second viewing just because I won’t worry about people who don’t need worrying about. I know I sound like the late Gene Siskel at his most fuddy duddy, but I like the escapism of a
young-kids-living-that-crazy-rebel-without-a-cause thing as much if not more than the next one – I do spend 40+ hours a day feeling my body die slowly behind the desk at a software company, after all. It’s not Ferris Bueller meets Sid and Nancy either. It’s a wanton self-destructive version of the rumble scene in West Side Story meeting Less Than Zero. But with many more funny parts, I will admit. Go has a lot of humor, I just had a hard time enjoying it as much.

Taye Diggs stars in the first segment (it’s a weird triplicate of roughly the same several hours, looping back on itself like Pulp Fiction but more linearly) as a teen living on her own and potentially wasting her life on a loser scene which looks like it should be fun but I just couldn’t get into it. At least Vince Vaughan being a reckless bastard in Swingers looked like fun. Dawson’s Creek’s Katie Holmes is her friend, scary Timothy Olyphant (Scream 2) is featured as a creepy echoes of all bad boyfriends past. An English gentleman whose last name is Askew (my faulty source material has omitted listing his first name) stars in the second segment, and Party of 5’s Scott Wolf and 200 Cigarette’s Jay Mohr have the funniest of the 3 segments. But all these folks are in each other’s segments – it’s just a three tiered view of one crazy night. All three include a different use of the word “Go,” a literary and seriously glossed over thematic tie in that barely justifies the title.

Doug Liman is also the director of photography, as he was for…you know, that other movie – and it totally looks it. One scene takes place in a casino and the lighting, the atmosphere – it could have been shot between takes of Swingers. For some reason that bothered me, and I bet no one else would notice or care. But it definitely has that stamp on it. It is less sunny and merry than Swingers, more gritty and muddy and greasy haired – but maybe that is also indicative of its characters. The swing scene is all about dressing up and playing nice and couple dancing and looking cool. The X taking rave scene is about dirty kids living in their cars to save money to buy drugs and tattoos. It could just be a stylistic thing, but the grittiness also did not help make up for the constant sense of peril that quells much of the humor.

The thing about Go that makes it worth seeing at all is the unique situations everyone gets in – none of this is really anything I have ever seen before, which is nice, and this weird sub-strata of characters gets left behind in “major motion pictures” (not unlike the swing scene in Los Angeles until Swingers) – but the characters of Go end up doing nothing more than engineering one big Stop. Or is it three big stops? By the end, well, you’ll see. Overall I grant you this sounds like a negative review, but you know, in a way it’s not – I was very emotionally involved in the characters to be so worried about them in every shot, and I was definitely totally captured by the movie. By those standards, it’s a bang-for-your-buck kind of movie. Parents will hate it.

As a side note, at the SXSW screening I attended there was a proliferation of groovy club swag and weird Swingers’ style logo T-shirts…Liman is not trying very hard to remind us of his previous big success.

MPAA Rating R-drug content, sexuality, language ,violence
Release date 3/29/99
Time in minutes 103
Director Doug Liman
Studio Columbia Tristar

Comments Off on Ravenous


Posted by: |

Believe me, everyone I told I was going to see this movie (except the 3 people I saw it with, and apparently the other 3 people in the one-show-a-day screening) was mystified as to why I would want to see a cannibal movie. Uh, has everyone forgotten Silence of the Lambs, Delicatessen, Alive, Eating Raoul, Eat the Rich? Anyway, it’s really more of a vampire movie, except instead of sexy Transylvanians gnawing on ladies’ necks, it’s sexy frontiersmen gnawing on each others’ legs. But instead of the moral quandary posed by Alive, the sensational mystery posed by Dr. Lecter, Ravenous is a pure tale of “eat and change” – like a vampire, those who imbibe will become craven and a cannibal for life. So, you people out there shut up about the cannibal thing.

