timskelly Reviews

Van Helsing (2004)

Anybody remember `Howard the Duck?'

[8 May 2004]

I'll get to `Van Helsing' in a bit, but first…

I was a huge fan of the original `Howard the Duck' comic book. Artist Frank Brunner told me this story: A few years after co-creating `Howard the Duck,' Frank visited the effects house, ILM, looking for work. As the ILM people leafed through his amazing portfolio, one said, `You draw almost as good as our guys. (insult) We have this film coming up called `Howard the Duck. We might be able to use you on that.' (injury)

Hubris and Ignorance, the film industry's most famous couple, eclipsing even Tracy and Hepburn, Astaire and Rodgers and Abott and Costello. (Who also met The Wolfman, Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster.)

`Howard the Duck' was made shortly after `Ghostbusters.' It was clear that the ILM effects team wanted to out-do that film in every way it could, and the result was one of the most overblown, senseless motion pictures in history. I was so shaken from seeing it in the theater that I quickly visited a friend who calmed me with Orson Welles' `Chimes at Midnight.' I was still shaking the next day, so we took in Eric Rohmer's `Boyfriends and Girlfriends.' Peace at last.

The film, `The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' was criticized for many things, but it did have certain charms of its own. One was the clever portrayal of Mr. Hyde via an actor wearing prosthetics rather than using a CG character, excepting the climax, which gave us a small taste of what was to come in `Van Helsing.' The second I saw a fully CG Mr. Hyde appear in `Van Helsing' I knew I was going to have to dig into my library for every Eric Rohmer film I had. Clearly, ILM was out to prove that it could over-blow any movie, even `Howard the Duck.' More is not better, guys, especially when every eye in the theater understands that what they are looking at is not in the least bit real. I have to blame director Stephen Sommers here. With `The Mummy Returns' he demonstrated that he could push, push, push, the effects crews to the point where the best they could do was their worst.

I managed to sit through `Van Helsing' without trauma, but only because I had been inoculated with `Howard the Duck.' Is `Van Helsing' as horrible as everyone says? Be your own judge. Lot's of people I saw it with seemed to enjoy themselves. But before you go, make sure to rent an amusing, slowly paced French film for your recovery.

PS – I really liked `Deep Rising.' Dial it back, Steve.

Get Ready to Be Boyzvoiced (2000)

I've been Boyzvoiced and I love it!

[10/10 · 31 January 2004]

Back in 2000 a group of friends and I stumbled upon a cassette of the video "We are the Playmomen." For several weeks we debated whether it was for real or a put-on, but either way we laughed our asses off. I thought I would never get a chance to see the movie, but periodic searches over the years paid off.

Jeez, it's funny.

The music is catchy and fun. Espen Eckbo is so convincing in his multiple roles I actually went for a good part of the film without realizing the number of characters he was playing. Of note is his role as M'Pete. Eckbo convincingly portrays someone happy to be living his dream, but who suspects the bubble could burst at any moment. When it does, he displays a surprising depth of emotion. I wouldn't mind seeing him in a non-comedic role.

For those of you who get a chance to see this film, lucky you.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Check the credits

[7 November 2003]

Great action and more sophomoric writing. Still, better than "Reloaded."

>POSSIBLE SPOILER



There is a credit for "Deus Ex Machina." Classical reference, joke, or an admission of laziness. You be the judge. At least they're up front about it.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Look out Joel Schumacher!

[4/10 · 13 October 2003]

What a mess! Once "The Bride" grabs her flight to Japan, I suggest you unfasten your seatbelt, feel free to walk about the cabin and right out of the theater. "Kill Bill Vol.1" is a "Batman & Robin" version of the great films of Asian cinema. Honor the originals and, like Tarantino, enjoy them first hand.

Cabin Fever (2002)

At last! A film made FOR THE SQUEAMISH!

[13 September 2003]

It's sad that so many movies have been labeled "NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH!" If I had been raised Squeamish, I swear I would have run away and become a hell-raising Methodist as soon as I was big enough to hook up the buggy to the horse.

But at last! Cabin Fever! A (kind of) horror film FOR the Squeamish!

If you are easily grossed out, this one's for you. Because of the set-up and setting, it is easy to confuse Cabin Fever with the mean-spirited horror classics of the late seventies and early eighties. Not the same thing. This movie plays for laughs and gets them. You must absolutely see it in a theater with a good-sized crowd to appreciate it. (Check other comments for proof.)

