johnnysugar Reviews

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Gay cowboys eating pudding

[3/10 · 29 December 2005]

WARNING! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS NUMEROUS SPOILERS!

"Catwoman." "Xandau." "The Apple." "Pootie Tang." What do all of these films have in common? They're all about as entertaining as "Brokeback Mountain", a lead balloon of a message movie undone by its own good intentions and its own sense of cinematic entitlement.

Based on the short story by Annie Proulx, "Brokeback" concerns two ranch-hands, the improbably named Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger), who meet as young men while both are sheep-herding on Wyoming's Brokeback Mountain. The two develop a close relationship, culminating in a fumbling night of intimacy during a cold snap. After their job ends, the two part ways, each marrying a woman and fathering children: Jack marries well-to-do rodeo girl Lureen (Anne Hathaway) while Ennis marries down-to-earth Alma (Michelle Williams). Both men, however, continue to hold onto their memories of Brokeback, until the day they finally meet again and begin a secret relationship thinly disguised as a series of fishing trips. The film chronicles the two men as their secret slowly destroys their marriages and threatens to consume them from within. Much angst ensues.

"Brokeback" is a film of substitutions: a collection of mannerisms substituting for characterization, a series of landscape shots substituting for direction, an assemblage of country-fried aphorisms substituting for a script, rampant and unrestrained melodrama substituting for human emotion. The largest share of the blame for the film lies with director Ang Lee, a man who could probably make very vivid wilderness films but who rarely knows what to do with the humans caught in his frame. Lee's direction is ridiculously dull and ponderous, each scene moving with a slow, aimless gait into the next with no forward momentum or dramatic pull. To be sure, some of Lee's footage is gorgeous even while its lack of realism proves distracting: the moon over Wyoming is always big and full, the top of the mountain is always pristine, and the small towns of the film are always picture-perfect in aping what Lee believes they should look like. Diana Ossana and Larry McMurty's script doesn't help matters at all. The words don't so much advance the "plot", for lack of a better word, as much as they intermittently nudge it down a lazy river.

But that doesn't leave the actors in the clear. Much attention has been paid to the two male leads, especially Ledger, for their performances, but the praise comes not so much from the performances themselves as from what they represent. Like Charlize Theron in "Monster", few critics believed Ledger was capable of performing such a role, while both men are seen as "bold" or "daring" for playing ostensibly gay men. The caliber of the performances no longer matters at this point: the quickest way to an Oscar nomination is to play gay, handicapped, or a prostitute. But the praise is misplaced. Certainly, both men are giving heartfelt performances, and both fully believe in the film, but Ledger decides to mumble most of his words to the point of making half of his lines unintelligible, while Gyllenhaal comes off simply as trying to act too much. He's endearingly artificial. The only characters who appear as natural, genuine human beings are the two female leads. Williams has a few very difficult, emotionally raw scenes that she pulls off remarkably well. Hathaway is better-than-expected as a woman who decides to drown her marital ennui in a Tammy Faye-esquire swirl of bleached hair, gaudy jewelry, and taloned fingernails.

The argument has been advanced, and never more enthusiastically than by the producers of the film, that this is not a "gay cowboy movie", but a "universal" love story. But this is not a "gay" movie. Jack and Ennis never identify as gay or consider themselves to be gay men. None of the lead actors are gay. None of the main talent behind the scenes is gay. This is a film by, to, and packaged for self-gratifying heterosexuals, brimming with a well-intentioned but ultimately patronizing, stultifying view of gays and their relationships that typifies the Hollywood penchant for sacrificing structure, story, and quality in order to advance a viewpoint that the filmmakers have little (if any) familiarity with. I should point out at this time that I am a gay man, but the attitude presented in Brokeback insults me. Jack and Ennis' relationship is presented as the purest of all the relationships between all of the characters of the film, despite the fact that the word "love" never escapes their lips once during the film. Anyone who criticizes them for any reason is automatically a bigot, even as the two men's selfishness not only brings misery and unhappiness to both their families, but ultimately proves to be their undoing. Jack, while desperately seeking the constant companionship Ennis denies him, is gay-bashed to death, graphically, with a tire iron to his face. Sadly, it is the only appropriate end for this antiquated, "Children's Hour"-style take on those quaint little homosexuals. On the other hand, given the amount of effort everyone involved in the film has put into making all of these characters so uniformly miserable, a happy ending would have been ludicrously fake.

