mukor Reviews

Scooby-Doo (2002)

Surprise! Surprise! This movie doesn't suck!

[6/10 · 12 July 2002]

I was a reluctant viewer. I waited and waited to see this movie,

relegating it to the video first group of films that seem to litter the

cinematic landscape with all to much frequency these days. Then

I made a error in film going; I went to see Men in Black II which

was so bloody awful I needed a cinematic break to cleanse the

palate. And I had already seen Minority Report and Spiderman the

day before so those two were out. My last hope for bubble gun

renewal lay with Scooby, Shaggy, and rest of the gang. I entered

the theater with a resounding *gulp* to prepare myself for the trial I

was about to endure. And lo and behold! Much to my rather

pleasant surprise, Scooby Doo was a helluva lot of fun. An

amiable, well meaning, largely juvenile film, Scooby Doo retains

much of the grace that the original show engendered while adding

a dose of what I like the call the "Brady Bunch Movie" syndrome.

The Brady Bunch Movie was an exercise in self awareness, a film

that knew it was based on an awkward and fatally corny show and

chose to good naturedly poke fun at that very fact. Scooby Doo

does the same thing. And the actors are spot on. Matthew Lillard,

in particular, is fantastic as Shaggy, the stoner cum beatnik cum

food junkie. And Sarah Michelle Gellar is alot of fun as the

eminently stupid Daphne who gives use Buffy fans a funny bit of

Buffy action as well.

Go and see this movie and put your brain in neutral; your inner

child will appreciate it.

Men in Black II (2002)

Why, Barry?!? Why?

[2/10 · 12 July 2002]

Before I begin, let me start by saying that the original Men in Black

was the film version of M&Ms; delicious, satisfying, and amazingly

quick to disappear. That is to say, Men in Black was the ideal

summer movie, 90 minutes of pure fun and enjoyment, no

moments wasted, every piece working to serve the whole, the

ideal summer movie. Will Smith was perfectly suited for his role

as 'J', the young and impressionable cop turned Man in Black. His

mannerisms predicted an excellent career as a physical

comedian, full of wide eyed wonder and bemused exuberance.

Tommy Lee Jones was a perfect deadpan 'K', the wily eyed veteran

whose witticisms were all the more funny because of his deadpan

nature ("we at the FBI have no sense of humor that we are aware

of'). Good stuff. And we actually had a villain worth watching in

Vincent D'Onofrio as the largest cockroach in the universe.

In Men in Black II, Smith once again seems bemused and Jones...

well, Jones just seems dead. This is the perfect example of a

sequel created for all the wrong reasons: commercial tie-ins

abound, product placement is everywhere (since when is there a

Spring PCS store at MiB headquarters?), and the script appears to

have largely been an afterthought to the over-the-top special

effects which are, quite frankly, no better than the previous film. As

my good friend Jay pointed out, Tommy Lee Jones looks like he is

calculating how much money he is making for this film and

wonder whether its worth it. Will Smith does his level best but his

role as the cocky veteran only works to show how tired this film

feels. Lara Flynn Boyle is the new alien bent on destruction this

time around but the plot makes little to no sense (granted, these

are high concept movies to begin with but there should at least be

a modicum of thought put into even a bubble gum film). She is

largely listless and uninteresting. And poor Rip Torn as the head

of MiB has nothing to do at all this time around except get encased

in alien vines.

Most of the blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of Barry

Sonnenfeld, a director that I have previously admired a great deal.

The original MiB, Get Shorty, and the Addams Family movies are

all excellent examples of timing, pacing, and scripting working to

create an entertaining whole. Everything about MiBII seems off in

these regards. Scenes seem flat, the characters interactions are

reduced to sound bites (Seen the trailer? That's about the pacing

for this whole film), and everyone looks like they would rather be

elsewhere.

If you want dumb comedy this summer, go see Scooby Doo

instead. At least it has some genuine belly laughs. MiBII will

simply make youur belly ache for the original.

Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers: To Live and Die in Starlight (2002 TV Movie)

J. Michael... what happened???

[3/10 · 7 February 2002]

I admit it. I am a Babylon 5 junkie. No, better stated... Babylon 5, the series, is a spiritual journey for me, one which largely outlines my own belief structure quite succinctly. This does not make me a Babylon 5 fan(as in fanatic) however. I do not attend conventions. I do not collect memorabilia. I do not keep a cherish autographed picture of Bruce Boxleitner in my closet. No, the show is enough for me.

