Amistad - * * *

Amistad

Let the world take note: Steven Spielberg has returned to the arena of “important filmmaking”. However, considering his last “important” film was the masterful Schindler’s List, he’s got a lot to live up to. And although he tackles an appropriately weighty subject, slavery, what he has created is a good, but not great, drama.

In 1839, and filmed as a striking prologue for the film, a group of African captives break loose and mutiny on the slave ship La Amistad. Led by Cinque (Djimon Hounsou), the rebellion succeeds, but it is only a matter of time before the drifting ship is captured off the Atlantic coast, and the Africans are clapped back in chains.

The United States at this point is at a difficult point in its history. The president, Martin Van Buren (Nigel Hawthorne), is hoping for reelection in a divided country. When the Amistad Africans are sent to court (mostly to determine who are their rightful owners, and therefore who gets to administer the punishment for their mutiny), Van Buren doesn’t care too deeply about the outcome…as long as the trial doesn’t raise some prickly issues about slavery that could cost him the Southern vote.

As for the Africans, two abolitionists (Morgan Freeman and Stellan Skarsgård) enlist the aid of a property attorney, Roger Baldwin (Matthew McConaughey), for the defense. They seek to prove that the Africans didn’t originate from a slave plantation in Havana (as the Spanish claim) thereby making them legal slaves, but instead they were illegally kidnapped from their homes in Africa and sold into slavery. In effort to help their cause, the abolitionists attempt to gain the support of ex-President John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), who, as a retired old man, is reluctant to hop back into the fray.

More fascinating as a history lesson than as a gripping drama, Amistad’s biggest misstep is failing to provide an intriguing main character. The film tries with Cinque, but fails. His role, with the exception of the opening mutiny, is primarily one of reaction, not action. And the man remains a cipher for most of the film, speaking only in Mende, which is translated only part of the time. McConaughey’s lawyer is never developed enough to be interesting, and the film’s two abolitionists are uninspiring (and the subplot wherein they turn on one another is as confusing as it is pointless).

Only Anthony Hopkins’ dynamic portrayal of a man overshadowed and past his prime, doing something worthwhile for a change, has that spark of zest which should have enlivened the whole film. Unfortunately, his role is clearly a supporting one, and by no means can carry the whole picture.

However, on an academic level, the film is fascinating. The production crew went out of their way to recreate the atmosphere of 1839. You could almost lose yourself in the historical richness of the sets and costumes.

Spielberg’s direction is a mixed bag. The opening and closing of the film are wonderfully done, but the middle seems to drag. Only a 10-minute flashback to the Africans’ capture and their journeys on the slave ship seems beyond the ordinary. Several of the film’ “inspiring” moments seem forced (such as Cinque’s freedom chant, or one of the African’s interpretation of Christianity).

Although not the grandiose epic it strives to be, Amistad is still a good film, with solid, but not superb, acting, and competent, but not transcendent, direction.

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

Hugo Pool - *

Robert Downey Sr directs this overly self-consciously “wacky” day-in-the-life comedy. Unfortunately, even with plenty of talent attached, the film goes nowhere.

Hugo Dugay (Alyssa Milano) runs a pool cleaning company in Beverly Hills. The film follows her on a day in her life. She has to deal with her dysfunctional parents: ex drug addict Henry (Malcolm McDowell), and obsessive gambler Minerva (Cathy Moriarty).

Among the odd folks she meets on her rounds are a murderous movie director, Franz Mazur (Robert Downey Jr), the ruthless gangster Chick Chicalini (Richard Lewis), and a hitchhiker (Sean Penn) picked up by her father.

But the most momentous person she meets is Floyd Galen (Patrick Dempsey). He has ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease, but a charming personality. Hugo and Floyd hit it off well, and he joins her on her daily rounds.

Hugo Pool tries hard to be unusual…a bit too hard. It’s characters are so offbeat and wierd, that you don’t identify with anyone. The rich pool of acting talent at work here is completely wasted.