30 seconds of poorly-filmed sex and a few make-out sessions is not enough to call yourself a "bold" or "courageous" film. The fact that this is essentially a Harlequin-style doomed romance that happens to feature two men in the leading roles doesn't excuse the horde of clichés marching across the screen. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I firmly believe that just because you want your movie to be important doesn't mean you have to make it skull-crushingly boring.

On an episode of South Park, Eric Cartman states that all independent cinema consists of is "gay cowboys eating pudding." Leave it to Hollywood to prove him right. 3 out of 10.

Bloody Mallory (2002)

French for "bloody entertaining"

[8/10 · 19 December 2005]

A deliciously campy combination of the wild Japanese action film "Versus", the comedic gore of the "Evil Dead" series, and the supernatural girl power of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", "Bloody Mallory" is a stylish, self-aware, deliriously entertaining action/horror/comedy hybrid from France.

Mallory (Olivia Bonamy) is a highly-trained government agent specializing in combating the supernatural. Her back-up team consists of Talking Tina (Thylda Bares), a mute girl with telepathic abilities, and Vena Cava (Jeffrey Ribier), a drag queen with an affinity for guns and explosives. When Pope Heironymus I (Laurent Spielvogel) is kidnapped by demonic operatives, it's up to Mallory and her team to recover him and stop a nefarious plot for world domination. Joined by the kickboxing priest Father Carras (Adria Collado), the team faces off against vampires, succubi, ghouls, fallen angels, and other assorted nasties in their madcap mission.

Director and co-writer Julien Magnat has created a unique film that borrows liberally from established action and horror franchises without resorting to cheap imitation or sycophantic flattery. Mixing established folklore with his own, Magnat has managed to created a realistic yet perfectly ridiculous universe in the absolute best sense of the word. Everything is over-the-top, yet nothing is so absurd as to be boring or trite. What helps matters is the fact that Magnat is consciously aiming for a feverishly campy aesthetic and realizes just how bizarre his creation may appear.

The performances are all quite good, especially given the potential for the hammy, half-hearted B-movie acting that this film could be associated with. Bonamy is perfectly believable as Mallory, a good balance of world-weary warrior and vulnerable heroine. Valentina Vargas, appearing as Lady Valentine, is delightfully seductive and icy in equal measures. The most enjoyable performance, however, comes from Ribier as the scene-stealing Vena Cava, delivering the most amusing lines and memorable moments, all in huge platform boots and an electric blue wig.

The only downfalls in the film are fairly major, but they do not impact the enjoyment of the film as much as would be expected. Magant had an admittedly low budget, and some of the special effects (including one monster effect) are very low-tech bordering on cheesy. The fight sequences, while exciting, lack the flash and panache of similar films such as "Blade", although they usually avoid the hyper-cutting edits typical of many modern action films. Finally, many of the scenes in the first part of the film are filmed very darkly, but this is more of an objection to what is perhaps a stylistic choice and not necessarily a reflection of the overall film.

For a film with such a small pedigree, it's amazing how enjoyable it is. A B-movie with aspirations to greatness, "Bloody Mallory" doesn't fail to amuse. Highly recommended for fans of humorous, absurdist action films. 8 out of 10.

Catwoman (2004)

Kitten with a computer-generated whip

[3/10 · 2 February 2005]

One of the most enduring and popular superheores of the modern age is Batman, and one of the most enduring and popular females in his universe is that of Catwoman. As in the comics, the character of the Catwoman has evolved thanks to the portrayal of numerous actresses, from the sexy cat-burglar on the "Batman" television show, to the tortured soul expertly played by Michelle Pfeiffer in "Batman Returns." Now, "Catwoman" has her own film. Unfortunately, it's about as appealing as a lump in the litter box.

