An American Werewolf in Paris - *

Posted on December 25, 1997 by Madeleine Williams

Sixteen years after the release of An American Werewolf in London, some brainiac has decided that there should be a sequel. The original was by no means perfect, but had some impressive effects, a little bit of charm, and a good sense of humor… three things the sequel lacks.

Three Americans, Andy (Tom Everett Scott), Brad (Vince Vieluf) and Chris (Phil Buckman), are on a daredevil tour of Europe. Andy is behind the other two on points, so he decides to tackle a crazy stunt to boost his standing: bungee jumping off the Eifel Tower. However, his plans go awry when he runs across a suicidal girl, Serafine (Julie Delpy), planning to jump off the tower without a rope.

It turns out that Serafine is the daughter of the original “American Werewolf in London”, and is carrying the hereditary disease of lycanthropy, and has been spreading it around Paris. It seems that there is a cult of werewolves preying on the human populace from a local nightclub (shades of Interview With The Vampire). Of course, Serafine wants nothing to do with the new werewolves, and Andy is willing to do anything to help her.

The original American Werewolf in London created its werewolves with groundbreaking makeup effects. Now, however, mere makeup effects wouldn’t suffice for a savvy movie audience, so the computer graphics are brought in. Unfortunately, they’re not quite up to the job. Technically, the werewolves are done well…but not well enough to blend seamlessly with the rest of the film. The resulting werewolves are too cartoony to be remotely frightening.

Since the creatures are the central point of any monster movie, An American Werewolf in Paris is off to a bad start…and it gets worse from there. Director Anthony Waller’s script is a hodgepodge of flimsy characters and bad ideas. Even as a straight werewolf story, it lacks consistency. How many full moons in a row are there? And why don’t those undead “walking meatloafs” ever pester the bad guys?

Tom Everett Scott, who showed a bit of potential in That Thing You Do!, develops none of it here. Julie Delpy is a bit more successful, but the script puts her in awkward situations, and gives her very little to work with (What’s the deal with those human heart milkshakes?)

A sequel to An American Werewolf in London could have (and should have) been mildly amusing. This mindless dreck is exactly the sort of stuff that gives sequels a bad name.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , | Comments Off on An American Werewolf in Paris

Tomorrow Never Dies - * *

Posted on December 19, 1997 by Madeleine Williams

James Bond is back, but blander than usual. Tomorrow Never Dies is the series’ 18th installment, and one of the series’ more bizarre titles…though not quite as strange as The Living Daylights or the all time A View to a Kill.

Every Bond film is defined by its villain, and this one is no different. This time around, Bond’s nemesis is the media mogul Elliot Carver (Jonathan Pryce). With his worldwide satellite news channel, Carver can deliver the world’s news. But that’s not enough for him…he wants to control the news.

To that end, he has created a stealth ship, and is secretly playing the Chinese and British fleets against one another. His goal is no less than to start WWIII. You see, there’s nothing like a war to spark ratings, and since he is in control, his newsstation will get all the prime scoops.

Naturally, this upsets the British, who don’t particularly want WWIII. Her Majesty’s Secret Service has some suspicions that Carver may be behind the growing tensions in the South China sea, and so M (Judi Dench) sends James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) to investigate.

China, too, has misgivings, and sends an agent of its own: Wai Lin (Michelle Yeoh). Wai Lin and Bond don’t necessarily see eye to eye, but as their investigations converge, the two become reluctant partners to bring down Carver.

Unfortunately, after a great villainous setup, the whole film deteriorates into the archetypical James Bond plot. The whole thing deteriorates into the stock Bond finale, so cliched that they parodied the same sequence in Austin Powers.

Jonathan Pryce has a good character, but he seriously overacts in the part, making him an even hammier villain than Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill. But at least he shows some personality, unlike Sean Bean in Goldeneye.