Alyssa Milano is somewhat bland as the lead. In fact most of the characters are rather boring. It’s as if the actors assumed their character’s premise was wacky enough that they didn’t have to put any effort into the roles. Robert Downey Jr, in particular, appears to simply walk into his role, only playing on his current public persona.

About the only noteworthy moment in the film is its spotlight on Lou Gehrig’s disease. It’s not quite a public service announcement, but it adds a true taste of the uncommon to a film that is trying so hard to be so.

But, in the end, Hugo Pool just doesn’t work. For all its effort, it never gets as “crazy” as it strives to be.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Hugo Pool

Good Will Hunting - * * * *

Although it isn’t readily apparent before seeing the film, the title Good Will Hunting has a double meaning (made obvious by the main character’s name: Will Hunting). However, be it the intriguing story of one good man, or the uplifting search for goodwill in a cynically hard world, Good Will Hunting is a very good film.

Will Hunting (Matt Damon) seems like your average young working class guy in South Boston. During the day, he works as a janitor, or in construction. When he’s not working, he’s hanging around with his pals, Chuckie (Ben Affleck), Morgan (Casey Affleck) and Billy (Cole Hauser), cheering on the Patriots, or trying to impress the educated Harvard girls, including one Skylar (Minnie Driver), over some brews in the local pub.

Only Will isn’t average. Far from it. He possesses a genius matched only once or twice in this century. He has instant recall of every page of every book he’s merely flipped through. He can solve, as an afterthought, complex mathematical proofs that have stumped the brightest professors for years.

Yet, this genius has not eased his life of hardship. His troubled childhood has led to a troubled adulthood. The only reason he is not currently behind bars is his quick wit, and his ability to talk circles around the nearest judge. His pent-up anger and hostility is nearly as vast as his intelligence, and a life of hardship has made his natural responses reflexively defensive.

Professor Lambeau (Stellan Skarsgård) at M.I.T. discovers Will, quite by accident, but sees it as his duty to unleash the boy’s vast intellect. To these means, he enlists the aid of his college roommate, Sean McGuire (Robin Williams). From a similar background, Sean can relate to Will, and tries to free him from the shackles of his past.

Co-written by its stars, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, the colorful dialogue of Good Will Hunting achieves the near-impossible. Not only does it create rich characters and vibrant situations, but it avoids several hard-to-miss pitfalls that could have derailed the film. Its tangental approaches to such varied topics as finite math, theraputic techniques and organic chemistry are neither boring enough tranquilize the layman nor abstract enough to annoy the expert. It’s a fine line to walk, but the script balances perfectly.

Matt Damon has written up a whopper of a part for himself, but he carries it off. It smacks a bit of egotism to write yourself into the part of the most intelligent person alive, but with Damon’s electric performance, you can’t envision anyone else that would fit the role.

Robin Williams delivers his best performance in several years. He’s back in his “serious” mode, if the beard wasn’t clue enough. At first it seems as if he may be just reprising his role from Awakenings, but that is not the case. His character here has a harder edge, and is a bit more volatile. It’s that roughness which endears him to both Will Hunting and the audience.

This is a more mainstream film than most of director Gus Van Sant’s previous work. However, he doesn’t seem lost here, and his directoral touches certainly enhance the film.

If Good Will Hunting has a flaw, it is that it indulges itself a bit too much in the area of “pop psychology”. If played in a different tone or by different actors, the film’s theraputic sessions could have been deadly. However, in the capable hands of Williams and Damon, the scenes work wonderfully. Sure they’re manipulative, but when manipulative scenes are done right, you don’t mind it at all. They’re certainly done right here.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Good Will Hunting

Flubber - * 1/2*

In its infinite wisdom, Disney has decided to resurect The Absent Minded Professor. However, you may note that this remake bears the moniker Flubber instead. And thus begins the shift of focus away from plot and characters and toward mindless special effects that heralds the demise of this film.

Professor Brainard (Robin Williams) is brilliant, but absent-minded to the point that he has forgot his impending wedding to Sara Jean (Marcia Gay Harden) three times. With both his college and his love life in trouble, Prof. Brainard is instead trying to create a metastable compound, a living elastic goo he nicknames “Flubber”.