Patience Phillips (Halle Berry) is a timid art designer at Hedare Cosmetics, answering to the imperious George Hedare (Lambert Wilson) and his icy ex-supermodel wife Laurel (Sharon Stone). Hedare is ready to release a new cosmetic line called Beau-line, which promises dire and disfiguring effects if the wearer stops using it. When Patience discovers this secret, she is killed by Hedare's goons and brought back to life by the spirit of the Catwoman. Now imbued with fantastic agility and cat-like senses, Patience sets out to stop Hedare's plans, all the while dogged by handsome detective Tom Lone (Benjamin Bratt), and having to decide if she is a hero or a criminal.

Advance reviews of the movie were dreadful, and for the most part, they're right. The movie is flawed at the most basic level, and the filmmakers have decided to reject the standard Catwoman character of Selena Kyle and make an altogether new character with the same name who is in no way related to the Batman universe. Previous screen incarnations of Catwoman relied on basic acrobatics and undeniable sex appeal to have their way. By giving this new Catwoman fantastic powers, the basic nature of the character is altered, making her just another action hero in a silly costume. She is no longer the ultimate femme fatale, the one adversary Batman could never bring himself to finish off. She's simply a fashion disaster with a whip and high kicks.

It's clear that Halle Berry wants to make an impression in her role as Catwoman. She has big stilettos to fill, from the sexy Julie Newmar to the exotic Eartha Kitt, not to mention the previously-mentioned Pfeiffer's electrifying turn. Berry relies heavily on Kitt's mannerisms and Newmar's attitude, but it's obvious that she's just copying the moves. Berry is a decent actress but lacks self-confidence, and while her heart may be in the right place, everything else in the film is working against her.

The film's director, French music video helmer Pitof, wants to make a stylish, sexy film, and he almost succeeds. There are times when the film does have a giddily campy feel, much like the "Charlie's Angels" films, but a massive amount of obvious computer-generated work distracts heavily from the seamless look Pitof strives for. Even Catwoman's whip is mostly CGI. The script is equal parts camp and action, but it's never comfortable in either and mostly comes off as ludicrous and pieced together by committee: a series of scenes that were strung together with little forethought. There are a number of embarrassing performances as well, not least of which is the normally-hilarious Alex Borstein, stuck in the role of Frumpy Best Friend. Frances Conroy and Lambert Wilson also seem to be phoning in their performances, as well.

The movie is prevented from being a total disaster by Sharon Stone. Stone's Laurel Hedare is a beautifully manipulative and ambitious woman, hateful of the world for the fact that she must age and make way for a new spokesmodel for her husband's company. Stone also seems to be the only one who realizes exactly what kind of film she signed up for and was determined to camp the hell out of it. In a sea of relatively earnest performances, Stone is a beacon of delightfully vicious melodrama that makes a painful film at least marginally watchable.

Halle Berry deserved a better film. Catwoman deserved a better film. Anyone who's ever picked up a comic book deserved a better film. Fans of Catwoman would be advised to skip this film entirely and hunt down old episodes of the "Batman" TV show or watch "Batman Returns" instead. Meow? Yeah, whatever, kitty. 3 out of 10.

Xanadu (1980)

It has a beat, but you can't dance to it

[3/10 · 7 January 2005]

At one point in time, perhaps in a simpler era, musicals were popular. Most of them had laughable plots held together only by a series of elaborate production numbers, and few possessed any sense of logic. Still, they were at once a guaranteed box office. But it could not last, and eventually the form died a slow death. In 1980, a series of famously bad films tried to reignite the genre, including "Can't Stop The Music" and "The Apple." They would not succeed, and musicals would be considered a dead art form until "Moulin Rouge!" and "Chicago" appeared 20 years later. Perhaps the most enduring of this 1980 trilogy, and certainly the one with the best music, is "Xanadu", a ridiculous, nonsensical misfire of epic proportions.

Sonny Malone (Michael Beck) is a struggling artist, working in a studio where he must reproduce large versions of album cover art to the letter. He feels stifled until a seemingly chance encounter with a mysterious roller-skating girl named Kira (Olivia Newton-John). In his search to find Kira, Sonny crosses paths with Danny McGuire (Gene Kelly), who was once a promising musician. Kira convinces both of them to open a club to express their mutual artistic desires, suggesting the name "Xanadu." But Kira is much more than she seems, and Sonny is slowly falling in love with her. Much choreography and 1980s synthesizer work ensues.