As is typical for the series, the film’s supporting characters shine. The standout here is one Dr. Kaufman (Vincent Schiavelli), an expert in human pain and torture. Sure, it’s a stock character, but one played with such aplomb by Schiavelli that you wish he made it into more scenes (perhaps replacing the overused tough Stamper (Goetz Otto). And, in a briefer role than the previews might lead you to think, Teri Hatcher has a bit part as Paris, an old flame of Bond’s, now married to Carver.

Brosnan is still very comfortable in the role of Bond. Unfortunately, the script feeds him nothing but weak quips. If it weren’t for a slight streak of ruthlessness, you’d might think it was the second coming of Roger Moore.

Director Rober Spottiswoode handles this Bond film rather germanely. There’s nothing unusual or out of place here (besides the increasingly incomprehensible opening credits sequence). The action scenes aren’t quite boring, but there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about them. Only Michele Yeoh’s martial arts sequences provide anything new…and they seem slightly out of place (why is it that all the martial arts adversaries gravitate toward her? Bond never gets to fight any…)

At least the film is littered with plenty of Bond’s trademark gadgets. However, though they’re nice to look at, some of them seem to be used as gadgets for gadget-sake. For example, there’s one sequence when Bond leaps into the back seat of his remote controlled car, apparently just for the added challenge of driving it via his remote control.

Anyway, while not one of the worst Bond films, Tomorrow Never Dies lacks the spark that has made the Bond series so long-lasting. If future Bonds don’t improve, Tomorrow may surely die after all.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Tomorrow Never Dies

Titanic - * * * *

Posted on December 17, 1997 by Madeleine Williams

Titanic

James Cameron unveils the most expensive movie ever made, and it is an absolutely brilliant piece of work.

The movie opens in present day, and the story of the Titanic is told in flashback. The film starts with a treasure hunter, Brock Lovett (Cameron regular Bill Paxton), searching for a legendary diamond, Le Coeur de la Mer (The Heart of the Ocean), which apparently sunk with the famous ship. However, instead of a diamond, Lovett’s submersibles discover an old drawing, which leads him to an old woman, Rose (Gloria Stuart), who claims to be a survivor of Titanic…one who wore Le Coeur de la Mer on the night the Titanic went down.

Rose tells the tale of the fateful voyage, when, as a 17-year old girl (Kate Winslet), she is being taken back to America with her wealthy fiance, Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). However, Rose doesn’t much care for the life of the upper class. She is suffocating in that rarefied air, and longs for a way to get out.

That way presents itself in the form of Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), a passenger in steerage who won his tickets in a poker match. His youthful exuberance is a type of liberation that is completely different for Rose. The pair are quickly infatuated with one another, much to the chagrin of Cal.

Of course, when the inevitable iceberg happens, the doomed love affair becomes even more so. A clever plot structuring has Jack and Rose traversing the ship from fore to aft, giving us an actual cross section of the tragedy, and how it effects everyone on board from the crew to the passengers, from steerage to first class.

The whole film is extremely well executed, and surprisingly suspenseful. You know what’s going to happen…it’s not like the Titanic is miraculously going to survive (we’ll have to wait for the Disney version for that). But Cameron knows there’s no use in creating suspense about the event itself. He even shows us what is going to happen with a computerized model at the beginning of the film. Instead, he involves us on a personal level. The suspense isn’t “is the Titanic going to sink”, or “what’s going to happen on the ship”. Rather, the suspense is who will live, who will die…and what will they do in the meantime.

Cameron is known for his action films, and at first helming Titanic seemed like an awful stretch for him. However, he has tackled similar themes before. His best prior work was in The Abyss, another overbudget epic which dealt with a romance amid lots of water.

The love story format he has chosen for Titanic is simple, and has been done before. But the “rich girl abandons stuffy boyfriend for full-of-life penniless rascal” story has endured because it is a good story, and told at the peak of its form here.

For those of you who aren’t partial to romance, Titanic holds another attraction: the disaster-related effects extravaganza. To put it succinctly, the effects of Titanic are breathtaking. There’s something eerie about the film’s opening scenes which incorporate actual footage of the sunken Titanic. However, eerier still are the flashback scenes, in which the dead ship springs to vibrant life. In its worst moments, you can tell the shots are computer-generated, but they still hold you in awe.

