Retro Review: Slackers

One of the co-writers of “American Pie II” and a rookie cast create a teen-sex comedy in the spirit of “American Pie”, “Porky’s” and “Revenge of the Nerds”. Will it be a classic or a flash in the pan?

Dave (Devon Sawa of “Final Destination”), Sam (Jason Segal of “Freaks & Geeks”), and Jeff (Michael C. Maronna of “Home Alone”) have their college campus mastered.

They have schemes, plans and ideas on how to coast through till graduation. All they have to do is sit back and relax.

One day, Dave angers Ethan (Jason Schwartzman of “Rushmore”), one of his fellow classmates when he steals his seat. Ethan is obsessed with the girl of his dreams, Angela (former model James King of “Pearl Harbor”) and Dave happens to steal the seat next to Ethan’s dream.

Ethan swears vengeance for messing with his destiny.

Ethan then finds out about the trios schemes and plans. He then blackmails the trio into helping him get Angela or he would get them all expelled. Does Ethan have the trio mastered?

Would unsuspecting Angela fall for this nutcase so the trio can graduate? Or is there something else actually going on?

“Slackers” tries to be all the famous teen-sex comedies of yesteryear but in fact it lacks the vital element of innocence that made the other comedies so fresh and witty. “Slackers” also has no real likeable characters except for maybe Angela. All the main characters aren’t likeable because on some level they are all jerks, cheaters, liars, or just plain scary.

The performance by Jason Schwartzman is so believable that it doesn’t make you laugh but instead cringe. This guy is deeply disturbed that I was waiting for him to bow down to a pentagram and ask Satan to grant his wish. I mean he carries around a brush to collect the girl’s fallen hair so he can make a doll out of it. Where do they come up with this stuff?

I liked the quieter moments in the film where we could understand these guys more. I also liked the quiet innocent Angela and her kinky roommate Reanna (played by That 70s Show’s Laura Prepon). But these are just isolated things within a complete mess of a movie. You what was bizarre is that the character of Jeff was played by one of the kids from the Home Alone movies. He played one of Macauley Culkin’s brothers. Damn, that makes me feel old.

What was probably the most aggravating were most of the dream-flashback sequences. They were more scary and demented then wacky and funny. What the heck was Cameron Diaz doing in one of them? (That has to be the low moment of her career)

“Slackers” is a disappointment to say the least and probably will be remembered (if it is) as being one of the worst films of 2002.

(1 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Frida

Like a rich Mexican salsa or spicy Jalapeño pepper, Frida oozes with spice and decadence.

“Frida” chronicles the true-life story of famed Mexican painter Frida Kahlo (Salma Hayek) who was crippled at a young age and suffered through massive amounts of pain due to her twisted back.

Eventually miraculously coming back from her injuries Frida rose to marry her mentor famed painter Diego Rivera (Alfred Molina) and their life together echoed their many works in explicit detail.

Diego had an unquenchable taste for sex and women which tortured there lifelong relationship.

Frida lived a bold, daring and tortured life but produced some of the most interesting art of her generation.

“Frida” is a bold and captivating film that perfectly captures the mind of this tortured soul. Hayek is incredible as this strong woman.

I have never seen Hayek act like this. I have never had much respect for Alfred Molina as well and snickered when I was told that he was playing Hayek’s love interest in this film. Amazingly we see and believe their relationship. Molina plays an elephant of a man compared to Hayek’s small and crippled frame. Even through everything these two endure, love does find away.

Besides the performances there is quite an achievement in direction as there are miraculous blends between Frida’s art and real-life. A scene will fade and eventually meld into one of her paintings. These scenes are inspiring and breathtaking to witness in celluloid. I was blown away by the power each of those fades has on the audience as well as telling the story.

The hardest part about “Frida” is the film’s length. It feels long as it constantly keeps batting at her tortured existence with and without Diego. I really enjoyed a lot of Frida but the last 2-5 minutes really didn’t harness a solid ending for me.

