drifteru Reviews

House of Flying Daggers (2004)

No crouching tigers here

[5/10 · 21 January 2005]

I am not a fan of martial arts films. In fact, the first (and only) one I ever saw was CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON. However, I really enjoyed that movie and went to see HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS in the hopes that it would be similarly enjoyable. I knew HOFD would be beautiful to look at; RAISE THE RED LANTERN by the same director is both beautiful and moving, and a great film.

Alas, HOFD was quite a letdown. For one thing, it had much more violence in it than CTHD. I don't get off on watching people kick each other or endlessly dance with swords. And really, is there any magic left in defying gravity? After the violence there wasn't much left, just a simple love story -- albeit a well-acted one -- framed by an overabundance of plot twists based on mistaken identity.

In fact, HOFD felt like an opera without singing: convoluted historical politics surrounding a star-crossed romance, gorgeous sets and costumes evoking an exotic locale, and a death scene that lasted a laughably long time. There was even a ballet of sorts. Regrettably, as the credits rolled, the singing began in earnest -- a Chinese variation on the sappy Hollywood love ballad that undermined whatever dignity the film's ending possessed.

But it *was* beautiful to look at.

5/10

Sideways (2004)

An opportunity missed

[7/10 · 2 January 2005]

SIDEWAYS is a maddening movie. Through most of its two hours, it is a magical road trip through territory uncharted in film, literally and largely figuratively. The journey through California wine country as a backdrop for introspection is realized brilliantly by the story, dialogue and acting. Unfortunately, the film takes a sharp turn near the end, when the seemingly lovable rogue played by Thomas Haden Church has a phony epiphany that abruptly transforms genuine storytelling into Hollywood fakery. I had a hard time watching the rest of the film; the dramatic tension, the suspension of disbelief, was over.

This is not unlike what I experienced with ADAPTATION, a film I loved despite its descent into wacky nonsense just when it should have been pulling all its brilliant pieces together. However, with that film, even its descent into nonsense had a plausible explanation -- the fake finale was meant to echo Hollywood's formulaic obsessions. Sadly, the climax of SIDEWAYS has no such explanation and simply left me feeling betrayed.

Most of the movie is so good, it's hard not to like, but the dregs do leave a bad taste in the mouth.

The Polar Express (2004)

God-awful tedium

[2/10 · 11 November 2004]

There are so many things wrong with THE POLAR EXPRESS, it's hard to know where to begin. First, it barely has a plot, not surprising for a film based on a thin children's book perhaps (though see SHREK for an amazing counterexample), but this leaves the state-of-the-art CG motion capture technology to do the heavy lifting, never a good sign.

And what does that technology produce? A main character so lacking in appeal that it's hard to care what happens to him. A series of train-in-peril scenes as old as film itself. A North Pole of endless factory-style red brick buildings with piped-in generic Christmas music that is the polar opposite of enchanting. A sea of elves greeting Santa that creepily evokes TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. A chance for its star to voice multiple roles, which leads to Tom Hanks fatigue.

Support from the score includes some "original," forgotten-before-they-finish Christmas dirges. And to maintain the CG tradition, there is a pop-culture reference gratuitously squeezed in near the end of the film (not counting the director's earlier homage to himself and FORREST GUMP's feather).

There's probably nothing wrong with the technology that a good script couldn't cure, but without one, you're left watching a train wreck.

The Incredibles (2004)

An overpraised but credible pastiche

[8/10 · 5 November 2004]

Most Pixar films get good reviews from the critics, but they seem to be falling all over themselves for THE INCREDIBLES. I'm not sure why.

First off, the film strikes me as a pastiche of the Saturday morning cartoons I grew up watching, like THE FANTASTIC FOUR and JONNY QUEST, with a little James Bond thrown in. As such, it seems designed to appeal most to 10- to 14-year-old boys, a group that may be reluctant to go to an animated movie; witness the anemic box office of TITAN A.E. or TREASURE PLANET for proof.

By and large, the story is played straight. There are a few laughs scattered here and there, but the tone is nothing like the mixture of humor and pathos Pixar established for the medium with TOY STORY and Dreamworks exaggerated ad nauseam in SHREK 2.

Perhaps that's what the critics find appealing. THE INCREDIBLES is certainly not like any other animated film I've seen; at times, it's easy to forget that it *is* animated. Some of that is due to the ever-growing artistry of the Pixar team, which often makes you feel like you're watching a comic book/video game come to life.