Few things go right with "Xanadu", but it's worth mentioning the few good parts of an otherwise spectacularly flat film. Newton-John is not a great actress, but she is a fine singer, and when she's allowed to sing, you can almost forget the nonsense that comes out of her mouth when she's speaking. The Electric Light Orchestra also contributed to the soundtrack, and their pompous bombast is perfectly suited to the proceedings at hand, in some ways making the ludicrous seem logical. Gene Kelly is also, as always, in a pleasing form, always coming out better than the people around him but never seeming as if he has to try hard to do it.

Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about why this movie is such a failure. First, the story and script are laughable. The plot is virtually non-existent, a bare bones arc with no discernible antagonist to add any drama. You get the feeling that the whole "plot" thing was improvised only to make an actual film and not a video concept album. Even within the music moments, very little makes sense: many of the numbers start out simply silly and soon escalate into sheer lunacy like a game of Telephone. On top of that, there are few characters aside from the main three, and even the main characters are poorly fleshed out. Their actions all feel synthetic and programmed and not at all like real people.

Stylistically, the film is a mess, as well. While there are quite a few interesting things to look at, scenes are framed poorly and many drawn out too long. Color schemes and design are often headache-inducing, and Newton-John herself seems like she's been made-up and dressed by a vindictive drag queen. Of particular note is a section that envisions a swing band and a rock band battling it out, each with their own dancers. Both sets look to have been designed by someone who once read articles about Glenn Miller and Kiss in the local daily paper. While the point of the number may be the groups' artificiality, it comes off as laughably over-the-top to the point of actual mental anguish. Let's not even get into the Disney-lite animated sequence by Don Bluth.

The most ridiculous part of "Xanadu" is its name. "Xanadu" is the name of a "pleasure dome" in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's opium dream poem "Kubla Khan." The poem itself is not pleasant, talking of the decadence, corruption, and depravity that Kubla Khan perpetuates at Xanadu. When Kira suggests the name and quotes the first lines of the poem, it's an odd moment that is highly incongruous with the surrounding emptiness of the film, but it feels especially false when you think that if the three main characters combined their intelligences, you doubt any of them would have even a clue about who Samuel Taylor Coleridge was.

Yes, "Xanadu" is an incoherent film. Yes, it has one of the most boring romantic subplots in ages. Yes, the music is still infectious. This film is recommended only for audiences who are eager consumers of high camp cinema (and you know who you are) or people who just can't get enough of Olivia Newton-John on roller skates. 3 out of 10.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

A technical marvel that overshadows itself

[6/10 · 19 September 2004]

The 1930s saw the rise of "pulp": melodramatic, fantastical serialized fantasies that were part speculative fiction, part romance, and part cheese.

"Flash Gordon" is a prime example, a story of manly men, stylized females, and lots of technology that goes bleep and bloop. The "Indiana Jones" trilogy harkened pack to the pulp action days, but it always kept itself in check, never become too ridiculous or too wrapped up in itself to forget its characters. The film "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" attempts to do something similar, and while the results are dazzling to behold, the substance underneath is lacking.

Set in the late 1930s as visualized by speculative fiction writers of the 1910s, the film opens with a case of missing scientists, a hot story that ace reporter Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) is following. While investigating her latest lead, her home town of New York is devastated by an army of giant robots. Eager to uncover the source of the attack, Polly teams up with Joe "Sky Captain" Sullivan (Jude Law), a fighter pilot of extraordinary ability, and leader of a squadron of elite engineers and pilots that deal with fantastical problems...like giant robots. With the help of whiz-kid inventor Dex (Giovanni Ribisi) and the steely, sexy Capt. Fransesca "Frankie" Cook (Angelina Jolie), Polly and Joe must stop the robot's creator, mad villain Totenkopf (played by video footage of Sir Lawrence Olivier) and his mysterious servant (Bai Ling), from destroying the planet.

