My reviews of movies in reverse chronological order (i.e. most-recent-first) of date-of-review (which is not necessarily the same as the date-watched).
Title: Glitter
Review written: 21 September 2001
About 15 years ago, they made this awful movie called Purple Rain. Even after taking into account that it was nothing more than a gossamer-thin veneer for stitching together a number of songs with a sorry excuse for a plot, one felt, watching the movie, like a de Niro compared to the dummies on screen.
Glitter is today's retelling of the same story. It is primarily a vehicle for Mariah Carey to show off her gorgeous figure (and, I have to say, it is truly gorgeous) and her amazing vocal range. Obviously, such movies are not meant to be evaluated by the same yardsticks used for more mainstream cinema.
In any case, this movie is good for a budget theater visit, no more. I also predict that in another 15 years, we will go through this same charade with Lee Ann Rimes.
Title: Two Can Play That Game
Review written: 6 September 2001
Vivica A. Fox is the black Bridget Jones. By being the exact anti-thesis of Bridget, she does the sisterhood proud in the extremely fast-paced, and extremely funny comedy: Two Can Play That Game.
Fox is simultaneously cool, calm, collected, unflappable, calculating, ruthless, and scheming as she "keeps her man in line". The movie also demonstrates the value of non-stop pacing; except for the final 30 seconds of closing sentimentality, the film just never lets up on the jokes or slows down to let the audience even catch its breath.
A very enjoyable film.
Title: The Musketeer
Review written: 5 September 2001
Shit.
The Musketeer joins Man in the Iron Mask (the diCaprio version) as the 4th worst movie ever made.
Avoid this humongous, steaming, stinking pile of shit.
Title: Lara Croft Tomb Raider
Review written: 2 September 2001
Devilina Moody plays Lady Lara Croft, a British archeologist armed with digitally enhanced twin torpedoes. And oh, she also has a couple of handguns.
Since she is an archeologist, she spends most of her time travelling to exotic locales and blowing up ancient artifacts, and the rest of her time living in conditions of obscene opulence.
In this particular adventure, Lara stops the Illuminati from taking over the world (Montana Militia conspiracy theorists should love that one). The saving grace of the movie is that it never takes itself seriously even one moment, and thus (by avoiding all pretence to pretentions) comes off as enjoyable.
Moody, however, once again demonstrates her total lack of acting ability. I might have forgiven her otherwise unbearable screen presence if only she had been able to maintain her Baby Spice British accent consistently, but she could not do even that. Which left me fondly reminescing about the other thoracically-endowned UN goodwill ambassador, the gorgeous, the glorious, the gerific, the one and only Ginger.
Title: Ghost World
Review written: 29 August 2001
'Tis a sad sad thing to be lonely in a world full of people.
Ghost World is the story of Enid (played superbly by Thora Birch), a teenager who has just finished high-school and is a complete misfit everywhere, not because she wants to be or is a sociopath, but merely because she is looking for something more in life than what is perceived as normal by the vast majority of human waste.
The first half of the movie is falling-off-the-chair funny, and the second half is just as powerfully though-provoking---asking again and again what life is like for those who do not want to fall into a rut, but seek out their own path in the world.
One of the best movies of the year.
Title: Swordfish
Review written: 25 August 2001
John Travolta is a superb actor when it comes to playing villains. He portrays, with apparent ease and non-chalance, a combination of calculating ruthlessness with someone enjoying the havoc he is wreaking around him. Swordfish is the latest in Travolta's bad-guy performances: a taut, fast-paced thriller.
Now, let me preempt all you horny losers by saying that, yes, the movie does star Halle Berry's tits, but Swordfish would continue to be an excellent movie even if Berry were not in the cast.
Travolta plays Gabriel, a mysterious international gangster whose mission is to destroy terrorists who dare question the American way of life (thus allowing him to perpetrate other horrors in the name of patriotism). Gabriel hires Stan (Hugh Jackman), a top hacker who can crack 128-bit encryption in under 60 seconds while being subjected to perilous peril.
The movie opens with a brilliant self-analysis and takes itself to places that Dog Day Afternoon failed to go. A very watchable, entertaining flick.