So now I have to ask myself. What was J. Michael Straczinski thinking when he wrote Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers? I eagerly anticipated this premiere, largely because I felt if left to his own devices (which was clearly not the case on Crusade), he might create something that measured up to the genius of the series. Not so. In fact, the premiere of LotR (not to be confused with LotR of the big screen!) was a tragedy. Hackneyed, confused, and sometimes laughably bad, this will not earn him more fans.

There are a few bright spots. An early scene between Martel and Dulann hints of Straczinski's ability to humanize his relationships. And Andreas Katsulas is always a pleasure to watch; his imposing presence as G'Kar always made Babylon 5 a joy and his presence in this film is much the same.

Tragically, we see too little of both of these things in LotR. Instead we are treated to some truly bad acting in the form of Myriam Sirois as Ranger Cantrell. This character is as superfluous as she is poorly conceived. As weapons officer, she has little more to do than to make laughably ludicrous punching and kicking motions in the virtually reality weapons chamber. This outlines a big problem in and of itself; the need to include gratuitous special effects, even if there is no logical reason for their existence. The virtually reality weapons are the perfect example of this. They make no sense, they look absolutely ridiculous, and they appear *far* too often.

Contrast this to the original series, whose special effects were notoriously "fake" looking, quite obviously conceived on a limited CGI budget. But that was part of the charm of the show; our attention could be drawn temporarily to the eye candy of the effects while our concentration remained squarely on the relationships.

If the show actually goes to series after this premiere, I will give it a shot. After all, if I had based my opinion of Babylon 5 solely on the basis of the premiere (Babylon 5: The Gathering), I'm not sure I would have watched the show either. But Mr. Straczinski, really. I know you can do better than this.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Lucas Grows Up... And Becomes the Empire

[4/10 · 7 February 2002]

Star Wars will always have a phenomenal impact on me. As I child, it was the first film where I became part of the story that was unfolding on the screen in front of me. I recall fondly Christmas morning of 1977 and opening my very first Han Solo figurine. No sooner did I have Han and Darth out that I was enacting my own (overly) dramatic scenes between these two legendary cinematic characters.

Star Wars (and Empire and Jedi to follow) remain legendary films in my mind. They were the creation of an idealistic dreamer, a subversive reacting to an increasingly Imperial society. They were nothing short of revolutionary for me, both in my thinking and in my bearing in years to come.

Then comes along The Phantom Menace and all becomes clear. Lucas has become that which he opposed those many years ago. With Lucasfilm, Industrial Light & Magic, and the (in)famous ranch where he lives (shades of William Randolph Hearst?), George Lucas *is* the empire. It seems now he has lost the spirit of the trilogy.

Phantom Menace is technically masterful. Effects are seemless, the pod race spectacular, and the sets beautiful. But there is an emptiness to everything, devoid of the spirit and magic of the trilogy. In fact, I think he made conscious choices to distance himself from the mysticism of the first three films. He reduces one of the beautiful mysteries of the trilogy, The Force, to a biological function. Those who have the biology for the force can mold it and shape it. Overlooking the clear racist overtones of this conceit (The Jedi Knight; pure blooded master of the Universe!), there is a simpler problem with reducing the mystical to the mundane: it wasn't necessary! There is no need to explain the Force or reason people are "strong" with the force. The first three movies, it just was. No explanation needed nor given.

The empire reigns. The magic, however, is gone.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

A solid if safe adaptation

[8/10 · 19 December 2001]

I am a major fan of the books. Yes, I know what the cinemaphiles

out there are thinking: keep the film and the book separate. I

myself have made this complaint often with those who spend time

criticizing films based on the fact that directors and writers will

often take liberties with the plot and spirit of the book they are

adapting.

Nevertheless, as a fan of the books, I was pleased to see that

Chris Columbus didn't take the low road with this film as he most

certainly is want to do. He has created a remarkably faithful, solid

adaptation of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. He has also

taken virtually no risks in doing so.

The Sorcerer's Stone is Rowling's first and, IMHO, the least of her

four novels to this date. This isn't because the book is bad; no

indeed, the book is quite delightful. It simply lacks the coherence

of the coherence of the next three. This is largely due to the fact

that she is creating a singularly unique and rich environment that

she is just introducing in the first book, with little emphasis placed

on plot and storyline instead concentrating largely on introducing

the environment and the characters that are intrinsic to that

environment.

Columbus' film suffers the same fate, only to a larger scale

because of the inherent limitations of cinema. It would have been

impossible for the film to have anything but a fractured feel to it

when the book itself suffers a similar fate. Nevertheless, he gets

the important points right, from the swept-along-by-fate

forthrightness of Harry himself to the charming know-it-all

pluckiness of Hermione. The setting too is delightful, a magically

twisted barrage of corridors, castles, and dungeons.