I would compare this feeling to the same as when I saw 2000’s “Pollock” starring Ed Harris. The performances were grand but it was just way to long to keep us captivated. Harris’s Pollock and Hayek’s Frida are similar in a lot of ways but the presentation in Frida makes it stand away from Pollock. I really found that Frida endures through the torture and I didn’t find that with Pollock.

Besides the length and the last couple minutes, I was captivated by the passion of this film.

(4 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

 

Retro Review: Godsend

Damien lives!

In the late 1970s, moviegoers were literally scared out of their wits when American Ambassador Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck) learns his son is in fact “the antichrist” in 1976’s “The Omen”.

Ever since that film and its misunderstood and under-appreciated sequel in 1978, Hollywood has become fascinated with “evil child” syndrome.

Why is the human condition so fascinated with a blending of evil and pure innocence?

Almost 30 years after the release of “The Omen”, a new film tries once more to pull back the covers and take another crack at the “evil child”.

This time parents (Greg Kinnear, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) lose their only son, Adam (Cameron Bright) in a horrific accident and are approached by a brilliant doctor (Robert DeNiro) who offers them the chance of a lifetime.

The couple must say good-bye to the world they know and move to a secluded hospital where the doctor promises that they can have their boy back. And that is where the film is supposed to get interesting, thought-provoking and thrilling, right?

Instead the film decides to give us all the answers up front. So I guess I can get into the main plot point here as well. The doctor clones the couple’s boy and they raise him all over again.

The film’s catch happens when the clone reaches the same point when the original boy died. The boy begins to shows signs of insanity, gruesome night terrors and eventually his parents begin to freak out. There is a twist I won’t give away but for the most part the film continues its predictable linear course.

I have to admit I did really like Kinnear as the panicking father who loves his son deeply and seems to be the only character in the film who is looking beyond the miracles of just one secluded doctor. In some scenes Kinnear even reminded me some of Peck in “The Omen” and Willam Holden in the sequel.

I didn’t feel anything for Stamos who is sobby, ruffled and never fully unveiled. Her character seems to be the least fleshed out character in the story which is strange since you think the mother would be going through hell to help her boy.

Stamos plays the mother as this desperate, constantly crying, sheet-over-head woman who is always screaming she wants her child back. I wanted to see a bond between mother and son but one never materialized. Stamos is just way out of her league playing this kind of emotional part. You needed an actress who you can see vast sums of emotion with just one look. Maybe like a Julianne Moore for example. They also needed an actress who had chemistry with Kinnear and the boy.

There isn’t a lot of DeNiro in this film which is the reason it reminded me so much of the Omen. The film’s primary focus is the parents. In some ways a lot of the way the film is presented is a film looking to debate “cloning” until the twist ending. It should have dropped the linear approach to filmmaking and opened with the audience knowing little. It should have used the “evil child” card to its best ability not as a gimic.

The final thing that made me dislike the film is that after the twist ending the filmmakers played the “six months later” card. Films only play this card when they believe they don’t know how to end a film. It’s basically a slap in the face to every moviegoer. I have always felt ripped off with those endings.

Godsend could have been a new “Omen” if it would have gone for the thrills and held its secrets closer to the end.

(2 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Movie Review: Serving Sara

Written: August 23, 2002

As the summer’s corona burns off and we fade into fall, Hollywood often serves up its worst and most unpredictable fare.

The films released in late August through the first week of October are films that studios couldn’t fit into their summer schedules or are embarrassments.

With the debut of last week’s “Adventures of Pluto Nash” it was the dawn of that time of year.

“Serving Sara” is probably one of those comedies that deserved a better launch than during this time of year.

The question does stand that when is it best to release a romantic comedy? Studios are still trying to crack that nut.

“Serving Sara” stars Matthew Perry (of TV’s Friends) as Joe Tyler, a process server whose latest victim is an unsuspecting rich cattle baron’s wife Sara Moore (Elizabeth Hurley).

But when the deed is done Sara offers Joe a deal that would make him a fortune if they “process served” her rich husband, Gordon (Bruce Campbell) instead. This sends Joe and Sara on a cat-and-mouse game to corner Gordon.