Title: Bubble Boy
Review written: 22 August 2001
Someone (probably an artsy-fartsy critic) wrote that there are only a few basic cinematic archetypes, and all movies are variations and combinations of the basic elements.
Bubble Boy combines the quintessentially American theme of a road trip with the quest for love, a la The Graduate (watch for the church scene with banging on the glass windows).
Jimmy is a young teenage lad with just one problem: he was born with no immunity and has to spend his life confined to a sterile bubble at home. His over-protective, ultra-religious, Reagan-worshipping mother never lets him be contaminated by the evil, outside world.
But, inevitably, Jimmy finds love and sets of on a road trip, inside a small beach-ball bubble, all the way from California to Niagara Falls to stop his girlfriend from marrying someone else.
On the way he meets up with: a crackpot cult headed by Fabio, a Hell's Angel biker (who turns out to be Jimmy's mother's former flame), a travelling freak show (headed by Austin Powers's mini-me), Pushpa (an Indian who sells ice-cream and curry), mud-wrestling girls in central Illinois, 90-year old geezer twins who have the annoying habit of dying while driving a vehicle, until finally he finds out that he is not really sick, and can marry his girlfriend.
Filled with non-stop hilarity, tastelessness, and PC-bursting jokes, Bubble Boy is an excellent, fun movie to watch.
Title: Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
Review written: 21 August 2001
Kevin Smith and team return in this new episode of Jay (son Mewes) and Silent Bob (Smith)'s adventures. Combining pig-headed stupidity and vulgarity that would make Beavis and Butthead blush, these two set of on a quest to stop a movie based on a comic book of their own lives from being made.
On the way, they meet up with pretty much everyone else who has starred in Kevin Smith's previous movies, and indulge in in-jokes, self-reference, and homage to other movies.
The vulgarity is non-stop, and so is the hilarity. If you love tasteless, silly comedy, this is a great movie to watch.
Title: Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Review written: 18 August 2001
One does not review, analyze, or critque Monty Python. One, instead, goes down on one's knees and pays homage to a comedic genius whose blackheads one is not fit to squeeze, and whose shoes one is not fit to lick.
The current version of the Pythonesque retelling of the Arthurian legend comes with 23 additional seconds, all in the Castle Anthrax sequence.
As for me, I am off seeking peril however perilous it may be.
Title: Kiss of the Dragon
Review written: 12 August 2001
Jet Li plays a Beijing supercop sent to France to help crack a Chinese drug-ring, but instead has to deal with corrupt French police who have sabotaged the operation.
The movie offers some delightful kung-fu, chopsticks through the throat, and even some acupuncture attacks from Li.
Unfortunately, the movie also features Bridget Fonda attempting to offer a sentimental side to the movie---but ends up being an intolerable, whiny bitch who takes up way too much screen time.
I would much rather pay the full ticket price to see a 30 minute non-stop kung-fu movie without having to wade through 90 minutes of sentimental crap whose sole purpose seems to be to placate American female audiences.
I think Jet Li is at a significant fork in his Hollywood career. He can either cut the sentiment and make testosterne-laden, fun movies, or else he can try to include women in his movies and end up making worthless garbage. I hope he goes for the fun.
Title: The Princess Diaries
Review written: 3 August 2001
Talk about ridiculous, even dangerously unrealistic, premises leading to a lightweight and tolerably enjoyable movie.
The Princess Diaries is about a princess in both senses of the word: a teenage girl who makes the mytho-magical transformation from ugly duckling to swan, and who is also the heir to the throne of the kingdom of Genovia (famous for its pears; don't ask).
Julie Maria Andrews von Trapp is the Queen-mum who attempts to convince Anne Hathaway to accept her destiny and duty to her country: yeah right!!
Wait for the movie to come to budget theaters, unless you have a household where Britney is another name for the divine deity (in which case, you don't need reviews from me)---the theater was filled with screaming 10-year old girls when I saw the sneak preview.
Title: The Man Who Cried
Review written: 29 July 2001
People often complain that movies are too explicit about their moral messages---their point, so to speak, is too obvious.
The Man Who Cried is an example of the opposite end of the spectrum. A movie with no message, no story (in any reasonable sense of the word), no moral, no point, and, no entertainment value whatsoever.