Viewing Cabin Fever is quite a lot like watching a stand-up comic perform. The jokes come at a regular pace, but no matter how funny, they never build to a climax.

I recommend a two-drink minimum.

The Magdalene Sisters (2002)

Cruel nuns? How can this be?

[9 September 2003]

I do not in any way wish to diminish the suffering of the thousands of women who were forced into involuntary servitude by their families and the Catholic Church. However, being also well aware of international sweat shops, slavery and outright murder and starvation of innocents around the world today, I chose to judge the film as a film, not as a shocking expose'. Compared to most films I have seen with similar themes I cannot rate this one highly. Unless you have seen very few "cruelty to our fellow man (or woman) films," (and there are many from all over the globe) you are likely to find The Magdalene Sisters" a bit of a snooze. Sorry, but to discover that the Catholic Church exploits its followers is as about as shocking as learning that there was gambling going on in the back room of "Rick's Place" in "Casablanca."

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

Moore, biggerfasterlouder

[7/10 · 12 July 2003]

Other than character names (and not all of those) this film's story has nothing at all to do with Allen Moore's graphic novel. But that's not a bad thing. Both visually and in terms of invention, literally and literary, the film comes quite close to holding its own with the comic book it was based on.

The trailers for this film don't even *begin* to show how much is crammed into the movie, including two additional characters. The visuals are even more mind blowing and gargantuan than those depicted by Kevin O'Neill in the original graphic novel, and that is very hard to imagine. Facing an even greater challenge, screenwriter James Robinson managed to spin a marvelous original plotline, even if his characterizations are a bit below par. It was ballsy to keep the concept and completely re-write the story. But, after all, most of the fun of the comic book original is its rewritten history of fictional characters.

Given the above, "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" is crammed to the gills with artifice and action. At a more relaxed pace, it could easily have taken two motion pictures to present in full. But we do not live in a relaxed age, neither the 19th nor 20th century, as the film's opening moment clearly reminds us. This is a 21st century film for a 21st century audience. For better or worse, this audience craves morebiggerfasterlouder, just as it might have 100 years ago. Today just happens to be 100 years of morebiggerfasterlouder later.

The film is about a time of radical change, the acceleration of change, and the fears that change conjures in the human mind. Ironically, Executive Producer and star Sean Connery (who has had some rather unkind words for the film's director) seems to share that vision. But his role in this film, on and off screen, is that of a man looking into the past, looking towards the end of things, not their beginning. Perhaps that is why in Moore's version, Connery's character, Allen Quatermain, is not the leader but the led.

Swimming Pool (2003)

An alternative reflection in "The Swimming Pool"

[7 July 2003]

Mystery writer Sarah Morton (the brilliant and beautiful Charlotte Rampling), sick of a profitable but boring reputation as that British cliché, the Series Mystery Writer, yearns to be let out of her pigeonhole for at least one novel. Publisher John Bosland (Charles Dance) frowns on this idea even as he openly smiles upon the work of a hot young novelist whose mother (!) is a fan of Sarah's detective yarns. Openly admitting that what he admires in her work is its profitability, Bosland hands Sarah the keys to his house in France. Once there, she feels pushed even further into the background when Bosland's daughter turns up unexpectedly, ruining her solitude and any pleasure she might have made of her vacation.

Much happens, including a sly tribute to the great French thriller `Les Diaboliques.'



VERY MILD BUT HELPFUL SPOILERS



The next time Sarah sees Bosland, she will, A) Feel less like the spinster she has been made out to be. B) Made her point as an author. C) Given the publishing world a whole new picture of Bosland to ponder, and D) in a few years time, a magical present to his daughter. An altogether satisfying revenge fantasy. View this film as a comedy and it will sparkle like a newly cleaned Swimming Pool on a sunny day.

Intacto (2001)

Do you feel lucky?

[4 July 2003]

Because of the conviction with which the "rules of luck" are played out in "Intacto", virtually everyone who sees the film forgets one interpretation that goes unmentioned: That there is no such thing as "luck," and that what happens to us or those around us is only chance. The survivor's guilt escape from torment -- "I was lucky" becomes "did I steal someone else's luck? Did I cause this tragedy to befall those I love?" That is what makes "Intacto" such a mind-bending film. By the end, you, like the characters, as much as they wish it otherwise, cannot quite get all the pieces to fit using the rules. And then you begin to understand this: That our actions do affect the world, but we are cursed by our inability to foresee their consequences. And sadder still, events, tragic or fortuitous, "just happen." Free will exists, but sometimes to protect a loved one it must take the form, as it does in this film, of a lie like "I don't love you anymore." An act infinitely harder to perform than "trusting to fate."