“Serving Sara” is one of those typical romantic comedies where the hero schmuck ends up with the supermodel.

Casting is always key in these generic comedies. The only way this movie could have been more cliché cast is if Freddie Prinze Jr. played Joe Tyler.

Placing that entire aside, I actually found myself liking the movie for the “insulin-injected” comedy it is. I think I fell victim to how much I find Chandler Byng as my favorite character on “Friends”.

I couldn’t see past the fact that Perry is Chandler and that his character here has a lot in common with Chandler. I was also sucked into the vortex that is the allure of Elizabeth Hurley.

She just oozes charisma and it’s hard to look away. The problem is that her acting talent and Perry’s aren’t that stellar except each does display an uncanny like-ability. That display is key to the success of this genre.

I enjoyed a lot of the jokes but felt they so could have been executed better if Perry was more of an improve comedian than an actor who happens to do comedy.

Another relief I got from this film was that there are some gross gags but the film doesn’t bash us over the head with them.

If you are a Matthew Perry or Elizabeth Hurley fan then you are sure to love this saccharine-filled treat.

For people who don’t like romantic comedies this film’s saccharine could turn into cyanide.

(3 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Dinosaur

Can Disney’s most ambitious computer animated movie ever survive the onslaught of the summer?

Dinosaur tells the tale of an ambitious dinosaur named Aladar (voiced by D.B. Sweeney) who is plucked out of his mother’s nest and carried off to some unsuspecting primates. As he grows he accepts the frisky primates as his family.

Just as the yearly mating ritual begins, Aladar’s surroundings are engulfed in a cosmic event forcing Aladar to scoop up his adopted family and flee the safety of their island.

Returning to the real world proves a challenge for Aladar and his adopted primate family as they try so hard to fit in with a huge migrating herd.

Dinosaur’s amazing visuals and breath-taking scenery shots hold you breathless as you escape into a world completely fixated on the instinct of survival.

What seems to be the fault associated with Dinosaur is the story and emotion associated with its characters.

Sure when Disney creates animated characters our human emotions and actions are often placed into the hearts of the depicted characters but here it seems almost strange.

Here we have photo realistic surroundings and characters trying to be lifted from dinosaur history books.

A couple years back a breakthrough film called “The Land Before Time” embraced the idea of telling a dinosaur story using Disney-style animation. It was a marvelous accomplishment but here it’s very weird.

That very thing addresses some issues concerning what exactly is cartoon-violence and what is real to you and your child. Some scenes are vicious and profound as we watch Aladar’s constant struggle for survival in an untamed world.

Through these scenes we do have to wonder which particular audience was the film being aimed. I know for younger viewers the realism and the intensity in the art of survival may be too much to handle. It’s hard to judge which exact child may cringe while another might be excited. Dinosaur has pushed the envelope in regards to how real we really want to get with animation.

The plot elements that baffled me were during Aladar’s communication with the huge titanic Brachiosaurus, Baylene (voiced by Joan Plowright). In the introduction scene to Baylene, she is a giant and Aladar is worried about being stepped on. But as he gets to know her she seems to shrink and not be that large at all. And to top it all off Aladar is able to fit Baylene, himself and three other dinosaurs in a cave.

That must be some cave and how come the herd never could see a cave that huge? Sure I am being analytical on a family film but the film is trying for as much realism as necessary.

Dinosaur is more convincing and real than the “Land Before Time” but no where near as family or sincere as that film. I think it tries to be family at one moment and too realistic the next.

(3 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Republic of Love

Director Deepa Mehta of “Bollywood, Hollywood” fame sculpts a new film about love, how it affects us and how it can find us.

Based on the much loved novel “The Republic of Love” by “The Stone Diaries” author Carol Shields, the film stars Bruce Greenwood (“Thirteen Days”, “Below” and “Exotica”) as Tom Avery, a lonely late-night radio station DJ who has been unlucky in love.

Living in Tom’s building is Fay (Emilia Fox), a museum researcher and folklorist whose current passion is the exploration of the “mermaid” myth.