The film is significant in that it was filmed almost entirely with blue/green screen effects: the actors are superimposed upon computer-generated backgrounds and landscapes. This is a mixed blessing with the film. Director Kerry Conran is able to take his characters anywhere he likes, create backgrounds and scenarios as fantastical as he desires. To be sure, the setting is quite impressive, but also quite distracting. The viewer is constantly aware of the nature of the effects, and there are certain times (such as the initial attack on New York) that the concept fails to satisfy the needs of the film. The film's aesthetic, though, is quite pleasing and reminiscent of its inspiration. The robots mirror the designs of pulp comics and movies, and the entire film is shot in a romanticized palette that exists in the area between color and monochrome.

The film has as many virtues as it does flaws. For the most part, the actors are well up to the task of portraying pulp heroes. Jude Law is a dashing and debonair hero, and Angelina Jolie is always a marvel to watch whenever she plays a tough-as-nails heroine, even though she appears far too late in the film and leaves all too quickly. Bai Ling also does much with a role that has no lines, conveying an elegant menace whenever she's on the screen. However, Gwyneth Paltrow is woefully miscast. Her wan, non-committal demeanor does not translate well to the ratcheted-up drama of pulp comics, and during the scenes of the New York attack, it is painfully clear that she has had little experience in dealing with green screen effects. There is also precious little chemistry between Law and Paltrow, which is unfortunate, since at least half the movie is focused solely on their two characters. This is coupled with a lifeless script by director Conran that offers little insight to any of the characters beyond the surface. Granted, this is part and parcel of the pulp tradition, but that's no reason not to create three-dimensional characters.

In the end, "Sky Captain" is more a novelty than a film: an extended sequence of special effect demonstrations strung together by a few random snippets of dialogue. To be sure, the effects are spectacular and innovative, but as the film soldiers on and the ridiculous science quotient of the film rises, they become wearying and repetitive, making the flaws of the film even more apparent. With a better script and a better female lead, this film could've been the Next Big Thing in genre cinema. As it is, it's just really, really pretty. 6 out of 10.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

Macho women with guns vs. mediocrity

[6/10 · 13 September 2004]

Film adaptations of video games have a decidedly mixed life. On the one hand, they are commercially viable with a built-in audience. On the other, they are often lifeless, barely more than live action versions of the games, less films than advertisements. Occasionally, as in "Tomb Raider", a fantastic lead can overcome the video game-to-file curse. Sometimes, the movie separates itself from the game enough to stand on its own, as in "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within." The first "Resident Evil" had both of these: only a passing resemblance to the wildly popular game series and a dynamic lead in Milla Jovovich. The success of the movie spawned a sequel, and as in the video game world, so often, the sequel is an overly-hyped, rushed-to-production mess like "Resident Evil: Apocalypse."

The film begins roughly where the first one left off. Alice (Jovovich) is one of the only survivors of the first movie, having fought her way thought legions of undead when the nefarious Umbrella Corporation's experimental T-virus infected hundreds of people. When Umbrella tries to investigate the events of the first movie, they unwittingly release the T-virus into the streets of Raccoon City, turning the populace into slavering zombies hungry for human flesh. Umbrella shuts the city down to contain the virus, and Alice must fight her way out with the help of mini-skirted cop Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), a small team of elite soldiers, and a trash-talking common citizen (Mike Epps). Along the way are obstacles like undead beasts with huge tongues and a giant mutant named Nemesis.

This film is a massive mess of teenage game-boy dreams. The plot is thin and the characters by and large thread bare. Most come and go so quickly that you never even get to know their names before they become a zombie snack. The actors try their best, though, and Jovovich is always a treat to watch in action. Guillory is also quite effective in her role as Butt-Kicking Babe #2, making a rather crowd-pleasing entrance. Epps provides the film's few intentionally funny moments, while there also fine performances by Oded Fehr and Zack Ward as two of the soldiers accompanying Alice. Of all the featured players, only Thomas Kretschmann, as Umbrella's laughably clichéd Eurotrash representative, comes off as particularly mediocre.

But all the girls-on-zombie action in the world can't save this film from itself. The film has the quick-cut action scenes and loud, forced nu-metal soundtrack of a straight-to-video release but the effects budget of a minor studio release. Indeed, hardly a scene goes by that isn't punctuated with deafening explosions. Director Alexander Witt, taking over for video-game-to-film director Paul Anderson (who wrote the screenplay), has made a cold, hard film lacking any of the (relative) depth or humanity of the first film. Sure, this film may be based on a video game, but that's no reason to turn the characters into automatons. In addition, the film ends with a bizarre and seemingly arbitrary sequence that will leave most viewers to bang their heads in frustration...and, of course, opening the door WIDE open for a third film.