But as solid as the movie is -- and except for a slow start, I was not bored -- for me, it's missing that little bit of magic to take it to the next level, where millions have found Shrek and Nemo.

Shrek 2 (2004)

Typical sequel

[7/10 · 30 May 2004]

I don't know why SHREK 2 is so popular. It has none of the originality of the first SHREK -- or FINDING NEMO or THE LION KING or MONSTERS, INC., all of which it may very well surpass in box office revenue. Shrek is no longer an ogre (ashamed to admit he lives in the swamp?!), Donkey is no longer an ass (his lovability is assumed), character motivation is dispensed with (Fiona bears no ill will toward her parents for isolating her in a tower?!), and what some here call "satire" is about as pointed as a hairball (Far Far Away is like Hollywood, get it?).

The first SHREK immediately charmed with its unexpected joy in the grossness of an ogre's life, and it sustained a compelling emotional tenor about how such a one who repels others can ever find true happiness. The resolution to that dilemma was surprising and gratifying. SHREK 2 lacks any emotional resonance and simply re-uses pre-sold characters to put over obvious jokes. It's not totally dismal -- some of the jokes and new characters are intermittently amusing -- but it's hardly enchanting. If the filmmakers want to create a sequel that is worth imitating instead of just a series of imitations, they should take a good, hard look at TOY STORY 2 before they start on SHREK 3.

As an aside, I agree with the poster who deemed BROTHER BEAR the best animated film of the past year and disagree with another's assessment that DreamWorks can now go toe-to- toe with Disney/Pixar. One franchise does not a dynasty make.

Brother Bear (2003)

Unjustly maligned

[8/10 · 12 January 2004]

After dragging my feet to see this poorly-reviewed movie whose trailer suggested a warmed-over mix of past successes (principally THE LION KING with music by TARZAN's Phil Collins), I was pleasantly surprised to find BROTHER BEAR to be the most enjoyable hand-drawn animated film I've seen since Simba claimed his throne. It doesn't overreach like THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME or bask in politically correct point- making like POCAHONTAS and MULAN (films I like nonetheless). The comic relief is not heavy-handed. And although I'm no fan of Phil Collins, I liked this score better than TARZAN's -- maybe because Collins doesn't sing most of the songs. The movie's beautiful look does the animators proud, and the lack of an obvious villain is a welcome change.

I think the reason hand-drawn animation became box office poison is that the market was saturated with subpar stories while computer-animated competitors have had great stories. I may be in the minority, but I feel that in a different moviegoing climate, BROTHER BEAR might have been much more popular.

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

Misguided homage

[7 February 2001]

I went in expecting to see a provocative story about real people making a classic film. I got duped. The names of the characters matched those of real people who made a classic film, but the story went off into horror-fantasyland -- not like a dream, but as if _Nosferatu_ were some sort of documentary!

According to _Shadow..._, Murnau couldn't get the rights to Bram Stoker's _Dracula_, so he changed the names and created his own vampire story. I think the makers of this film should have done the same thing: made a film about the making of a vampire film in 1920s Germany *without* using real names. As it is, _Shadow_of_the_Vampire_ does a disservice to the real people who made _Nosferatu_, and thereby becomes something of a confusing mess itself -- though Willem Dafoe does leave an indelible mark, figuratively speaking.

For a better blend of horror movie fact and fiction, see _Gods_and_Monsters_; it may not be all true, but it's believable and moving. For a better allegory of Weimar decay, see _Cabaret_. For a better evocation of a vampire classic from 1920s Germany, see _Nosferatu_.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)

High schooler cons everyone, including us

[6 February 2001]

I waited until I was well into adulthood to view this film, so I'm decades removed from its target audience of teenagers frustrated with high school. But I have to say that Matthew Broderick's considerable charm in the title role is a smokescreen for a morally questionable story. Ostensibly a light-hearted romp with a "stop and smell the roses" message, this movie is actually about a con man who lies, cheats and steals, and cares about no one but himself. Oh sure, he has a best friend and a girlfriend, but his concern for them is scarcely more convincing than his mock affection for his parents.

As an example of how the story dodges its own implications, the uplifting reversal one character experiences because of Ferris's behavior is just talk (and a kick or two); we don't actually *see* the confrontation that would bring the change home. Not that we want to; that would ruin the happy-go-lucky mood.