Flubber has a rather peculiar property (aside that of having free will) that seems to break Newton’s law of motion. Every action done to Flubber seems to have a much greater response. For example, when flubber bounces, it accelerates with each bounce. Prof. Brainard immediately devises several applications for his miracle substance: giving more bounce in sports (a basketball game in particular), and a flying car.

The film has two villains. The first is Wilson Croft (Christopher McDonald), a rival professor who likes to steal from Professer Brainard (both his inventions and his fiancee). Also, there’s Chester Hoenicker (Raymond Barry), the millionaire who is recalling his loan to Brainard’s college. It seems that the only reason he donated money in the first place was to ensure good grades for his dim son, Bennett (Wil Wheaton). However, when Brainard refuses to comply, Hoenicker plots against him.

In addition to threatening to close down the college, Hoenicker sends two hired goons, Smith and Wesson (Ted Levine and Clancy Brown), to steal the Flubber, which might mean financial independence for the college.

There are a couple of cute scenes in the film, particularly when Prof. Brainard is experimenting with his flubber. But most of the effects-heavy flubber scenes don’t quite bounce. For example, a mambo production number, completely unrelated to any of the actions in the film, comes nowhere near having the effect obviously intended. Similarly, neither the film’s centerpiece basketball game, nor it’s “awe-inspiring” flying car are even remotely interesting.

Robin Williams is never given a chance to be very funny here. He’s shackled by the pathetic John Hughes-written script that can’t come up with anything more original than generic Home Alone-ish exploits where the hired goons meet up with the Flubber.

More interesting, but not by much, than the tired hunt-for-the-Flubber plots is the pseudo-love-triangle between Sara Jean, Brainard, and his assistant Weebo (a flying robot voiced by Jodi Benson, who has a nasty penchant for displaying clips from classic Disney cartoons on her monitor…an annoying trait that steps way over the bounds of being a humorous in-joke.) Perhaps the only reason that this subplot stands out is that it’s not the tired (though effects-heavy) same ol’ thing that we’re given with the main plot.

Special effects are useful tools to assist a good film to become great. However, they can’t make a film good by the mere value of their presence. This axiom is perfectly demonstrated in Flubber. Without its effects it would be merely a bad film. With its effects, it is a bad film with special effects.

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

Alien Resurrection - * * 1/2*

Alien Resurrection

Alien Resurrection is an appropriate title for the fourth film in the Alien franchise. Not only does it contrive to bring Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) back from the dead, it manages to wrest the entire franchise from a horrendous death in the equally horrendous Alien 3.

200 years after Ripley’s fatal swan dive, a group of military scientists have brought her back to life. By using cloning experiments on the DNA detrius left in the molten lead pit where she committed suicide, the researchers are attempting to recreate the Alien Queen. They succeed, but are left with Ripley as a biological byproduct. However, the genetic separation was not 100% perfect. Ripley is part Alien, just as the new aliens are more human.

Led by General Perez (Dan Hedaya), the researchers need host organisms in which to breed the aliens. He enlists the services of a ragtag group of mercenaries, led by Elgyn (Michael Wincott), to hijack a transport ship and deliver the human cargo to Perez’s scientists.

When the inevitable happens, and the aliens escape their confinement, the mercenaries (also including the handicapped Vriess (Dominique Pinon), the gruff Johner (Ron Perlman), and the spunky Call (Winona Ryder)) join forces with Ripley to defeat the alien menace and attempt to escape with their lives.

It’s easy to see why Sigourney Weaver was drawn back for this project. Whereas in the last Alien film, she was given no development opportunity at all (especially when compared to her meaty role in Aliens), in Alien Resurrection she is not the same person she remembers, and not even human having, in a sense, become one with her enemy.

However, Weaver is getting older (it’s been nearly 20 years since her first encounter with the ultimate killing machine), and to inject a little youthfulness into the film, they added Winona Ryder, a gambit which doesn’t quite work. Ryder is much more subdued than Weaver, and is much less of a presence onscreen. She just doesn’t seem to fit in this sci-fi action thriller genre.