Both have one thing in common, they are disenchanted by love.

One day, Tom and Fay meet and an instant connection is felt as the factors of “love at first sight” envelope the couple.

Before Tom can get any details or even an email address, Fay leaves for France on a research trip. Tom is beside himself so he hunts down some way to contact the woman he can’t forget.

Eventually he gets a letter through and their bond intensifies. A whirlwind engulfs the two star-crossed lovers as a lifelong bond is born.

Unbeknownst to Fay, Tom holds a secret and an impending tragedy is coming.

Can these lovers overcome these events and still forage ahead together? Can their love overcome?

“The Republic of Love” is a celebration of love and the love story genre.

For a cynic like me it is hard to grasp the concept of a straight forward love story anymore. I need to know the passion and details of the people involved before I can grasp the idea of love.

Mehta’s pacing is also something that needs to be addressed. From the couple’s first meeting to there eventual love scene it is very quick and we really never get a chance to see any chemistry between the couple. Greenwood’s moody eyes and Fox’s pouty lips are staples of their attraction but there seems to be no more than that.

That is the case because the film seems to rushes off to mix the couple up before they are an actual couple. Greenwood’s characters hang-ups and love addiction are discussed then passed. When the film finally concludes it never fully deals with his imperfections. The finale is very one-sided and that is a shame since the first half was so brilliant in laying out these people and who they are.

I am a huge supporter of Bruce Greenwood in anything he does. I really enjoyed him in his quirky television roles in cult series like “Sleepwalkers” with Naomi Watts or the UPN head-twister “Nowhere Man”. Probably his two most underrated performances were as President John F. Kennedy in “Thirteen Days” and as a sub-mariner in the cult film, “Below”. In this film, Greenwood is strong and poignant as Tom but the film’s third act really takes away everything Greenwood poured into Tom. That is a real shame that the film doesn’t deal with Tom’s hang-ups.

I also really enjoyed seeing a performance from relative new comer Emilia Fox who stars opposite her acclaimed actor father Edward Fox (“Gandhi” and “A Passage to India”) in this film.

She reminds me of Mrs. David Mamet, Rebecca Pigeon but has the compassion of an early Rachel Weisz or Kate Beckinsale. I really enjoyed her humility and wide eyed innocence as Fay.

The film’s rich lush layers of color and texture made for some interesting apartment scenery. Some of the shots set up by Deepa Mehtra echo the world around the characters really well and make for some interesting foreshadowing and atmosphere.

I was just really disappointed by the film’s third act. I really wanted to see some of these people have complex emotions and deal with the problems brewing within the couple away from the world around them. These people hardly know each other and we hardly know them. I just wanted more depth.

(3 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: RV

How much did you love those beloved “National Lampoon’s Vacation” films from 1980s? I was a huge fan and yes, I even liked European Vacation.

I think when the filmmakers sat down to make “RV” they channeled those films except they forgot one thing.

You need a slapstick comedian to pull off all the outrageous stunts and gimmicks. I am talking about the forever classic Clark Griswold aka Chevy Chase.

“RV” stars Robin Williams as Bob Munro, a patriarch who is trying to balance a highly demanding job with a family vacation. To cover up that he has a sales meeting in Colorado, Bob rents a giant RV and explains to his family how much fun it would be to journey across country via the open road.

They all climb into the RV and utter chaos ensues.

Robin Williams is a wonderful comedian when you let him go crazy and improv until your lips fall off or permanent laugh marks.

Williams is a mistake for RV just because of that reason.

He isn’t a loud to let loose. He is cooped up in an almost clumsy, straight man persona and it is sometimes painful to watch.

Another dumb factor about the film is that the majority of the stunts aren’t even that clever or funny.

Written by Geoff Rodkey, who wrote “The Shaggy Dog” and “Daddy Day Care”, you can see why the characters are two-dimensional and the antics hardly funny. It doesn’t take a genius to think up “National Lampoon’s RV Vacation”.

The only feeling I got from watching RV was how much I missed Chevy Chase and what he could have done with this film during the Vacation films. We miss you, Chevy.