What could've been a more action-oriented follow-up to a fine video-game adaptation has become an incoherent and numb series of shoot-em-up action, a film so ridiculously conceived that it thinks nothing of sending its main characters through a graveyard during a zombie assault. Granted, it's immensely enjoyable to watch the female leads getting their action hero on, but both Jovovich and Guillory (and indeed the whole cast) deserve a better vehicle for their acrobatics. Skip the theatre and just wait for the DVD so you can go right to the good parts. 5 out of 10.

Saved! (2004)

A heavenly balance of sharp wit, sweet heart, and fine performances

[8/10 · 14 June 2004]

Films that question the religious status quo almost inevitably bring controversy. Modern teen comedies, with the exception of such atypical fare as "Mean Girls", almost inevitably reek of mediocrity. So what happens when you combine the two into one? You get "Saved!", a funny, sweet comedy that, while it does have a flaw or two, is a welcome dose of reality into two genres of film that have become increasingly fantastical.

It's the senior year of high school for Mary (Jena Malone), a student at the Baptist high school American Eagle. Mary's in good standing with the Christian Jewels, run by Hilary Faye (Mandy Moore), who seems to be the most popular girl because she's the most vocal about her devotion to Jesus. When Mary's boyfriend Dean (Chad Faust) confesses that he thinks he might be gay, Mary is determined to save his soul, and decides to have sex with him, since she believes that Jesus will forgive her for it. When her plan backfires, Dean finds himself shipped off to Mercy House, a place for "wayward" teens, and Mary finds herself pregnant. Spurned by her former friends and branded a sinner, Mary must turn to the school's outcasts for help and support, primarily bad girl Cassandra (Eva Amurri), a gothic, punky Jewish girl who's been kicked out of every other school in town, and Roland (Macaulay Culkin), Hilary Faye's atheist, wheelchair-bound brother. To complicate matters, Mary begins a flirtation with Patrick (Patrick Fugit), a skateboard missionary and son to the school's Pastor Skip (Martin Donovan), and Hilary Faye is determined to win Patrick for herself.

What could have been a heavy-handed, laborious treatise on faith (similar to Mel Gibson's gorefest "The Passion Of The Christ") is instead diffused by the some very funny dialog by writer/director Brian Dannelly (and co-writer Michael Urban) and a cast of standout performances. While Malone is quite good in her role, it's the supporting cast that stands out. Amurri's Cassandra is by far the most endearing character on screen, and the actress (who's a dead ringer for mother Susan Sarandon) is fantastic. Culkin, as well, does some of his best work in years, never playing Roland with any self-pity. Moore, however, demonstrates that she's much more than another teen idol, and besides watching her gleefully trash her own goody-goody image with Hilary Faye's unabashed religious opportunism, her rendition of the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows" (which opens the film) is remarkably moving without being saccharine.

The film does have its share of problems, however minor those may be. The film gets off to a shaky start, and it takes a while for the tone to set in. The opening scenes are played in a fairly dramatic key, and the comedy aspects, while present early on, don't take hold on the viewer until a little later. Additionally, Dannelly defaults to a few teen movie archetypes -- such as the whole film leading up to the prom -- that should have been avoided in such an original movie. That the whole thing doesn't liquefy into syrup is admirable, however, but the ending seems too pat, too perfect given the film's timbre.

Some controversy has been raised by many Christians who feel offended by the mocking tone of the film. To be sure, there is quite a good deal of ammunition lobbed at fundamentalist Christianity, but that's the entire point. The film seeks to affirm faith while showing disdain for the more radical fringes of the religion. The film's message is that following all the rules of a religion won't make you a better person if your heart isn't in it, as demonstrated by Hilary Faye, who believes that moral superiority lies in following the letter of the law but not the spirit. As one character says, "Why would god make us all so different if he wanted us to be the same?"

