Reviews

The Woman Under the Stage is a psychological thriller that deftly builds on the inner turmoil of the characters, taking a dark journey down the theatrical labyrinth. It hinges on the lead character's descent into a mysterious scenario, and Jessica Willis gives a bravura performance. She carries the movie in a strong, yet vulnerable way that takes the audience along with her every bit of the way.

The interaction with the other lead, portrayed by Matthew Tompkins, makes the picture a dangerous cat-and-mouse game with palpable tension. The screen shines every time these two have a scene together.

The director Ezekiel Decker commands a masterful use of close-ups that heightens the emotions of the characters. Jessica Willis captures every nuance of what her character thinks and feels. The audience need only look at her silent expressions to understand what her character is experiencing.

The plot is somewhat reminiscent of Inland Empire in a good way. The protagonist struggles to make sense of unknown goings-on as an actor in a possibly cursed production. Jessica Willis matches Laura Dern for intensity and subtlety in a breakthrough role.

Ezekiel Decker's original music is another highlight, seamlessly fitting to evoke the atmosphere. This is a powerful debut that is elevated beyond typical horror into the psyche of damaged characters.

Cold November is a unique coming-of-age tale from the perspective of a young girl in a matrilineal family. Exploring activities usually portrayed by male characters in movies, it is a refreshing approach on themes without the familiar gender bias. It deftly blends hunting, familial rites of passage, and the biological maturity of becoming a woman. It functions as a tone poem, with a contemplative exploration, focusing on quiet moments, and it explores the internal struggles of coming into one's own place in a family and, in a greater sense, society.

While retaining some of the source novel's and original picture's themes, Tim Burton's version of Planet of the Apes is a very different movie. The subtext, however, remains largely intact. Religious, social and political themes abound, as a distorted funhouse mirror is held up to our own culture.

There are plenty of good performances, notably by actors portraying apes--Tim Roth, Michael Clarke Duncan, Paul Giamatti, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa and David Warner. Helena Bonham Carter manages to be oddly appealing and even winsome through the chimp makeup.

While my initial reaction was highly favorable, I'm not sure this new film will posit the longevity of the first one. It breaks no new ground to become a classic.

It does feature more simian-like behavior. The apes exhibit physical characteristics of their respective species as they move about and react emotionally. The makeup is extraordinary. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences should polish up another Oscar award for the brilliant Rick Baker.

The movie also seems to be missing a few scenes of motivation or development. I know it was supposed to have been re-edited at the last minute. It would be interesting to view some of the deleted scenes. Here is to hoping for a wealth of bonus material on the DVD.

Viewing the 1968 film is not necessary but beneficial to pick up all the intentional references, both in dialogue and situation. Some of them are rather humorous.

This is a rather frustrating film in that it seems to have such potential but falls woefully flat. It is a very loose adaptation of John Irving's novel, "A Prayer for Owen Meany;" in fact it's such an oversimplification that Irving requested the title character's name change and has the credits read, "suggested by" instead of "based on." Without having read the book, but knowing a little about it, I'm sure there is much greater stuff in the source material. What the movie amounts to is a schmaltzy, good-humored, tear-jerker wannabe. It is shameless in its use of manipulation to move forward the story. It practically forces its humor and pathos on the viewer. The director and screenwriter, Mark Steven Johnson, seems to literally indicate to the audience that here's a funny moment, you should laugh, and now get ready to cry, this is poignant. I felt so emotionally distanced from these types of scenes, it was extremely difficult to enjoy the parts of the story that worked. The best bits were of the strengths of the bond of a friendship between outcasts and the non-traditional family. The religious meditations on faith and predestination are rather clumsy and obtuse, while the foreshadowing is unbearably blunt. The movie is never allowed to work on a more dramatic level and settles for being a lighter piece of overly sweet confection. Good period tunes (from the 1960's) seem jarringly out of place with the tone of the story, and the score is overwhelmingly intrusive, serving to emphasize the banality of the filmmaking.