Pros: Cannibalism as vampiric expression. Check. Guy Pearce as the lead. Ooh mama – he was the hunky costar of Matrix’s Hugo Weaving in Priscilla Queen of the Desert, and then he was a buttoned up goody two shoes in LA Confidential – but this time he is a traumatized veteran who has experienced some serious terror. It’s a terrible sight, the raw carnage of this movie – and that is the war stuff, before we even get to the relatively civilized windingo! Mmmm but I would eat up Guy Pearce any day of any week. Pearce fans, his mono-expressioned face is reason enough to sneak into Ravenous.

OK, got the cannibalism, Guy Pearce, what else? Oh, yeah – Ravenous has an interesting story, a great deal of pure tension, a really random but interesting cast (including Jeffrey Jones and David Arquette dialing 1-800-EAT ME ha ha I couldn’t resist), and some UNbelievable Slovakian wilderness that is supposed to be the untamed American West. Wow! I think they had to do some reshoots later, after the snow melted, because it appeared that some of the patches of snow in the woods were…cloth! But apparently it only bothered me. Oh, and the website is pretty cool too! Bonus for two utterly appropriate and contextually hilarious quotes by Ben Franklin!

So – we have an interesting idea, a hot sexy lead, a great cast, fantastic locations. What’s with the earplugs? I have to shout here: THIS MOVIE HAS THE SINGLE MOST ANNOYING SCORE I HAVE EVER EXPERIENCED! If you have ever been around a small child with a one-note repetitive instrument like a triangle, a drum, a horn they can’t play, you might have an idea of the horrific nature of Michael Nyman’s atrocity. Yes, I mean the same Michael
Nyman who wrote the yummy music for Gattaca and *The Piano* for goodness’ sake! Tab Hunter (I can only assume it’s The Tab Hunter) plays the jew’s harp boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing (random drop in pitch) boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing. Occasionally other instruments interrupt. I don’t mean the harp boings for a measure or two and is mixed too loudly, I mean no other sound but the ear-drilling boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing while our hero treks across fantastic wilderness and runs for his life and those kinds of score-inducing film moments that should involve instruments with a variety of pitches. All of my companions and I were clawing at our seats and our faces and ears, tears squeezing out over the din. I am so angry that an otherwise adequate movie was rendered utterly unwatchable by this freaky annoying CRAP! Michael Nyman, I shake my fist at you!

It is actually a testament to the actual movie (story, shots, acting) that I was still interested in the story and experiencing suspense and thrills – the music is more obtrusive than that in LadyHawke. We all love Queen’s music in Highlander and Flash Gordon, right? Now take the volume and presence of that music and make it an 1847 techno-irritation. Did Fat Boy Slim’s great great great great grandpappy write this? The music is wretched, agonizing, heinous, unforgivable, and directly the opposite of the lyrically beautiful Guy Pearce.

I mourn the production staff of Ravenous whose movie will never get seen, except by the deaf. Rent the DVD with subtitles.

MPAA Rating R for considerable gore and strong violence
Release date 3/19/99
Time in minutes 100
Director Antonia Bird
Studio 20th Century Fox

Comments Off on The Mating Habits of the Earthbound Human

The Mating Habits of the Earthbound Human

Posted by: |

Financed by Columbia Tri-Star, this SXSW screening seemed to indicate that no distributor had picked up this movie. I hope that changes soon because Mating Habits is a mighty amusing film. It takes what could have been a one-joke idea that should only have made for a 20 minute film, and filled a screening room with loud, sincere laughter. First time feature director Jeff Abugov honed his comedic talents in sitcoms (successful ones) for 12 years before thinking up the concept of what if we, humans, were subjects of a National Geographic-style documentary. He said that he was watching some nature show and the narrator was saying how this tortoise stands over the eggs to warm them and to keep away predators, and he thought, how do we know that? And a screenplay was born. Mating Habits is a fake documentary from the perspective of a community of extra-terrestrial beings who look at us much as we look at the bonobo monkeys. They even have coined the phrase, “f*#k like people*” because of our amusing and primitive sexual process.