I have high hopes for the next film; however, I do hope that some

day Mr. Columbus learns how to hold a shot long enough to

prevent the scattershot feel of The Sorcerer's Stone. Alas, perhaps

this is too much to hope for from the director of Home Alone.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Faithful, Beautiful, Magical Adaptation

[10/10 · 19 December 2001]

Peter Jackson is perhaps the best kept secret to film making. After

Lord of the Rings, his secret status is in serious jeopardy. His

adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring is the most faithful,

remarkably beautiful film to come out of Hollywood in a long time.

This coming from a New Zealander best known for a lawn mower

graphically splattering hundreds of zombies across the silver (and

crimson screen). Who would have thought it? Well, those of us

who have been enamoured of Jackson's peculiar genius for the

last few years knew he was the man for the job. Now all

speculation can cease.

In the three hours that Fellowship of the Ring unfolds before our

eyes, we are greeted to a rich and thoroughly detailed fantasy

setting, one which is as real as it is fantastical. The Shire is

everything that it should be, Rivendell is unpredictable yet

stunning, and Lothlorien is nothing short of magical.

If sacrifices were made, it was in the fleshing out of the

"secondary" members of the Fellowship, such as Gimli, Mary,

Pippin, and Boromir. Nevertheless, Tolken's work is such a

detailed creation it was inevitable that some characterization

would be lost in a cinematic retelling. Jackson does the best he

can within the confines of a limited time frame presented to him in

the film format. Hopes run high for an extended DVD which further

develops the important supporting cast.

Despite this one small quibble, The Fellowship of the Ring cast a

cinematic spell unlike any I have been subject to in a very long

time. For 180 minutes, I sat quivering in my seat, unable to look

away even for a split second.

No spoilers and please, avoid reading any reviews that include

any before you see the film. There are some spells that are best

experienced without the benefit of a crystal ball.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Some amazing technical achievement but...

[4/10 · 30 July 2001]

Planet of the Apes is a breathtaking spectacle, a technical masterpiece highlighted by Rick Baker's remarkably emotive simian make up.

This is an exciting film, one that sets up beautifully at a near future research station in some unidentified area of space. Once Mark Wahlberg arrives en medias res at the Primate Ruled Planet, we are carried through a remarkably other world, a masterpiece of set design. In addition, choreography of primate movements is entirely believable, a foreign yet familiar fusion of primal simian movement and human barbarism.

Where the film begins to show its warts is its inability to follow up on the plot premises it establishes. Various mentions and trappings of mysticism, which serve the film well, disappear under the relentless pacing. Wahlberg's prophecied astronaut is not significantly charismatic enough nor spiritually aware enough to be the centerpiece of a film that wants badly to do more than simply be another big, dumb action movie but seldom achieves more than those humble lows.

And in the end, an error in editing, direction, writing, or all of the above brings a film to lows that I was perfectly will to accept, warts and all. The last 10 minutes almost ruined the film for me (and I won't spoil it for everyone but ask yourself it makes any sense at all when watching it). This is one of the most insufferably bone-headed, senseless finales in filmmaking history.

Fortress (1992)

A Study in Excess

[6/10 · 23 July 2001]

Fortress represents a sterling example of a Stuart Gordon film. On one hand, we have Christopher Lambert, whose leading man charm is reminiscent of Sylvester Stallone crossed with an oak tree.

And then there are the requisite tripped out torture sequences, as our wooden hero is put to the grind by prison dictator Kurtwood Smith, with strong nods to his Robocop psychopath criminal (the criminal become cop?)

Throw in a bit of Gordon friend and staple Jeffrey Combs as the Lambert friend and bug-eyed hacker and you have the beginnings a schlockfest of sublime mastery.

Add an obvious cautionary tale about right wing takeovers and pro wrestling quality action stunts and well... need I say more? Despite the campiness of Fortress and its stunning excess of violence, its a fun movie. Just try to not to take it seriously.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Misunderstood, brilliant, manipulative.

[16 July 2001]

A.I. is truly a remarkable movie, one which should never have been released in the mindless, brain dead movie goer days of summer. In the fall or winter months, an ambitious film like this might work. Now, peruse the reviews: its slow, its too long, etc. What a shame.

A.I. is as thrilling as it is disturbing, a masterful critique of our own society of the spectacle. As it explores the depths of our own consciousness, it embraces the power of our genius as well.

I speak in general terms: I have to. It was my pleasure to go into this filming knowing nothing about it. I would like anyone who is daring enough to accept the intellectual and emotional challenge of this film to have the same ignorance as I did going into seeing it.