The director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, has maintained the quirky visual sense present in his earlier films, and which adapts nicely to the Alien series. The only times he fumbles, however, are in the supposedly humorous scenes. They never quite play out as funny as intended.

The action scenes, while good, are never quite as pulse-pounding as those in Aliens. And though the aliens have learned a few new tricks, they’re never as horrifying as the original Alien. However, this fourth film deserves some innovation points for at least probing some thematic material never before explored: the psycho-sexual attraction of the aliens. Although there’s no explicit Alien sex or anything, there’s one character (Brad Dourif) who is in love with them, and Ripley herself is biologically intertwined.

Though the film never lives up to the first two in the series, it’s about as good a sequel as you could expect for an aging franchise, and thoroughly erases the bitter memory of the third film.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Alien Resurrection

Welcome to Sarajevo - * * *

And the first War in Bosnia film makes it through the gates! Michael Winterbottom directs this messagey but good look at the troublesome conflict in Sarajevo, based on Michael Nicholson’s book.

Welcome to Sarajevo follows several journalists in the war torn city of Sarajevo. Although the film focuses on a variety of reporters, including American TV news celebrity Jordan Flynn (Woody Harrelson), the main character is British journalist Michael Henderson (Stephen Dillane).

As a war correspondent, he is amazed by his country’s lack of interest in the savagery that surrounds him. He latches onto one saccharine story which he is sure will touch the heartstrings of his viewers: an orphanage on the front lines. Governmental squabbling has prevented any evacuation, so Henderson examines the plight of the pitiful orphans, stuck in the middle of Hell with nowhere else to go.

However, he gets too close to one young girl, Emira (Emira Nusevic). When a charity worker (Marisa Tomei) is given permission to retrieve children with out-of-country relatives and newborns with good adoption potential, Michael hatches a scheme to smuggle Emira out of the warzone.

The problem with “message” films like this one is that all too often the film will grind to a halt as it pleads its agenda, or that the self-righteous weight of its message crushes the film beneath. That is partially true for Welcome to Sarajevo. It is definitely at its worst during its staged “message moments”.

Part of the problem is that the film doesn’t really take a strong stance on any position. It’s strongest views seem to be a condemnation of the various world governments for not interfering with the war related atrocities. At least the splicing of documentary footage with the movie footage is well done.

However, underneath it all, though it may not look like it at first, Welcome to Sarajevo has a definite plot, and it’s a good one, too. It takes several twists and turns, never quite going where you might expect a film like this would go.

Stephen Dillane provides the film’s moral center as the journalist who gets personally involved in his story. It’s not a showy role, but a subtle one, and one he handles well. The showy role here goes to Woody Harrelson, as the “wacky” journalist who gets to zing some of the film’s best barbs.

Though not a perfect film about the war in Bosnia (the film gives very little background information on the struggle), Welcome to Sarajevo fares much better on the level of an interesting personal drama.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Welcome to Sarajevo

The Sweet Hereafter - * * * 1/2*

The Sweet Hereafter

Atom Egoyan directs this stirring portrait of a small town dealing with an insurmountable grief. Based on Russell Banks’ novel, Egoyan weaves a tapestry of grief and healing that is both haunting and memorable.

Mitchell Stephens (Ian Holm) is an ambulance-chasing lawyer who smells gold when he drives into the small town of Sam Dent, British Columbia. The townsfolk there have suffered a great tragedy, losing nearly all their children in a wintery schoolbus accident.

Mitchell is no stranger to parental tragedy. His daughter, Zoe (Caerthan Banks), is a dying drug addict, and he is powerless to help her. This only drives him further in pursuing the citizens of Sam Dent. For, in the town’s tragedy, at least there’s someone to blame…there has to be. And Mitchell is prepared to file a suit which might define some meaning to a meaningless event.