The acting throughout Titanic is first-rate. Winslet and DiCaprio are as good as you can get as the pair of star-crossed lovers, whose only fault is the occassional anachronism. Also in good form are Kathy Bates as the nouveau riche “Unsinkable” Molly Brown, and Frances Fisher as Rose’s disapproving mother.

James Cameron also fills his script with delightful character moments, such as the quirky crew of Lovett’s treasure hunting ship, the fiendish company man from the White Star line, Ismay (Jonathan Hyde), the tragic Titanic shipbuilder, Thomas Andrews (Victor Garber), and the musicians who play to calm the passengers as the ship slowly sinks.

James Cameron is on one heck of a lucky streak. So far, not one of his films, since he began as a writer/director in 1984, has proven disappointing. Titanic is one of his best, and raises the bar yet again.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Titanic

Mouse Hunt - * 1/2*

Posted on December 17, 1997 by Madeleine Williams

Mousehunt is an attempt to create a live-action cartoon, in the vein of the Wile E. Coyote-Roadrunner series. Surprisingly, the film works very well when that is all it tries to be. However, when in it’s less animated moments, the movie falters.

Old Man Smuntz (William Hickey) is dead. He is survived by two sons, the innocent Lars (Lee Evans), and the greedy Ernie (Nathan Lane). To them, Old Man Smuntz has bequeathed his legacy: a broken-down string factory, several worthless knick-knacks, and an old house.

At first, the brothers ignore the house, but after a convoluted series of circumstances teach them that the old place might actually be worth something, the two begin an extensive restoration project in anticipation of huge profits at the upcoming auction.

However, they’re not alone in the house. A small little mouse has claimed the decaying structure as his home. And as the brothers battle to remove the vermin, the resourceful little rodent proves that he’s the one with the brains.

Unfortunately, when a mouse is the smartest thing you’ve got going for you in a movie, you’re in trouble. Mousehunt does have some cute spots when the mouse is onscreen, but when he’s not (which is the case for an unbearably large portion of the film), the film grinds to a tediously boring halt.

The problem is with the humans. As much as Nathan Lane and Lee Evans try, their incessant mugging doesn’t make for interesting characters. When they’re simply acting as cartoony foils against the mouse, their depth is sufficient, but when the film asks them to carry its full weight, they instantly collapse.

The film never lets us understand where our sympathies should lie. At first, the Smuntz brothers are objects of pity, hoping for that one big break in life. However, when the mouse appears, the Smuntzes metamorphosize into villains. And their obsession with destroying the mouse is never fully understood. Sure, it’s a nuisance. Sure, they don’t like being outwitted by a rodent. But neither of those explanations truly excuses the lengths that they will go.

But several of those lengths are pretty funny. Catzilla and the obsessive pest control man, Caesar (Christopher Walken), have particularly funny bits. The computer generated mice blend well with the trained ones, and make for some interesting mouse tricks.

Director Gore Verbinski, of Budweiser frogs fame, creates a few visually interesting scenes. Even when the stylistic touches seem inappropriate, it is nice to know that at least someone was trying something new with the film, rather than simply sticking with a preset formula.

But in the end, Mouse Hunt never quite works. As a cartoon, the film succeeds on those terms. But too often it tries for more, and fails.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Mouse Hunt

The Apostle - * * 1/2*

Posted on December 17, 1997 by Madeleine Williams

The Apostle

The Apostle is Robert Duvall’s first attempt at writing and directing, and it shows. He gives a powerful performance with a memorable character, but perhaps a little distance from his work might have made a better movie.

Texas-born Euliss “Sonny” Dewey (Robert Duvall) is a natural born preacher. Ever since he was a little kid, he’s always talked with God, and he hasn’t stopped yet. He’s not an infallible man, however. On several occasions, he has strayed from Jessie (Farrah Fawcett), his wife. However, when he discovers that she is not only cheating on him with Horace (Todd Allen), the local youth minister, but that she’s plotting to steal his church, a fuse blows, and the next thing Sonny knows, he’s fleeing town one step ahead of the law.