A girl separates from her father in Russia (when he emigrates to the US), and finally meets up with him again in America many years later. There are any number of ways this story could have been told in an interesting or funny or sad or scary manner. Instead, this movie is boring---avoid it.
Title: Blow
Review written: 26 July 2001
Vladimir Nabokov once said that there were only two taboos in Hollywood movies: (1) an inter-racial couple whose marriage is successful, and (2) an atheist who, after a long and rich life, dies happy, contented, and surrounded by friends and family.
While taboo (1) may no longer operate in these enlightened times of ours, we have a new taboo that Hollywood is desperately trying to deal with: drug use. It is politically unacceptable to portray drug users and drug dealers in a favorable light---hence we have movies like Blow that portray drug lords as incompetent bumpkins and exemplars of the moral hazards of dealing in contraband chemicals.
Well yes, of course, but is the movie-viewing public really so stupid as to require that this message be told to them, not just via the storyline, but via a constant, irritating background commentary by Johnny Deppo-Provera saying how bad he screwed up his life because he became too chummy with Pablo Escobar.
Two recent movies, Traffic and Requiem for a Dream, have both dealt with similar themes, and done them so much better.
I never imagined the day would come when Ray Liotta gives the best performance in a movie. Don't waste your money on this low blow.
Title: The Mummy Returns
Review written: 22 July 2001
Some movies ooze pretentiousness (O Brother) while others refuse to take themselves seriously. The latter category of movies are also among the most enjoyable.
The Mummy Returns features the same cast as The Mummy all involved in more or less the same kind of adventure as in the original. So what!! This movie is 2+ hours of fun-fun-fun.
What is more, it features Rachel Weisz and Patricia Velasquez, two gorgeous babes, duking it out in thong bikinis. Va-va-voom!!
Weisz, in addition to being a babe, is also a genuine Brit. And she plays an archeologist and Egyptologist in the movie. Take that Mrs.Thornton.
Title: Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Review written: 10 July 2001
The recent weeks have seen two examples of video-game-to-movie transitions that form a study in contrasts.
On the one hand, we have Lara Croft played by Devilina Moody who is uglier than sin and cannot act, to boot. And then, we have Aki Ross: entirely computer generated, ultra-gorgeous, and able to act circles around most flesh-and-blood excuses that populate Hollywood.
Final Fantasy is a completely computer generated movie that is more a testament to the advances in computing power, graphics, and texture/motion modeling than to anything else. It is a demonstration of a superb and powerful set of tools badly mauled by a rambling, stupid storyline.
But the real star of the movie is Aki, its babe-heroine (think Jennifer Connelly look-alike). In her, we finally have the long-awaited and long-deserved payback for all the loneliness and ridicule faced by the quiet, studious, sincere, faithful geeks and nerds who were nevertheless ignored in lieu of the jocks. Now that those same geeks have mega-MIPS and giga-disks to play with, they have really outdone themselves in creating Aki. Let us just hope that this saga does not turn into yetta-nudda Pygmalion gone bad.
Title: crazy/beautiful
Review written: 27 June 2001
"Rich, upper-class girl. Poor, lower-class boy. Boy meets girl, girl meets boy. Love blooms. Parents disapprove. Crisis looms. But looooooooove conquers all in the end."
Wait a minute. I've seen only 100,000 examples of this crap on Indian cinema. So, let us not review crazy/beautiful, except to note that Kirsten Dunst won't be making any more Virgin Suicides, if you catch my drift.
Instead, let me say that Dunst is probably one of those rare-rare examples of an actress who not only looks good, but can also act (all the more remarkable considering that she is just 19 years old!!).
So far, she seems to have been cast mostly in the role of a bubbly teenager in comic films. In this movie, she demonstrates a much wider range of emotions, and does a very good job of portraying them. Let us hope she finds more movies that allow her to display her considerable thespian talents.
Title: Baby Boy
Review written: 25 June 2001
The Germans have a word for it: doppelganger. The movie Baby Boy was not made by the same John Singleton who made Boyz N the Hood, but by a doppelganger.
I refuse to waste any brain cells reviewing this piece of garbage---too many of their ilk were already martyred watching this sorry excuse for a movie.