The townspeople of Sam Dent are dealing with the tragedy in varied ways. Dolores Driscoll (Gabrielle Rose), the schoolbus driver, is in a state of shock, having loved all the kids, yet being at the wheel during the accident. Billy Asnell (Bruce Greenwood), who was overly protective of his two children, spills out his grief in an adulterous affair. Sam and Mary Burnell (Tom McCamus and Brooke Johnson), whose child Nicole (Sarah Polley) was in the schoolbus, are some of Mitchell’s most ardent supporters.

Atom Egoyan again weaves this story in a nonlinear web, in the same style as Exotica, but with much more success. This time, rather than leaving the film a tangled mess, the seamless flashbacks and flash forwards add a slightly hypnotic effect to the film.

The downside to Egoyan’s method is that it takes a while for the film’s layers to build up and have the intended effect. It’s not until after about a half hour that the film actually draws you in.

The film’s screenplay is both subtle and lyrical, a quality which is enhanced by beautiful parallels to Robert Browning’s poem, The Pied Piper of Hamlin. Its most stirring moment is easily a story that Mitchell tells about Zoe, which nicely underscores his current relationship with her.

The acting in the film ranges from wonderful to mediocre. Ian Holm and Sarah Polley are the obvious standouts here. Holm has the meatiest role as a surprisingly sympathetic lawyer whose personal grief gets tangled with that of the town. Polley plays her role with quiet grace, and is the only one of the town’s children that we truly get to know. Bruce Greenwood has a pivotal role, but he plays it with such blandness that his scenes are intrusive and uninteresting.

Although The Sweet Hereafter’s style takes a bit getting used to, don’t give up. As the patterns start to show themselves, there’s a wonderful movie that’s waiting to be revealed.

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

Mortal Kombat Annihilation - [No Tickets]

What an awful film! This hideous sequel to 1995’s Mortal Kombat makes the original look like a classic in comparison. The only reason that this is not the worst film of the year is that it had the fortunate luck to be released in the same year as The Pest.

The sequel takes place right where the first one left off. Liu Kang (Robin Shou) has just returned the Mortal Kombat tournament, where he guaranteed the safety of Earth for the next generation. However, disregarding tournament rules, Emperor Shao-Khan (Brian Thompson) decides to invade Earth anyway by merging the realm with his own.

Liu is joined by the survivors of the original film (minus Johnny Cage, who is killed off in the first scene for no apparent reason.) There’s Sonya Blade (Sandra Hess), the thunder god Rayden (James Remar instead of the orignal Christopher Lambert), and Kitana (Talisa Soto), who’s mother Lady Sindel (Musetta Vander) may or may not be the key to defeating Shao-Khan. Along the way, they pick up another good guy: Jax (Lynn Red Williams), who apparently, for some reason, likes the idea of self-surgery.

Of course, without the tournament structure of the first film, there’s got to be some reason to initiate man-to-man combat with each of the characters. (The whole thing left me wondering where the heavy weaponry was when you need it…I mean, when faced with an invading horde of ninjas with eyeless black socks pulled over their heads a few rounds of anti-personnel fire ought to do it…) Anyway, the film decides to separate each survivor off to follow his or her own personal quest. On the way, there just happens to be a bad guy that each good guy can face off against in one-on-one combat.

The fight scenes were the bread and butter of the original film, and at least there they were entertaining. Here they’re horrendous. You’d think the fight choreographers had never heard of continuity. You’d get better fight action from a bad episode of Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers.

The look of the original was also entertaining…here, things just look cheap. The costuming is hideous, and the special-effects are of claymation caliber at best. At least the nonstop thumping techno music drowns out most of the bad throwaway dialogue.

There is nothing…I repeat, nothing worthwhile in this film. Even as pure escapism, Mortal Kombat Annihilation doesn’t cut it. There’s very little that you’d to escape from more than this horrendous film.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , | Comments Off on Mortal Kombat Annihilation

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil - * * *

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

John Berendt’s popular nonfiction novel Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is a very difficult book to adapt. Clint Eastwood’s film version might be as good an adaptation of the book as you could hope, but it is far from perfect.