Yet, Sonny wishes to repent (while staying out of jail). He changes his name to The Apostle E. F., and travels to a small Louisiana town. There, he begins to preach again, at first over the local radio station, and later at a church he founds with the help of Brother Blackwell (John Beasley).

And though he knows the law will someday find him, Sonny tries to live a normal life, converting several of the locals, and even wooing Toosie (Miranda Richardson), the radio station’s secretary.

You’ve got to have a stomach for religion to see The Apostle. The whole movie plays like one lengthy revival meeting. There are more “holy ghost”s and “hallelujah”s here than there are curse words in a random Tarantino flick. While the documentarian style with which the film is shot does add an interesting flavor not found in many films these days, there’s a lot which could be trimmed out to make a tighter story.

The glue which holds this hodgepodge movie together is Duvall’s riveting portrayal of the preacher struggling to redeem himself. Though his faith is never in doubt, his finely drawn human frailties make him a character to watch.

If only the remaining characters in the film were as fully fleshed out as Sonny. On the plus side, Duvall enlisted a hearty troupe of actors, who each give their best shot. From Fawcett and Richardson, to Billy Bob Thornton as a redneck who clashes with Sonny, they all give the illusion that their characters are more than mere shadows.

The story does have a few unexpected turns, but most of them are inconsequential, altering the main plot only in the slightest. In fact, remove the redundant scenes, and you probably could trim this 2 1/2 hour film down below 90 minutes.

Overall, I found The Apostle to be remarkably like Ulee’s Gold, in that a slow, plodding movie was made worthwhile primarily by the lead actor’s fascinating portrayal of a complex man. In short, a great performance in a so-so movie.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Apostle

As Good As It Gets - * * * 1/2*

Posted on December 13, 1997 by Madeleine Williams

It is interesting that perhaps some of the best cinematic characters are people we’d never want to know in real life. This is a film about one of them…one of the most abrasive people ever. Yet, when someone else is the target of his attacks, it’s amusing to watch, and, over time, the bitter character begins to grow on us. Helped by a terrific performance, As Good As It Gets is a thoroughly enjoyable comedy about a horrible man, and how people grow to like him.

Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson) is not the most pleasant guy to be around. He’s extremely obnoxious obsessive-compulsive individual, and his anti-social tendencies exude themselves in his frequent hurtful wisecracks. And though he might not be a nice guy to meet, he’s a hoot to watch in a wonderful performance by Nicholson.

As much as he’d not like to, Melvin finds himself entertwined in the lives of his gay neighbor, Simon (Greg Kinnear), whom he despises only slightly less than Simon’s lapdog Verdell, and Carol Connelly (Helen Hunt), the single mother waitress at the restaurant which is an important part of Melvin’s highly obsessive schedule.

Carol and Melvin establish a rapaport, if not a friendship. Melvin’s idiosyncracies and obnoxious behavior drive everyone else away, but Carol thinks she can see the man inside…but perhaps she’s just desperate. In any case, it’s not like she doesn’t have anything else on her mind…her sick child is a basketcase, and it’s nearly more than she and her mother (Shirley Knight) can handle.

Most of the joy out of watching As Good As It Gets comes from Jack Nicholson’s excellent portrayal. Nicholson is at his best when he oozes his charm between scathing putdowns, and this role seems tailored to his specialty. Tailor-fit or not, it’s an audacious performance, and great joy to watch.

That said, the supporting cast isn’t bad either. Greg Kinnear is very good as the object of most of Nicholson’s vitriol. Helen Hunt displays a load of charm here as the only woman in Melvin’s life, and Cuba Gooding Jr is good in a bit part as Simon’s boisterous art dealer.

The arc of the story in As Good As It Gets is only helped by the audiences viewpoint. We know nothing about Melvin at the start of the film (well, putting aside what we’ve seen in the previews). At first his behavior is bizaare and repulsive. But as the film progresses, we gradually warm up to his character. In the same way, Melvin is anathema to those around him in the film, but they, too, see his human side as the film progresses.