I will say one thing---this film is an excellent litmus test. Any one, especially a professional critic, who does not savage this movie is a gutless, PC-ass-kissing, sychophant.
Title: Once Upon a Time in China
Review written: 24 June 2001
The Hongkong action genre is probably the best example of the simultaneous, bipolar juxtaposition of the extremes of the stupid and the sublime.
On the one hand we have Wisconsin's finest product in all its cinematic manifestations: cheesy dialogue, cheesy romance, cheesy nationalism and patriotism, cheesy plots, cheesy editing and discontinuities, cheesy comedy, cheesy melodrama, cheesy climax and anti-climax, and on and on and on.
On the other you have Jet Li leaping into the air and twisting his body in kungfu display with an unbelievable, balletic ease that gives you sympathy cramps.
If you like kungfu, do not miss this movie.
Title: O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Review written: 18 June 2001
There is such a thing as being too abstract, artsy-fartsy, cute, metaphorical, whatever.
My question is: why are the Coens making stupid movies like this. Did they simply exhaust their wealth of creativity with Fargo (especially given that The Big Lebowski was just not up to par)?
What really galled me was the blurb thrown out at the start of this movie that the story is based on Homer. That is all we need. If you don't understand the movie, or think it is really stupid, that's just because you are a rube (worse than the rubes portrayed in the movie) who probably thinks Homer is that fat dude who screams D'oh!! every few minutes and guzzles Duff the rest of the time.
George Cloo(less)ney, Tim Blake-Nelson, and John Turturro are three chain-gang convicts who escape, ostensibly in search of (bank-heist) treasure, but really to prevent Cloo(less)ney's wife from marrying someone else. On the way, these three experience the vast gap-toothed, multi-generationally inbred, richness of redneck and hillbilly culture.
Of course, since this is all based on Homer, the allegories are about as transparent as Greek. I think if the movie had not been introduced as being based on the Odyssey, it may have been fun. Instead, that single drop of pretentiousness ruins everything that follows.
O Brothers, where art thy art?
Title: What's the worst that could happen
Review written: 18 June 2001
What's the worst that could happen?
Nah!! The worst that could happen is that you could go see this movie and pay for it, to boot.
Why in the world do they make shit like this?
About 5 minutes into the film, Martin Lawrence, who plays a thief (apparently a new profession in the US Department of Labor classifications), and his new girlfriend (whom he has met only 2 minutes ago in the movie) are lying about in post-coital bliss, when he decides to tell her what he does for a living. Instead of being outraged like any sane person would be, the woman gives him a ring as a present and both of them go at it again like crazed bunny-rabbits.
This is the high point of this crap-fest, and things go steadily and precipitously downhill from there on. Everyone involved with this movie should be lined up and flogged so that they do not ever repeat the mistake of foiting such travesty on the public.
I did not pay any money to see this movie. Also, this worthless pile of celluloid comes nowhere near the top-5 worst movies of all time:
One feels thankful for the small mercies of life.
Title: Time and Tide
Review written: 17 June 2001
Violence in movies is a thing of beauty and a joy forever. The more stylized, brutal, and unrealistic the violence, the better.
Tsui Hark's Time and Tide is a tribute to violence performed with greater flair and verve than ballet. Guns shooting, bullets flying, bodies rolling, blood flowing, and audiences delighting.
There is, of course, a loose story tying all this together, but, hey, see this movie for its violence, and feel happy that there are films such as these.
Title: Entrapment
Review written: 15 June 2001
Catherine Zeta-Jones in black, leather tights.
Catherine, Zeta-Jones, black, leather, tights.
Catherine Zeta-Jones in red, spandex tights.
Catherine Zeta-Jones in gorgeous, evening dress.
Catherine Zeta-Jones in black, leather tights.
[boring crap]
Catherine Zeta-Jones in red, spandex tights.
[even more boring crap]
Catherine Zeta-Jones in gorgeous, evening dress.
[enough with the boring crap]
Catherine Zeta-Jones in black, leather tights.
[aaaah redemption! I am now able to tolerate the remaining boring
crap]
Catherine Zeta-Jones in black, leather tights.