This film is an extremely funny and pleasantly entertaining action comedy. Chris Tucker (who stole the show in "The Fifth Element") and Jackie Chan play mismatched police officers who must work together on an international kidnapping case. Plots are largely irrelevant in this type of picture, so what the movie amounts to is an above-average treatment of the Hollywood buddy cop comedic-action formula. It is billed as Chan's first lead role in an American production in 12 years. This shows in its superior production values and script. While maintaining a boisterous sense of comedy, it doesn't resort to the outright silliness of the past string of overseas Chan movies. Chan and Tucker have an easygoing, natural chemistry and make a delightful pairing. Both leads are charismatic and provide abundant energy. Their differing styles are a good match of well-executed physical stunts and verbal play. Tucker's stylish, motor-mouthed delivery and eye-popping mannerisms are a nice complement to Chan's high-speed moves and affable disposition. If someone ever paired Tucker in a film with Jim Carrey, an 80-foot screen could hardly contain the miasmic presences of these two. Popping up in supporting roles are an almost unrecognizable Elizabeth Peña as an LAPD agent and Tom Wilkinson of "The Full Monty." As always, stay for the credits to see outtakes featuring stunts gone awry as well as many botched lines. The lively score is provided by notable composer Lalo Schifrin, perhaps best remembered for the "Mission Impossible" theme.

The tag line, "How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?" seems appropriate because, in short, the answer is that they didn't. Kubrick, for all his touted genius, didn't come close to capturing the book on film. It hardly seems to have much to do with Nabokov at all, instead being off the subject and its own unique creature. Although some films can (and should) be viewed as divorced from their source material, I find it difficult to regard this production without comparing it to Nabokov's creation. I wonder why Kubrick interpreted it this way. Putting aside the possible controversy a faithful adaptation may have caused, Kubrick chose to emphasize the satirical elements and update it to 1960s culture. Of course, Lolita is aged a few years to make the relationship less shocking. As played by Sue Lyon (who looks much older), she comes off as a typical '60s teeny-bopper heroine. Kubrick seems to want to parody other movies of this period and the activities of that society and set. The music here is atrocious, especially the annoying love theme, which resembles swinging go-go music of the era.

The story wanders all over the place, hardly devoting enough time to central relationship between Humbert Humbert and Lolita. The plot is slight and unfocused, preferring to diverge off into subplots that distract from the main story and themes. When the occasional scene does follow the book (many occur in a strange, seemingly random-chosen fashion), it appears almost jarringly out of place with the rest of the action. By incorporating too many elements of diffuse black humor, the comic and poignant obsession angle is considerably diluted. The film is also hampered by poor performances by all the major players save Peter Sellers. James Mason is especially weak as Humbert, Shelley Winters is unequivocally annoying, and Sue Lyon is a completely uninteresting disappointment. Sellers' character of Quilty is allowed to dominate the movie so much, I questioned whether this was supposed to be his story. The Quilty character, which was essentially a minor through pervasive presence in the novel, is brought to the forefront here, and Sellers improvises wildly to create a particularly overshadowing creep. As a movie on its own, perhaps the Kubrick version works on some level, but it fails as an adaptation of Nabokov's novel.

Based on Rodman Philbrick's novel, "Freak the Mighty," this is a funny and moving tale of the adversities of youth. On the surface, it may seem somewhat similar in concept and themes to "Simon Birch." Both films concern the friendship of two adolescent boys who are outsiders, with one of whom possessing some sort of medical condition. Together, a diminutive "brain" and a husky "brawn" team to form "Freak the Mighty," with the smaller lad perched upon the larger's shoulders. They bond over the ideal of chivalric knights and embark on noble quests with their imaginations revolving around the King Arthur mythos. The movie generates genuine emotions and doesn't resort to the trickery employed by mundane Hollywood-ized stories (see "Simon Birch"). The situations aren't played for cheap laughs, and the film takes a turn into darker territory when one character's convict father shows up, threatening dire circumstances. All of the leads give above-the -mark performances, especially the two younger actors. Kieran Culkin displays more range in this one part than in his elder sibling Macaulay's entire career. Sharon Stone is superb in a winning, heartfelt appearance. Fans of "The X-Files" may want to tune in to see Gillian Anderson in a brief role that is about as far as Agent Scully as one can be. Trevor Jones contributes an inspiring score that reflects a Celtic-influenced medieval motif that mixes with the urban realities of modern day Cincinnati, Ohio. This is a smart and thoughtful film that, while containing some deeply sad moments, is no tear-jerker. It manages several touches of humor including a very amusing "Star Trek" reference.