It would be enjoyable to watch a character as rich as Melvin Udall in nearly any film. However, here, he’s surrounded by a solid quasi-romantic comedy, too. And, hey…I can’t resist it…As Good As It Gets is just about as good as it gets.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on As Good As It Gets

Deconstructing Harry - * 1/2*

Posted on December 12, 1997 by Madeleine Williams

Deconstructing Harry

Sex, guns, drugs, murder, dead bodies in cars, hookers, a non-linear storyline, lots of jump-cuts, pop cultural references and profanity. Sounds like a recent release from the latest Tarantino-wannabe, right? So what’s all this doing in a Woody Allen movie?

Allen directs and stars as Harry, a short story writer with a highly disfunctional life. He has had three failed marraiges…none of which could survive his fascination with “the other woman”, ranging from mistresses to hookers, to even his own sister-in-law.

His literary side is faring much better. His former university, from which he was expelled, is now honoring him for his life’s work. Harry wants nothing better than to be surrounded by his family and friends at this high point in his career. However, his family and friends want nothing to do with him. You see, his writings have all been thinly veiled stories based on his personal life, and the secrets he revealed have shocked and scandalized his family and driven them away.

The movie intercuts viginettes throughout Harry’s personal life with the dramatizations he wrote of those events in his books. Virtually every character in the movie is played by at least two actors (more than three in Harry’s case), the “real life” character, and the thinly disguised one in Harry’s stories. However, as the movie goes on the real world and the fantasy one begin to intersect.

In Deconstructing Harry, Allen uses a camera device to create a mood. Many of the “real life” moments in the film are shot in a series of stuttering jump-cuts. This is apparently intended to create a sense of disorganization. But, as was the case with a similar literal-minded camera trick in his film Husbands and Wives, it just doesn’t work. The technique is annoying to the point that it loses all intended dramatic effect. At least Husbands and Wives had a decent storyline to fall back upon.

Deconstructing Harry isn’t that lucky. Initially hard to follow, once enough of the plot is revealed to make it recognizable it isn’t that compelling. We’ve seen lots and lots of films coping with Allen’s adulterous ramblings. This isn’t one of the better ones.

The film’s saving grace is its supporting cast. Billy Crystal, Elisabeth Shue, Robin Williams, Demi Moore, Judy Davis, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Kirstie Alley, Mariel Hemingway, Stanley Tucci, Bob Balaban, Julie Kavner and Tobey Maguire all play assorted roles in the picture. However, more evident than in Allen’s previous work, a lot of the casting seems to be done purely for the sake of recognizablility. The actors do a good job with what they’re given…but unfortunately that’s not much.

The “short story” moments of the film are its best parts, but lack their intended punch. The only inspired moment comes when Allen goes to Hell to have a conversation with the devil himself (Crystal).

What Woody Allen is doing with the Tarantino elements remains a mystery. To be fair, the film contains as many Allen-isms (adultery, neuroses, therapy, etc.) as Tarantino-isms. Rather than a Tarantino clone, the film seems to be created by the mutant hybrid of the two writer-directors, and not worthy of either. By including these elements, Allen may be trying to branch out to a new audience, or, more likely, he is simply experimenting with a new style. In any case, it doesn’t work.

In the end, Deconstructing Harry is a disappointment. Although on a recent triumphal roll with Bullets Over Broadway, Mighty Aphrodite and Everyone Says I Love You, all good things must come to an end. Deconstructing Harry is that end.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Deconstructing Harry

Scream 2 - * * 1/2*

Posted on December 12, 1997 by Madeleine Williams

There’s a scene in Scream 2 in which several film students are debating the merits of sequels. They claim that it is the rare sequel which surpasses its original. Scream 2 certainly does.