There may be many places where "Saved!" may not be very popular or play well. This is a shame, because the film is filled with no small amount of heart, and some very real, flawed characters who act like real humans and not like teen movie cardboard cut-outs. To miss this film is to miss some of the best performances of the year, and to miss a film that isn't afraid to ask questions of its viewers. 8 out of 10.

The Stepford Wives (2004)

Welcome to Stepford, population: Camp, POTENTIAL SPOILERS HEREIN!

[7/10 · 11 June 2004]

WARNING! POSSIBLE SPOILERS HEREIN!

In 1975, Ira Levin's book "The Stepford Wives" was made into a film. The movie, like the book, was a horror/science-fiction treatise on the women's movement about an idyllic little town where the men turned their feminist wives into subservient June Cleaver clones. In retrospect, the movie was both chilling in its premise and amazingly campy in its execution, like much of Levin's work ("Rosemary's Baby", "Sliver"). The new adaptation of Levin's book (since it's not exactly a remake of the 1975 film) decides to jettison the horror aspect and go straight for the camp factor. In this it succeeds, but the film is wildly uneven at times and often feels as if it has itself been a victim of the Stepford machinery.

Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman) is the powerful and respected head of the EBS television network. When a disgruntled contestant on one of her reality shows goes on a shooting spree, Joanna is fired to avoid damaging lawsuits. Her husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) decides that the family needs a new start and moves to the small gated community of Stepford, Connecticut. Soon Joanna finds that all of the women in Stepford are smiling, well-groomed, and live only to serve their husbands, who spend all of THEIR time at the Stepford Men's Association. The Stepford women even wear their best dresses to aerobics class, where all their exercises mimic household chores, and to the book club, where they discuss books on decorating. The only others who find the situation bizarre are Bobbie Markowitz (Bette Midler) and Roger Bannister (Roger Bart), and soon the three are trying to get to the bottom of Stepford's secrets.

As might be expected, the best performances of the film come from the Stepford wives themselves. Kidman is always a pleasure to watch on screen, and Midler has some of the best one-liners in the film even though she's playing a character she's played a dozen times over. Bart steals nearly every scene he's in as the only Stepford wife who's a gay man (and quite the little flamer to boot). Glenn Close is hilarious as Claire Wellington, the town's matron, and Faith Hill has some very amusing moments in her brief screen time. The men, however, don't come off nearly as well. Broderick is woefully miscast, and he never seems to bring any spark to his milquetoast of a husband. Christopher Walken, as the leader of the Men's Association, doesn't even appear to be trying, and his appearance in a supposed-to-be-retro-campy commercial for Stepford is painful.

Director Frank Oz and screenwriter Paul Rudnick have both done fine work in their careers, and they make a valiant effort to film a dark satirical comedy, but they're just not quite up to the task. Oz's direction is quite static, and there are times in the film when it's clear that the cast wasn't being cooperative (rumors of on-set fighting ran rampant during production). Rudnick is a master of campy, zingy one-liners, and while the movie is filled with several genuinely funny moments and lines, there is little connecting them. It's as if he was so concerned with filling the script with jokes that he forgot a plot or character development. Characters come and go too quickly for us to become invested in them, and Kidman and Broderick have no chemistry to speak of. There are also several inconsistencies with how the wives are presented, which are never resolved or explained, although the movie's brisk pace and re-shot ending suggest that such details may have existed at one time. Additionally, the film tends to alternate between campy farce and techno-thriller, as if Oz and Rudnick were never sure of which end to play.

Despite all these drawbacks, the film is still watchable and entertaining with more than one moment of drop-dead humor. Enough moments, in fact, that it almost makes up for the disappointingly predictable ending. In addition, the opening credit sequence is brilliant, a montage of near-fetishistic scenes of 1950's housewives dancing in absurdly futuristic kitchens. Worth a trip to the theatre or video store, for sure, but make sure you've got a high tolerance for camp. 6 out of 10.

Barbarian (2003 Video)

Would you care for some 20-sided dice with your cheese?