I will say this: Kubrick meets Spielberg is an astonishing accomplishment, one which should rightfully be remembered as a classic in years to come. The dark and penetrating Kurbrick meets the Visionary Emotional Puppeteering of Spielberg.

This was a three hanky movie and the best film I've seen since Being John Malkovich.

Gladiator (2000)

Ben Hur Lite

[3/10 · 16 July 2001]

Gladiator is an infuriating movie, an immensely overrated Ben Hur light that is clearly a graduate of the Armageddon school of filmmaking. Nevertheless, it does some things very well. And this is the problem perhaps. The combat sequences are a sight to behold, as exhilarating in their beautiful bloodshed as anything Ridley Scott has ever done (and he is the American master of beautiful bloodshed). But the drama that connects these sequences seem only filler, existing only to move us (sometimes in a most incoherent way geographically speaking) to the next moment Russell Crowe gets to bear his teeth and fight another battle.

But how is this a good movie? If anything Gladiator is more of a punched up, swords a blazing series of dance numbers. The drama rests on the shoulders of a one note performance by Russell Crowe, whose core emotion seems to be one of grimace and pout. He is a character who has one desire and one desire only: revenge. Many critics loved the intensity of the performance but why? A complex, interesting character should have complexity to them. But this character has no complexity, no range of emotions: he is a Stallone character trapped in an art film.

Joaquim Phoenix, on the other hand, was a delight, an over the top sociopath who brings a few precious moments of levity to an otherwise drab, ugly, and humorless film.

Evolution (2001)

An amusing if slight summer distraction

[6/10 · 30 June 2001]

Evolution is one of those movies that tries a little too hard. Set in Northeast Arizona (in Page, in fact, although this fact was never mentioned once in the movie), the plot centers around the arrival of an alien-microbe filled meteor that crashes near Glen Canyon, whose inhabitants begin to evolve and destroy at an ever increasing rate.

Orlando Jones is hilarious as the "professor" who relishes the idea of getting credit for the discovery. David Duchovny looks like he wants to be in another movie, however. As the serious professor who is interested researching these aliens, he seems uncomfortable with the tweaking of his X-Files personae and mostly just looks constipated thru most of the film.

Julianne Moore's role is a throwaway, a humiliating comic scientist whose total "humorous" input into the film is that she trips alot.

Ivan Reitman has created a lesser film that is nevertheless amusing and entertaining while watching it. Just don't think about it too much afterwards or the Semitruck sized plot holes will be all too evident.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Plotless, Brainless, Scriptless: Tomb Raider the Game is More Fun

[1/10 · 30 June 2001]

This is the most bone headed movie I have seen in a long time. An inept mixed of James Bond and Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider the movie has a plot which is less coherent than the video game, which has no plot at all!

This is yet another fine example of modern big budget Hollywood film making: let's make the movie as loud and special effects laden as possible so that maybe people won't pay attention to the fact that we wrote our script on a bubble gum wrapper.

The few brief efforts in the movie to have plot or dialogue are so scattered and underdeveloped, Simon West and crew use over the top music to try and create dramatic tension. It doesn't work.

Angelina Jolie is a beautiful, compelling performer: with any luck, her next movie might offer her a chance to use her skills instead of stick them in an idiot film like this one.

The worst movie I have seen in a long time, right down there with Armageddon.

Armageddon (1998)

Armageddon, the End of Time, the End of Good Film

[1/10 · 30 June 2001]

This movie makes me angry. In a way, I see it as hailing in a new era of filmmaking, one where the anticipated, sought after, big budget films of the summer are reduced to script-by-committee, special effects laden, bore fests. Sure, there have been such movies prior to this debacle but this ridiculous gross of this idiot movie would seem to indicate that this style of film is here to stay, whether we want it or not.

We all know the premise of the film already: Bruce Willis, deep core driller and the most unlikeable main character to grace the screen in a long time, is asked by the government to help destroy world threatening asteroid.

To tag along for the ride is Ben Affeck, generally a favorite of mine, whose romantic leading man character is so schmarmy as to give the strongest amongst us stomach palpatations. Scenes between he and Liv Tyler (in yet another typically Hollywood throwaway cheesecake female role) made me yearn for a handy airline barfbag. Romance is well and good but these scenes were painful, as if director Michael Bay learned everything he knows about romance from Hallmark commercials. Bleh...

To top things off, the movie is unbearably long clocking in around 2 1/2 hours!!!

Avoid this movie like the plague or, if you want to see the future of big budget summer stupid fests, look no further. Armageddon is for you.