Which is not to say that the movie is a total waste of time. It has many fun moments (the parade scene especially) and enough ingenuity to keep boredom at bay. And Broderick's appeal is undeniable. But if you're like me and do not check your brain at the door just because you're watching "mere entertainment," be prepared for an unpleasant aftertaste.

For an interesting counterpoint, check out _Election_, a story with some similar themes, though with Broderick now on the teacher-authority side of the fence. Ferris, is that you in that limo?

Chicken Run (2000)

The latest dazzling animation to support a weak story

[2/10 · 18 July 2000]

Being a fan of animated features, I went to Chicken Run full of anticipation, what with all the positive reviews and the high esteem bestowed upon the film's creators (whose Wallace and Gromit shorts I've never seen).

But instead of a charming, witty, light-hearted fable, I got a leaden, trite, obvious trifle. It doesn't take 10 seconds of heavy-booted footsteps to figure out a character is evil, but that's how this story is told. And someone should advise the scriptwriters that a joke you can guess in advance ("beautiful chicks") is not funny.

Sure, the animation is amazing. A lot of animated features these days are visually amazing. But a good animated film needs a good story with characters you care about to make all that painstaking effort worthwhile. Sadly, Chicken Run doesn't have one.

You've Got Mail (1998)

Now it's the Internet that makes them sleepless...

[4/10 · 13 January 1999]

With PATCH ADAMS and STEPMOM, YOU'VE GOT MAIL completes a trio of manipulative mediocrities for the 1998 holiday season. Nora Ephron's new film is practically a case study in how they don't make 'em like they used to. In an attempt to recapture the mood (and success) of SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, Ephron tries to shoehorn Ernst Lubitsch's great classic romance, THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER, to fit SEATTLE's formula: same stars, same delayed meeting, same reference to film taste as a key to understanding the sexes (men are from THE GODFATHER here), same incessant use of instantly recognizable songs as shorthand for real emotional involvement.

What makes MAIL bearable is the enduring appeal of the cast, though even that is undercut by a script that asks us to believe that lifelong commitment to anything but love is petty. Pitting the main characters against each other as representatives of the battle between big corporate America and the small entrepreneur is frankly more than this trifling film can handle. Lubitsch knew what he was about when he kept his film small. A focused beam burns hotter.

A Bug's Life (1998)

Pleasant, visually stunning

[7/10 · 10 December 1998]

_A Bug's Life_ is the cheerier, prettier and ultimately more successful of this year's two animated insect films, but it suffers a bit from a dull yet frenetic story that takes no time to let its characters breathe and a script only moderately witty. As others have noted, the closing credits are by far the best part. Too bad the rest of the film is not as sharp and clever. Still, the Disney animated standard of "never less than good" is upheld. I sure would like to see "great" again, though.

Antz (1998)

Who thought animating films for adults was a good idea?

[5/10 · 26 November 1998]

_Antz_ is the latest in a misbegotten trend of trying to graft adult content onto animated family films. Blame _The Lion King_ (and guiding hand for both films, Jeffrey Katzenberg) for doing it well and reaping the financial rewards, but successors reaching for the same brass ring (both within Disney -- _Hunchback_, e.g. -- and without) go too far. Not only is the language in _Antz_ a tad inappropriate (do you really want to explain "erotic fantasy" to your five-year-old?), the use of Woody Allen as the voice of the hero along with battle and flood imagery reminiscent of other DreamWorks films like _Saving Private Ryan_ and _Deep Impact_ only reinforces the sense that _Antz_ is aspiring to be something perverse: a gritty, neurotic, philosophical disaster movie for the whole family.

But the worst offense of all is that the film is boring. The script is as trite as they come, moving as it does from one movie cliche to the next without stopping for real character development. The dialogue is surprisingly witless and plodding, with every joke telegraphed well in advance. The songs -- admittedly a frequent bane of Disney films as well -- are of even less interest here as they are "standards" tossed in for no apparent reason. And the film is visually dull as well -- all dark and dingy in the ant colony where most of the action takes place, but hardly more beautiful in the great outdoors.

_Antz_ may represent another leap forward in the art of computer animation, but I found the short trailer I saw for _A Bug's Life_ to contain much more life, color, whimsy and invention than the entirety of this disappointing affair.