Mackenzie Astin and Carmen Electra play the male and the female, and in 20 days they shot one surprisingly funny movie. David Hyde Pierce, a.k.a. Niles, narrates, and with a perfect mix of arch superiority and naive charm gives an outsiders’ perspective on our peculiar games that we play when trying to Make the Hookup. We hear our own lives’ dialogue and it’s dead-on, both for the males and the females, and while some jokes are easy or cliche (like waiting 2 days to call her to seem cool), many of them are sociologically very insightful and funny. It’s so true at times, it’s almost heartbreaking.

But it’s always funny. A huge bonus is the documentarian’s inability to illustrate conception graphically – they use, well, people. It’s really really funny. I don’t want to say any more but it’s ulra wacky. Every time this particular section of the movie started up, the whole audience was rolling and crying. Watch and listen also for quick, Star Trekker nods to including alternative planets’ species and events when listing examples for the presumed audience.

I couldn’t imagine this movie being released wide into “real theaters,” but at the same time I really hope it will be. It’s very funny and definitely original and clever. It opens strong and actually maintains the humor and tone throughout. As soon as it seems like it might be flagging (human plot-wise), the narrator steps in and renders a new perspective and brings it right back up to speed again. The actual romantic hookup of Electra and Astin (never thought you’d hear those names used like that, did you?) is interesting enough to sustain a film to a degree – and the narrator’s schtick is used sparingly enough that it too could be a funny short film just with still photos. Together it’s a sharp, funny little movie.

MPAA Rating R for strong sexuality and language.
Release date 3/17/1999
Time in minutes 88
Director Jeff Abugov
Studio Columbia Pictures

Comments Off on Cruel Intentions

Cruel Intentions

Posted by: |

The first thing I have to say is, thank goodness Ryan Phillippe is 4.5 million times better looking than John Malkovich. In this blatant remake of Dangerous Liaisons (not a modern adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses but a modern remake of the delicious Glenn Close/John Malkovich movie), Ryan apes the chilling smoothness of Malkovich with the added bonus of being painfully beautiful. He is also utterly empty, and waxed within an inch of his life. I’ve had my share of smooth operators work on me in my day, some of which as coldly calculating as the original Valmont, but none with such motiveless high school wickedness as our boy Ryan. Even his smiles look artificial. As his wicked stepsister (their prep school’s Marquise de Merteuil), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, er, I mean Sarah Michelle Gellar, is a weird combination of babyfaced popular girl and sociopathic nympho. Her voice is so girlie, so babyfat cheeked and curly somehow, you can’t believe her suave sexual predatory instincts. To quote the Heathers wannabe Jawbreaker, “She’s so evil, and she’s only in high school!” And she looks it, too. Check out her wardrobe! Junior League tramp all the way.

Selma Blair is another young fresh faced star of this romp, (she’s the Uma Thurman/Cecile de Volanges character) but she is extra interesting and funny because, unlike everyone else in the movie, she acts and shows character development and even a little of her own age. “She’ll be my greatest victory,” Phillippe drones about his latest conquest, the Seventeen Magazine virgin played by Reese Witherspoon. Reese is no Michelle Pfeiffer, you know? I would have to say every freaking time I saw the preview (count how many movies I have seen this year, subtract Life is Beautiful, and you’ll get the idea how many times I endured the promotion of Cruel Intentions!) “Your greatest victory since you lost your virginity last year?!” We all promised to see this movie together, we had endured and quoted the silly lines from the preview so many times.

I was relieved that the majority of these goofy lines that made it seem like it was supposed to be this sex thriller were slid in out of order – they are more amusing in context. And like most of the New Teen Movie trend, the preview needs an 80’s song remake to sell the movie to the kids – and to the demographic of the Last Teen Movie trend – me and my friends. Thank goodness we Xers haven’t figured out that we are the establishment yet!