The action again focuses on Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), now in college, but still haunted by the events of the first film. To make matters worse, not only did reporter Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) write a bestselling book on the Woodsboro Murders, but it has just been adapted into a hit movie: Stab (starring none other than Tori Spelling). However, all these things pale next to the fact that someone is trying to recreate the murders, and again Sidney is in the center of things.

Most of the surviving cast of the original Scream has returned. In addition to Sidney and Gale, there’s Dewey (David Arquette), the earnest deputy who flies out from Woodsboro to protect Sidney. There’s Randy (Jamie Kennedy), the movie geek, always willing to point out the finer points of horror film sequels. And Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) has returned, after only a bit part in the original as the man who was falsely accused of the murder of Sidney’s mother.

The film also as a slew of new characters, though none are well defined at all. The only newcomer with any trace of personality is Derek (Jerry O’Connell), Sidney’s new pre-med boyfriend: the film’s obvious first suspect. Other new characters, including bit turns from Jada Pinkett and Sarah Michelle Gellar are more like stunt cameos.

The film gets off to a slow start. Its opening scenes lack the tension that haunted Drew Barrymore’s bit in the original. However, whereas the original Scream started out well, but got worse as it went along, this sequel is at its best during its gripping final half hour. And, wonderfully, there’s nothing as pathetic as the original’s “garage door of doom”.

One of the reasons for the film’s slow start is obviously the characters. Until about halfway through, the victims are so featureless and bland that no matter how gruesome a death they suffer, it’s barely enough to pique the interest. However, that’s not all that’s at play here. There are simply some rather entertaining sequences during the film’s climax (two involving a recording studio and a car are worthy of particular mention). Director Wes Craven still knows how to scare an audience.

The intelligence level of Scream 2 is about on par with that of Scream, which is to say not much, but smarter than your typical slasher flick. If you were to compare the smarts level of the typical slasher film to, lets say, a vegetable, then Scream and it’s sequel would rate somewhere in the vicinity of a small child. Not particularly impressive, but considering its origins, a giant leap of evolution. The film is able to state the obvious, but never makes an effort to put that knowledge to any use.

It’s already apparent that this film will receive as much overhyping as its predecessor. However, though it is nowhere near a perfect film, at least it entertains, and is both more thrilling and more satisfying than the original.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scream 2

Home Alone 3 - *

Posted on December 12, 1997 by Madeleine Williams

Well, they’ve managed to squeeze a second sequel out of the slightly humorous but monotonous Home Alone. I, for one, was hoping the series would die a peaceful death after Home Alone 2. Heck, Macaulay Culkin was almost sporting stubble in that one…surely he couldn’t reprise his role yet again. But then those evil movie producers pulled a “James Bond” and subbed tyke Alex D. Linz in the title role. Argh…this series could go on forever.

Even more so than with Home Alone 2 (which was nearly a carbon copy of the original), Home Alone 3’s plot is completely lifted from the original. I mean, the only things that changed here are the actors. At least #2 had a location shoot.

You’ve got the wiseacre 8 year old, Alex Pruitt (Linz), who is stuck home with the chicken pox. Unlike the previous two films, he’s not actually abandoned by his parents…well, not completely. His father, Jack (Kevin Kilner), makes a brief appearance, then has to run on an out-of-town business trip. His working mother, Karen (Haviland Morris), tries to stay at home, but several important meetings call her away at just the exact times when the baddies make their moves…how convenient!

Even the supporting characters are pale copies of those from the original films. There’s the grumpy neighbor who isn’t as mean as she seems, Mrs. Hess (Marian Seldes), in the Roberts Blossom/Brenda Fricker role. And, of course, you’ve got the cruel siblings: Molly (Scarlett Johansson) and Stan (Seth Smith). This time, Alex is joined by two pets: a rat and a loquacious parrot, both of which are smarter than nearly all the humans around.

The bad guys this time are an international smuggling ring, who are after a top secret microchip which has fallen into Alex’s hands. However, they only know it is somewhere on the street, so they begin searching the houses while the families are away. The group is led by Petr Beaupre (Olek Krupa), and includes Jernigan the technical genius (Lenny von Dohlen), Alice Ribbons (Rya Kihlstedt), and resident quipster Earl Unger (David Thornton).