Unfortunately, what was promised to be a revitalization turns out to be another disappointing entry in this long-dead series. Despite an uncredited treatment and script polish by "Scream" creator, Kevin Williamson, this film offers no new elements, and much worse, no scares. It is plagued by a routine formula of familiar setups and is filled with so many false-start type tricks, that when Michael Myers finally comes lumbering around, there seems little to do with him to foster genuine fear. Janet Leigh is wasted in an aren't-we-clever cameo that adds nothing to the movie. She and daughter, Jamie Lee Curtis, aren't serviced by this dull script, and I'm surprised to see this mostly good cast in such a tired effort. I expected much more from the concept. If Curtis wished to reward fans of the genre by revisiting the same ground twenty years later, she should have agreed to a better script and/or perhaps coaxed the original director, suspense master, John Carpenter, to return as well. Finally, in another poorly conceived attempt at wit, we have a stupid subtitle: "H20." This only seems to confuse people who would expect some tie-in to a water theme instead of the twenty years later abbreviation.

Briefly put, this film is a quite brilliant adaptation of the novel. While staying pretty faithful to the original source, Stephen Schiff's screenplay fleshes out the primary characters and their relationship, which plays out as a taboo but reserved love story. Maintaining the central themes, the plot is reduced to the essence of the major players and the linear events of the book. It's almost impossible to adapt a long book into the confines of a single average-length movie, but Schiff captures most of the important moments quite well and humanizes the characters who could have come off as bizarre depictions from Humbert's narrative.

Lyne's movie is at once haunting, compelling, and beautifully photographed. For all the controversy, it is a mature, reflective, and subtle film. "Lolita" is a challenging piece of work that sublimely reflects the pathos of the story and manages to retain bits of the complex humor of Nabokov. This "Lolita" abandons the notion of being a complete social satire and works as an essentially dramatic portrayal of a doomed, inappropriate romance that is ultimately a sad, tragic tale.

The performances are remarkable, especially those of Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain. Irons is utterly perfect as the ill-fated wretch, Humbert Humbert. So understated but evocative with every move and gesture, he is the definitive Old-World European whose obsession bristles beneath his timorous demeanor. He evokes an incredible amount of sympathy for the character. Swain delivers an on-target portrayal of the flowering nymphet who toys with her burgeoning sexuality but hasn't overcome her fundamental brattiness. Swain elicits both allure and pity as the wayward character whose immaturity in mindset and behavior does not excuse her complicity in her affairs. Despite what some critics may have written, Melanie Griffith is fine in the small role as Lolita's overbearing mother. She is comically obtuse, and her veneer hits all the right, grating notes. Frank Langella rounds out the cast as the mysterious Quilty. He is appropriately shady, vague, and sinister when he appears from time to time, slowly revealing himself.

This is a real winner on many levels and should be up for several awards including best picture, director, actor, actress, and adapted screenplay. Showtime should be congratulated for its smart acquisition. I hope the movie finds its way to the largest possible audience.

David Zucker has directed one of the most enjoyable comedies of the year with this goofy farce. Yes, it's a matter of acquired taste and depends upon a wealth of sophomoric gags, but it is consistently funny throughout unlike some recent comedic efforts. The film is loaded with all kinds of jokes ranging from the blatantly obvious to the more subtler kind that you must pay attention to everything in the frame or you'll likely miss them. Like his previous efforts which include "Airplane!", "Top Secret!", and "Naked Gun," the humor flies out almost every second. There are so many moments that work, it's easy to overlook the few that fall flat. What sets this movie apart from other pale imitations in the spoof genre is that it has an actual story line. While others have depended upon making fun of too many famous scenes in almost random movies (take "Mafia!", please), this film tells a new story with likable characters. It touches upon sports films in general as well as satirizing the real sports industry instead of lampooning any specific movies. Even for people who don't care for "South Park," its creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, make a good pair of leading actors with natural chemistry. The film also makes extremely effective use of cameos of athletes, sports announcers, and other celebrities, especially a hilarious bit with Robert Stack of "Unsolved Mysteries." By the way, stay through the credits for a final joke with Bob Costas and Al Michaels. All in all, Zucker has achieved, in words perhaps applying to the movie's mix of sports, a home dunk.

The premise of the movie was an intriguing concept, recalling "The Stepford Wives" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Where it suffered was in the execution. Taking a creepy approach to themes of conformity, loss of identity, and the quest for perfection, combined with social satire of behavioral issues of controlling teenagers, the film never really took off. Instead of exploring these ideas, the film degenerates into a generic uncovering a sinister plot and chase scenario. Nowhere are these themes really brought up, much less reflected upon. The film is remarkably short and doesn't even seem interested much in exploring the horror of this situation. There are plenty of character threads and concepts set up early on, but they are neglected in favor of a breezy, quick-cut-to-the-next-scene attitude. This is a disappointment when a potentially interesting story is wasted on a lackluster movie.