(2 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Daddy Day Care

Eddie Murphy takes another swing at family comedy and this time he has half a dozen tots standing in his way.

Mr. Murphy plays married-advertising executive Charlie Hinton, who seems to enjoy the perfect family life. Charlie has a beautiful wife Kim (Regina King) and a darling son.

When cutbacks are felt at Charlie’s company, he finds himself on the unemployment line with his work chum, Phil (Jeff Garlin). Charlie and Phil wonder what it would take to run a child daycare outfit after Charlie is forced to pull his son out of a posh children’s academy run by head-mistress, Mrs. Harridan (Angelica Huston).

The two unemployed dads create Daddy Day Care and the fun and hi-jinx ensues. Much to Mrs. Harridan’s dismay.

“Daddy Day Care” is the perfect comedy for new parents or for people who just love kids. The sweetness and high sugary moments aren’t for everyone but for Eddie’s family comedy journey this one delivers a lot more laughs than “Dr Doolittle”.

The film reminded me a lot of the Michael Keaton comedy, “Mr. Mom” especially in the scenes where people aren’t sure if men can do what women do. I also felt that these scenes were a little bit dated for a modern audience.

My favorite moments involve the addition of Steve Zahn to the daycare. Zahn’s slapstick comedy and pop-culture references made me laugh with glee. He alone is one of the huge bright-spots of this comedy.

I have always screamed that I want to see the return of the old Eddie. I loved him in “I, Spy” and “Showtime” where there were signs of the good ol’ Eddie from his “Beverly Hills Cop” days. But with the poor box office of those films, I guess I might have been the only one. Maybe one day we will see him again.

If you forget the high-doses of sugar and some of dated premise then you may find yourself enjoying “Daddy Day Care”. It’s a great film for its target audience and in that aspect it hits the nail on the head. The consensus is that it’s cute!

(3 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Red Dragon

Written: October 5, 2002

In the fourth morsel, Hannibal shows signs of age.

“Red Dragon” is based on the Thomas Harris novel of the same name. In the 1980s, emerging director Michael Mann directed an adaptation of this novel which was later renamed “Manhunter”.

“Manhunter” was a bold film for its day and eventually found a cult following. Now in 2002, we are brought back to the novel that spawned the cult film.

This time we have the fan favorite version of Hannibal, played by Anthony Hopkins, and the author of the novel who is more pleased with this more-faithful version.

The story behind “Red Dragon” is the return to the profiling game by retired FBI agent Will Graham (Edward Norton).

Graham is brought out of retirement by his friend Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel) to track down a psychotic killer dubbed the Tooth Fairy. Graham was responsible for bringing the notorious Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) to justice that event almost cost Graham his life.

Now years later, Graham has to confront the man who almost killed him in hopes that the evil doctor can unlock the mindset of the Tooth Fairy.

“Red Dragon” works because of what has come before it. The opening sequence where you have Hannibal having a group of dignitaries over for dinner is complimentary to the final scenes of last year’s “Hannibal”. The film begins with homage to another chapter and ends with a delightful little throw to the “Silence of the Lambs”. This film is aware of the others around it. In some ways that is comforting.

Once again Hopkins is grand as Lecter but I found that Ralph Fiennes performance as the demented “Tooth Fairy” to be the most unforgettable of the film.

This version of novel really made me see a lot more into the mind-set of the “Tooth Fairy”. I did however like William Peterson’s Will Graham from “Manhunter” much better than Edward Norton.

That was my problem with “Red Dragon” was that I was always comparing it to the films that had come before.

Since it was the fourth film in the franchise and a remake it was so hard not to. How can one not? I liked the other films before this one a lot better because each one was paving new territory and telling a fresh story. This film was doing neither.

Placing comparisons aside, I liked Brett Ratner’s interpretation of the events. I loved the film’s opening and closing scenes which for

me were by far the best in the film. I did find that there were chunks in the middle of the movie that were long and drawn out. I also found it really incredible that Ratner chose Danny Elfman to score the film. I loved his score throughout. I also adored Ratner’s casting choices especially Emily Watson and Fiennes.