There’s not much you expect out of a Home Alone film (or one of its many clones), except lots and lots of comic violence. The first one was a change of pace, and even somewhat fresh. It played like a live action Wile E. Coyote cartoon. Yet this time around, the whole thing feels stale and formulaic.

Stripping the film of its context in history, would it be any better? It might be, but only slightly. The film lacks the simplicity with which the first film carefully tiptoed between reality and fantasy. The whole production is overwrought and overwritten.

At least the first film had some decent actors: Catherine O’Hara, Joe Pesci, Daniel Stern, John Heard, and, yes, even the early Macaulay Culkin, when his head was still uninflated. This time around, the actors are mere objects upon which Alex’s incredibly convoluted Rube Goldbergian deathtraps can do their stuff. Alex is the only real character in the film, and the script sticks him with such obvious precocious dialogue that he begins to grate on the nerves almost instantaneously.

Was a sequel really necessary for Home Alone? No. Were two? Definitely not. In order for a film to have a good sequel, there’s got to be something more…something which was left out of the original that can be expanded upon in the followup. Home Alone 3 is less of a sequel than a remake…and a poor one at that.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged | Comments Off on Home Alone 3

For Richer or Poorer - * 1/2*

Posted on December 12, 1997 by Madeleine Williams

Pity the Amish. Revered in The Witness, their Hollywood experience has been nothing but downhill since. Last year’s Kingpin hit new lows. The new comedy, For Richer or Poorer, treats them a bit more reverently, but you can’t help to think that they wouldn’t take too kindly to their portrayal…if they saw movies, that is…

Brad Sexton (Tim Allen) is a real estate developer with lots of questionable ideas (Euro-Alcatraz, or a HolyLand amusement park). However, so far he’s been successful, and the life of luxury is the only thing keeping him together with his shopaholic wife Caroline (Kirstie Alley). But all that’s about to change.

It seems that the Sexton’s accountant (Wayne Knight) has fudged a bit here and there, and now, with millions missing, he bails on the Sextons just as the I.R.S. starts an in-depth investigation. Being chased by two I.R.S. agents, the bickering Sextons flee. Soon, they discover the perfect place they can hide without notice: the Amish community of Intercourse, PA.

Posing as visiting cousins Jacob and Emma, Brad and Caroline worm their ways into the lives of the Yoder family (including Jay O. Sanders and Megan Cavanagh). However, the upper class couple soon discover that their rustic getaway won’t be as relaxing as they had hoped. It’s planting season, and the two visitors are put to work. Brad is enlisted to break in Big John, a monstrous new plow horse. Caroline is put to work in the kitchen, scrubbing floors, and demonstrating her famous quilting skills (even though Caroline doesn’t know how to sew).

If it’s not obvious from the setup, there’s nothing elaborate about the story in For Richer or Poorer. It’s your basic fish out of water story, combined with the “a simple life equals a good life” theme. Most of the jokes are groaners…if they’re that good. However, there are one or two genuinely funny moments which must have slipped past quality control.

The film has a bit of a problem with its continuity (not that it matters too much in this sort of comedy). The film isn’t concerned with invalidating the plot for several scenes in order to pull a quick gag or to force itself down a preconceived path. While the film survives this, it nags a bit on the conscience…couldn’t the writers either have written the film to fit the jokes, or the jokes to fit the film.

As a side note, it has been standard practice for several middling comedies to run their blooper reel during the credits. For Richer or Poorer takes another tack…although there’s one or two bloopers, it mostly shows scenes cut from the final release. While a couple of these are slightly amusing, you’re left to wonder…if these scenes are supposed to be that funny, why’d they cut them out in the first place?

Oh well, when you go to a film that advertises itself as an Amish comedy, you shouldn’t hope for the sky. And while definitely not a good film, For Richer or Poorer isn’t the catastrophic disaster it could have been.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on For Richer or Poorer