The film begins and ends at a mysterious casino in the desert, and I believe that is both a tip-off and at the same time deceptive. Casinos are the temples of the believers. But it is the odds, not the Gods, who work there.

Did I mention that "Intacto" is also a great thriller?

28 Days Later (2002)

Environmentally Friendly Zombies

[8/10 · 28 June 2003]

Despite being very intense, "28 Days Later" is a zombie movie you can take your (less sensitive) friends to. It's an odd film, in that it isn't terribly odd at all. It is photographed on video and shot and edited in a contemporary, slick manner that creates the illusion of immediacy. Still, in it's own way, it is nearly as chaste as a Hammer film. Not too surprising given England's "Video Nasties" laws, which could be partly the motivation for changing the zombie rule book -- a zombie picture for a country that doesn't look kindly on zombie pictures. In fact, as has been mentioned elsewhere, "28 Days Later" has less in common with the undead and more with the novel (not the film) "Day of the Triffids."

Having circumvented Britain's tender sensibilities, and having added some new editing and filming tricks, Danny Boyle does an excellent job of recapitulating the best of George Romero, including his earliest horror effort, "The Crazies." I'm not saying this as a criticism, though it does remove some of the film's potential novelty. It is unlikely that the plot will surprise you or leave you, like Romero's films did, with that desire to have your soul cleansed with bleach. The real rage that is missing in "28 Days Later" is George Romero's apparent loathing of human beings in general and the stupid and angry in particular -- the sense that everyone is a zombie, bitten or not.

Versus (II) (2000)

Bored? What movie were you watching?

[10 June 2002]

I'll admit it. I was put off at first by the youth of the actors playing Yakuza and the swirly camera shots every time someone struck a pose -- a frequent event during the first 15 minutes. However, only someone who judges a film by the first few scenes could not love this insane collection of everything thrilling and funny in an exploitation film. Seen most of these action set pieces before?

Yes.

All in the same movie?

Nope.

Excellent music, sound, physical effects and acrobatics tied together by outstanding shot planning and editing, all of it photographed outdoors in an unadorned, un-spookified forest. Oh, right, Blair Witch did something like that before Versus. Well, try watching Blair Witch again without falling asleep in your chair.

If you're going to call Versus unoriginal you'll have to point me in the direction of another Samurai/Eternal Lovers/Yakuza Zombie/Bullet Ballet/Kung-Fu/Flying Swordspersons movie first. Despite the sound of that combination, this film still manages to make more sense than some Hollywood A-list pictures.

Best of all? Versus just gets better as it goes along, all the way to the very end.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Viewing conditions and state of mind are everything.

[4/10 · 1 August 1999]

When there were only(!) 90 posting about this film there were only seven that did not range from from "really scary" to "best film ever made!" All seven disliked the film and four viewed it on video. I just came from a midnight screening that was packed with college students. I have to guess, but judging by the boos, hisses and only moderate applause, it was not seen by 90% of these viewers as "the scariest movie ever made."

Viewing conditions and state of mind are everything. This (very well edited) film does not come to you, you have to go to it, almost literally. If you want to be scared, see it in a movie theater. Unlike most fright films, try to go when the theater is almost empty. Crowd reactions will take you "out" of the film. And I mean this in the best sense of the word, be naive. Any critical thought applied to The Blair Witch Project blasts through it like a searchlight through a tissue. What you will see then is a very thin excuse for a film.

I would like to recommend that you find and rent a copy of "Cannibal Holocaust," the original "found footage" horror documentary. Unfortunately, you probably won't find it, and if you did, the fake (human) and real (animal) butchery would definitely put you off. However, for the strong of stomach, that is a film that is not only disturbing in broad daylight, but also disturbs to instruct. Two things that The Blair Witch Project cannot claim for itself.

In short, if you've never gotten over your childhood fears and are still afraid of the dark, even just a little, under the right conditions, Blair Witch is for you.

Otherwise, skip it.