Everyone is acting so coool, like high schoolers do, and sexually confident, but basically Intentions takes the incredible brilliance of de Laclos’s 1782 novel and makes it…a teeny bit dull. The story modernizes so well, I was hoping for something really incisive. With the glut of teen movies that are actually remakes of pre-technological classics, it is the most translatable for teen culture. Oh, sure, the freaky faced Witherspoon (now engaged to and carrying the baby of Phillippe!) has a blouse full of goodies (“Free us!” – thanks MMR!), but you see nothing. Sure, Buffy lays one on a girl, dresses around her decolletage, and wiggles in her step brother’s lap, but for a movie that is almost exclusively about sex and the notions of the repercussions of sex, it was way less steamy than your average Red Shoe Diaries. Even less than a mild Red Shoe Diaries. It still seems ludicrous for these kids (god, listen to me, I *am* the establishment!) to cross their long aerobicized legs and toy with each other like embittered veterans, but I guess that’s the comedy part. It’s beyond my control.

To everyone’s credit, they all look like they are having fun making the movie. The sets are almost as sumptuous as its Oscar-winning counterpart, and Phillippe is actually pretty funny. Swoosie Kurtz, a veteran of the 1988 adaptation, has an amusing bit part as Phillippe’s shrink. An unfortunate production choice of having a running soundtrack under regular dialogue gives the whole movie a comedic feel – kind of weird. Not just the amusing banter right before a punchline or under a funny monologue, but all the time. It reminded me of the music in Heathers, but not as moody. Naturally they all attend Catholic school, a traditional hotbed of sinful rebellious instincts. Almost no “adults” are present, adding to the surreality of these kids as adults – all dressed up like Holly Golightly and working the business of popularity like it was a movie deal. Some of the original plot elements (a swordfight, public humiliation and small-pox) don’t translate to super-chichi Manhattan of 1999, but the screenwriters did a pretty good job working in new resolutions. Oh my god, and that car! Dear Movie Reviewer Fairy – I would LOVE a ’56 Jaguar Roadster in black, I don’t care how crappy it will run. Ooh, can I have that house instead? How about another shot of Ryan Phillippe’s butt?

MPAA Rating R-sexual situations w/teens, language and drugs
Release date 3/17/99
Time in minutes 97
Director Roger Kumble
Studio Columbia Tristar

Comments Off on Happy, Texas

Happy, Texas

Posted by: |

Directed by Mark Illsey – what a great, fun, hilarious movie! And, brace yourself – an original premise too! Shot in 26 days in Piru, California (with apologies from the filmmakers), Happy, Texas is a mistaken-identity comedy taken to new levels, and with a battery of names in it as well – it has *got* to get distribution. Actually, I think Miramax is going to be the studio to make some money off this one, and I would like to be the first to recommend that you assist them in their get-rich scheme. Steve Zahn (That Thing You Do) and Jeremy Northam (Emma) are escaped convicts who end up in Happy and, well, I don’t want to give anything away, but Ally “Profiler” Walker and Illeana “Too Cool” Douglas and William H. “Ultimate Badass Actor” Macy are all in it, and it’s just great! OK, the logo and the titles are *horrible* but whatever. Realistic? Probably not. Charming and humorous and original? Oh yeah!

Zahn is a mealy mouthed hick boy, pretty stupid but definitely chock full of conviction. He turns in a hilarious performance, I mean seriously funny! Jeremy Northam’s dialect is a little shaky but it just makes him sexier, I think – he is caught in an interesting bind and they both attempt to keep up their facade and elude their pursuers while also undergoing some serious life and character changes! How many times can you say that about a movie? Also, it’s excessively funny. It mines both homosexuality and homophobia for humor, yet mocks neither perspective. Over-zealous teachers, hicksville naivete, and greedy strangers forced by their situation to really cooperate put on a show in order to succeed as imposters. Small town life, small town obsession with talent and glamour and the whole pageant that these fellers get mixed up in is treated really quite lovingly. Somehow they manage to fit in character development and humor and a moderately complicated plot line in a sharp script and shoot it in no time flat!

Ally Walker seems to have had her face possessed by the acting ghost of Jennifer Love Hewitt, but once you get past that it’s all smooth sailing. Macy, do I have to tell you, was the audience favorite. Everyone was completely caught up with his character’s storyline. Without giving any plot away, my only problem with the movie is a moment of miscommunication that should have been resolved on screen for us so we know everyone comes out OK, but is not dealt with. Considering how great everything else is, it seems a glaring omission, but still it does not mar the general enjoyment of the movie. It was like eating a bunch of sweet nummy grapes and getting just one yicky one in the last third of the bunch.