I think we are going to see some interesting projects from Ratner in the future. Ratner is a former music video director who seems to have a grip on how to put a movie together.

Other directors who have come from music videos tend to make movies like music videos where there is a lot of fluidity and flashy cutting. Their visions tend to be all flash and little or no substance.

“Red Dragon” will be amazing to people who haven’t seen “Manhunter” or if it is their first Hannibal movie. To some of us who have been there since the beginning it may be hard to watch the movie without comparing it.

(3.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Quills

Written: December 12, 2000

One of the most colorful figures in French history has always been the Marquis de Sade. The Marquis was perverted, demented and experimental. He claimed that he knew the gateway between pain and pleasure.

During his sadistic quest it is said that he was a magnificent lover. The Marquis’ exploits were frowned upon by the upper class and when the Marquis became involved with one of them he was thrown into a mental institution. Where his erotic tales of pleasure were born.

Loosely, that is the story forefront for the new motion picture, “Quills”.

“Quills” opens with the Marquis (Geoffrey Rush) already locked up and slowly going insane. Trying to save the Marquis from himself is a padre named Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix). Coulmier does his best to make the Marquis comfortable by giving him a lot of luxuries. One of those luxuries is the ability to write. Mad, luxurious, and extremely sexual works begin flowing from the hand of the Marquis.

These works become the obsession of the Marquis chambermaid (Kate Winslet) who is so very curious to envelope their unbridled passion. As the Marquis finishes his first most famous work entitled, “Justine”, the chambermaid assists him in getting it to his publisher.

When the institution becomes a mockery of society and the novel becomes a best seller, the “powers that be”
hire a new doctor to tame the Marquis and oversee the institution. His name is Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) and he may be sicker than the Marquis could ever imagine. How will these characters but heads? Will the Marquis corrupt the doctor’s teenage bride? How will the asylum change with a new master in the house?

“Quills” is a Geoffrey Rush movie from beginning to end. Rush’s presence captivates us as we plummet deep into the world of the Marquis. What I loved about his performance was the passion and depth.

It’s one of the finest I have seen in recent memory. He is electrifying and surreal as he submerges in the passion of the Marquis.

Delivering passion, torture and spiritual abandonment is quite difficult to convey in a just a look. It also doesn’t help when you are nude for half the film. It’s purely amazing.

I would also like to mention the other performances in the film. Joaquin Phoenix is as brilliant here as he was as the tortured Roman prince in last summer’s “Gladiator”. Phoenix should get nominated this year for one of these brilliant performances.

Kate Winslet is as powerful here as she has ever been and I did love how she could play against Rush and not get swallowed alive. Kind of like what happened to Julia Roberts in “Mary Reilly” when she faced off against John Malkovich’s Dr Jekyll.

I also really liked Amelia Warner who plays the doctor’s bride. This relative newcomer has a brilliant knack of delivering a performance that subtly changes from innocent bride to scheming vixen. It’s a very interesting and engaging.

The only performance that I found was out of place was veteran actor Michael Caine who seemed to have the weakest character and performance in the film.

I am sure with his brilliance he could have found some faucet of depth for the doctor who is a creation of society. I liked his presence but every time he was on screen he really never brought anything new.

I also loved how the film created the debate about who was more insane, the doctor or the Marquis. I mean with the Marquis you have control which is directed into his writing and with the doctor you see his blatant corruption of his young, innocent and very virtuous fifteen year old bride, Simone (Amelia Warner).

Who is more insane?

Which figure dictates a saner approach to the 1760s France?

If you really think about it, the Marquis isn’t really that insane if you compare him to that time’s society. I mean the people back then were cut-off from sexuality and any mention of it was a sin. If the Marquis was let loose in the 1960s I don’t really think he would have been described so much as a deviant. In the doctor’s case, he is a deviant even today. Isn’t it amazing how society changes and how society dictates who and what we are?

To conclude, Quills is one of the best pictures of the year. Sadly I do wonder if Oscar will overlook it because of its extremely sexual content.

(4.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.