[1] Zeta-Jones, C., Red, spandex tights, Entrapment Publications,
1999.
[2] Zeta-Jones, C., Gorgeous, evening dress, Entrapment
Publications, 1999.
[3] Zeta-Jones, C., Black, leather tights, Entrapment Publications,
1999.
Title: Evolution
Review written: 14 June 2001
Here's a movie that will give both creationist cretins and Stephen Jay Gould conniptions.
Explaining the cretin angle is easy: hey, we are talking about creationsists hearing the world evolution.
Explain the Gould-meister's anger requires a bit of understanding about something called the chain of being: the (surprisingly universal) idea that there is a progressive, linear, non-contingent pattern to the evolution of life.
Needless to say, the idea of a chain of being is (empirically) false even for the single case of life on earth.
The movie Evolution however glibly asserts that an alien life form that lands on earth follows almost exactly the same chain of being sequence of stages in its evolution. The aliens, bowing to the requirements of a 90 minute movie, evolve rather faster than the slowpokes on earth did.
However, this movie is not to be taken seriously. It is a bunch of fun.
David Duchovny leads a bunch of semi-amateur ghostbustersy heros who save the planet by squirting the alien with shampoo. Talk about a bad hair day.
The movie, of course, never takes itself seriously and that alone guarantees that it makes for enjoyable watching (unlike anal-retentive, pretentious crap like Armageddon). So, sit back, relax, and have a good laugh.
Title: Startup.com
Review written: 14 June 2001
It is a fact that most startup companies fail (a fact not much appreciated by those gloating (or moaning, as the case may be) over the recent Internet debacle).
However, answering why (the companies fail) is far more fascinating---not merely as a study of nascent capitalism, but as an investigation (in microcosm) of human inter-personal relationships.
Startup.com is the story of two high-school buddies who try to cash in on the Internet boom with their own dot.com. Needless to say, they fail.
How they fail is the story of the film. Why they fail is left to you to figure out for yourself.
If you come away from this movie thinking that the answer to this question has something to do with: (1) Internet mania, (2) irrational dot.com exuberance, or (3) a bunch of greedy people without a business plan, you have not understood the essence of this movie. See it multiple times before you even think of starting your own company.
Title: One Night at McCool's
Review written: 27 April 2001
Two days at Paithane's?
No, actually it is One Night at McCool's. Hahaha!! As the good Professor Peter Schickele might say: I am sometimes so funny that I just slay myself.
Body Heat was a remarkable movie. It was brilliantly acted and directed, and gave a stark and honest look at the underbelly of our worst nightmares about femme fatales via the vehicle of film noir. However, Hollywood must have also instantly regretted ever releasing a film that so closely models reality.
In penance, and because the idea in itself is such a good one, the tinsel town has been making films that are not quite noir, but a bit gris. These films feature femmes who are not quite fatale, but certainly peu sur. Combined with a good dose of dumbth, Hollywood has turned the genre into a comedic play field.
One Night at McCool's is the most recent example of this phylogeny. It features a bunch of stupid guys all laboring under a serious crush over one woman (who combines a sick manipulativeness with a charming level of stupidity herself---which I suppose excuses her other actions).
That said, I think the movie is very enjoyable and funny. There are a number of intelligent directorial touches---as in cases where the audience is set up to anticipate a joke, and is shown what appears to be the "obvious" punchline, and then finds out that the real punchline comes a few seconds and frames later on.
The dumb guys are: Matt Dillon, Paul Reiser, John Goodman, and Michael Douglas (who is starting to play his age---i.e. an old geezer in a bingo parlor). The weakest link the movie is the female role---Liv Tyler cannot act to save her life (and provides yettanudda data point to prove my thesis about cinematic gender bias, but I will stop at that since my point has been so incontrovertibly proven over and over again :-).
Check out the movie if you want to watch a light, fast-paced comedy.
There is a joke early on in the movie about car ownership and consequences of the lack of a car. I, in particular, found it rather funny. If you see the movie, you will know why.
[ Movie Reviews | Reviews | Krishna Kunchithapadam ]
Last updated: Sun Aug 29 17:59:30 PDT 2004
URL: http://www.geocities.com/krishna_kunchith/reviews/movies/movies-01.html