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil follows freelance journalist John Kelso (John Cusack), who is sent by Town and Country magazine to Savannah, Georgia, in order to cover the lavish Christmas party given by Jim Williams (Kevin Spacey). Once there, Kelso is immediately struck by the laid back atmosphere and the city’s idiosyncratic characters.

However, Kelso’s fluff piece soon becomes much more serious after a murder occurs in the Williams household. Soon the whole town is abroil, with a sensational trial looming and crackpot theories everywhere. Kelso decides to stay in town, and attempts to capture the atmosphere in a book.

One of the strengths of John Berendt’s book is its many intriguing characters. Most of them make the transition to film. However, very few of the characters in the film are very interesting beyond their introduction. The film captures their idiosyncratic traits, and very little else. The film makes the assumption that all of its characters are instantly endearing on the basis of their eccentric characteristics…and though that may be the case for some of the characters, it certainly isn’t true for all of them.

The biggest exception to this rule is Kevin Spacey’s showy role as Jim Williams. He delivers yet another wonderful performance as the nouveau riche antiques dealer at the heart of the matter. Another good character is Minerva (Irma P. Hall), the voodoo priestess who uses her powers with the dead to influence the trial.

Unfortunately, some of the film’s central characters don’t make the grade. John Cusack is a bland narrator who, all too often, is put in an inappropriately active role. Alison Eastwood is rather uninteresting as Mandy, his love interest. And, unfortunately, The Lady Chablis (playing herself) is too self-conscious for her own good.

As for the trial itself, it, thankfully, is interesting enough to sustain interest throughout the lengthy movie. Compressed from the four trials in real life, the movie’s version has plenty of twists and turns. It’s only misstep is in focusing all the film’s characters and events in some way around the trial. The trial is something that should happen in Savannah…Savannah isn’t something that should happen in the trial.

Under Clint Eastwood’s solid direction, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is definitely a watchable film, but not as good of a film as fans of the book might like.

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

John Grisham’s The Rainmaker - * * * 1/2*

John Grisham's The Rainmaker

Director Francis Ford Coppola tackles a rather mainstream film for his latest outing: a John Grisham adaptation. Not the most auspicious of genres, to be sure, but Coppola actually turns out one of the best adaptations, and a rather good film to boot.

As is typical in Grisham’s work, the main character, Rudy Baylor (Matt Damon), is a young lawyer, fresh out of law school. However, rather than finding employment with a glossy law firm, Rudy is stuck working for Bruiser Stone (Mickey Rourke). He is assigned to work with Deck Shifflet (Danny DeVito), who can show him the ropes of ambulance chasing.

Luckily, Rudy already has the line on two cases he picked up in a law workshop in law school. The first is to redraft the will of the potentially rich Miss Birdie (Teresa Wright). But the other is his high stakes case. Dot Black (Mary Kay Place) has been in a quandry. Her son is dying from leukemia, and the insurance company for the last year has refused to pay for his only hope: a bone marrow transplant.

While Rudy is busy sueing the insurance company, studying for the bar, and picking up Deck’s ethically murky skills, he runs across Kelly Riker (Claire Danes), a battered wife whose husband has recently assaulted her with a baseball bat. Kelly and Rudy form a bond a friendship, and soon much more.

Although the insurance case takes the primary spotlight in the film, The Rainmaker only benefits from its numerous interesting subplots. The most interesting involves Rudy’s relationship with the entertaining DeVito. Shifflet is one of DeVito’s more likeable scoundrels, and his lessons about legal ethics in the real world are a delight.

Of course, when the main plot is in full force, it is captivating as well. Rudy’s opposition in the trial is a slick corporate lawyer, played with villainous slime by Jon Voight. And, though at times the trial may seem a bit one-sided, there’s plenty of drama as it moves along.

Matt Damon is an able lead, forceful and likeable. His only problem is that he gets outshone in parts by the talented supporting cast.

With numerous entertaining subplots, plenty of well thought-out characters, brought to life by talented actors, and an invigorating trial, what more do you want from a Grisham film?

Posted in 1997, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on John Grisham’s The Rainmaker