I took almost no notes because I was really caught up. I hope the filmmakers were there at SXSW to appreciate how much the audience was digging the show. As the credits rolled and nobody moved, a near-universal murmur of “Twenty-six days!” arose from the crowd as the staff thanks the cast and crew in the end titles. It was pretty cool. Go see it when you can.

MPAA Rating PG-13
Release date 3/17/1999 10/1/99 NY/LA
Time in minutes 98
Director Mark Illsey
Studio Miramax

Comments Off on 200 Cigarettes

200 Cigarettes

Posted by: |

There is a lot to like about 200 Cigarettes – but a lot of it has been relegated to your imagination. It seems clear what the filmmakers wanted to do, and it would be an interesting, interwoven slice of 1981, but instead it cuts back and forth between people who only tangentially are related to each other and all end up at this one party. The best part is Courtney Love (who, incidentally, was also the best part of Larry Flynt), who exudes early 80’s glam sexiness and sass and New Year’s Eve emotional vulnerability and depth. And she looks fabulous too!

The whole cast is actually a terrific ensemble, but since only a couple of them are allowed to interact at the same time, the brilliant casting is reduced to an amusing Polaroid montage at the end which encapsulates the climax of the whole evening. That, I admit, is disappointing. Martha Plimpton is throwing a party and throwing a fit. Paul Rudd is dumped and dumber, and Christina Ricci is out past curfew to pick up some boys. Goldie Hawn’s daughter plays a particularly interesting woman determined to have the perfect evening. Chris Rock is a fabulous Greek chorus of a cab driver who drives nearly all these folks around at one point or another, and he could have been used more to tie these crazy party kids together. The screen is filled with names and familiar faces, but not like Sandra Bullock/Harrison Ford faces, just faces familiar enough that by the end of the night, almost everyone is a friend you knew personally who somehow got written into the movie. I did laugh a lot, and genuinely was interested in the various storylines, but I wanted them
to be more interrelated. It’s New Year’s Eve, and everyone in the film has a lot riding on the outcome of the evening.

Naturally, Dec. 31, 1981 has some seriously great soundtrack potential, which is mined pretty well. Everything from Ice Castles to Blondie to Elvis Costello. I appreciated how it doesn’t smack of “BUY ME” like the Wedding Singer soundtrack, so of course now I want to buy it. The dramaturgy of the costume and production design is also much better than the 1982-1987 pastiche of the Wedding Singer. Since all the characters come from a variety of sociological strata, we get a pretty great retrospective cross-section – punkers and high school new wavers and the princess seamed nice girls and the disco Smoove B type, as well as the arty smoking type.

And so I come to the title. 200 cigarettes at least are no doubt smoked on screen in this movie, which naturally will be decried for glamorizingsmoking. The thing is, smokers and non-smokers alike know of the mysterious smokers bond shared by those that inhale the leaf. Yet the bond is only as deep as the habit allows – it is said that cigarette smoking is used by people to keep them from achieving closeness or having to relate more closely. And so it goes, the huge pile of future Nicorette gum chewers talk and talk and relate and relate, but never scratch below the surface. This is not a criticism of the script, but rather praise – it takes some doing to make what is essentially bar and bathroom chatter interesting throughout a full feature length film.

Maybe other people didn’t like it, but I did. Again, Courtney Love vs. Janeane Garafalo equals fabu in my book. It has its flaws, but it’s definitely entertaining, if you like character studies and if you can identify with the vast loneliness of New Year’s Eve and with the weirdness of the walls that people erect between themselves. But it’s not an art film, or anything like that. It’s funny. Keep your eyes open, though – a lot of it is subtle. But man, smoking is so nasty! Even Paul Rudd looks unappealing with a cancer stick sticking out of that pretty mouth of his. Sigh.

MPAA Rating R for strong language and sexual content.
Release date 2/26/99
Time in minutes 97
Director Risa Bramon Garcia
Studio Paramount Pictures