[3/10 · 5 May 2004]

You've seen this movie before. Don't lie, of course you have. You take a lone hero with a sword. Set him up against a dark sorcerer with monstrous servants. Make him run around a mythical backdrop searching for props to defeat said sorcerer whilst picking up a small party of comrades. For good measure, throw in a mysterious witch, concubines, a deposed noble, and lots of dry ice. This movie was made countless times in the 80's with slight variations: maybe it was "Conan The Barbarian", "Deathstalker", or "Red Sonja." There was probably a role-playing game tie-in. This grand tradition is continued into the new millennium by the laughably bad, Roger Corman-financed "epic" film "Barbarian."

In a land overcome by a dark, sorcerous tyrant named Munkar (Martin Kove), the people's last hope for liberation is a swordsman named Kane (Michael O'Hearn). Conscripted by a Witch (Yevdokiya Germanova) to collect some mystic artifacts needed to overthrow Munkar and in return win the hand of Princess Gretchen (Irina Grigoryeva), Kane battles stock villains while collecting his traveling companions. Furry and cute but indescribably annoying sidekick Wooby (Yuri Danilchenko)? Check. Hot amazon babe Gilda (Svetlana Metinka)? Check. Brooding, disaffected solider jealous of Kane's manly jaw and pectoral development Zigrid (Aleksandr Dyachenko)? Check. So where is Brigitte Nielsen in all of this mess?

This film has so many things wrong with it that it truly boggles the mind. One of the most noticeable flaws is the cast. The film was shot on location in the Ukraine, and presumably to keep down the budget, all but two speaking roles were filled by local Russian actors whose voices were then later dubbed over by uncredited American actors, often quite poorly. The producers try to hide this fact by placing all non-Russian names in the cast (including non-speaking extras) in the opening credits. Another major flaw is the design of the film, or lack thereof. The costumes and props, including weapons and armor, were culled from at least 20 different time periods and regions, from Bronze Age Greece to 15th-century Italy. Often, the film looked like little more than a second-rate Renaissance festival, complete with the amount of slipshod authenticity that generally accompanies it. That's to say nothing of the stultifying script and ridiculous story, which seems to be either a continuation or a rip-off of "Deathstalker" (and there are even clips from that film in this one), and the poorly choreographed, sloppily edited fight scenes.

Most of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of one John O'Halloran, who wrote, edited, and directed the film (sometimes under the pseudonym of Henry Crum). The film plays out with all the clumsiness of an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons module from 1985, with O'Halloran being the awkward Dungeon Master who takes himself far too seriously. Characters appear and disappear with a randomness and lack of motive, but with perfect timing, that mimics a night spent rolling dice and comparing saving throws. In this case, the game goes on for far too long, the plot becomes far too ridiculous, and when the players get tired, the DM wraps the ending up with far too much haste and too little closure.

So what's good about this film? One thing, and his name is Michael O'Hearn. O'Hearn seems to be about the only person in this train wreck possessing anything resembling acting ability. He's not good by any stretch, at least good enough to get his own syndicated action series, but he far outshines the rest of the cast. In addition, he is pretty. So very, very pretty. One of the most successful fitness models in the world, and winner of several bodybuilding championships, O'Hearn has the awe-inducing physical presence to make you briefly forget about the schlock he's surrounded with. He's also got just enough stage combat ability to make some of the fights vaguely entertaining. He even makes some of the cheesy one-liners he's forced to say sound cool, and that takes talent.

Fans of low-budget (or no-budget) sword-and-sorcery fare like "Barbarian Queen" or "Ator" will relish this film in all of its ludicrous beauty. Virtually everyone else will be more compelled to watch the opening credits lovingly worship O'Hearn's form, then promptly return the film to wherever they rented it from. And fans of "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" will seek out this film at all costs for their next Bad Movie Night showing. 3 out of 10.

The Curious Dr. Humpp (1969)

A curiously entertaining film, despite several flaws

[6/10 · 8 March 2004]

Something Weird Video has made a name for itself by resurrecting forgotten exploitation films from the 50's, 60's, 70's and releasing them in restored prints for a modern audience. More than simply b-movies, these films are the most outrageous of the bunch, with one of the most interesting being "The Curious Dr. Humpp," released in its native Argentina under its original title "La Venganza Del Sexo" ("The Vengeance Of Sex"). Part science-fiction, part adult film, part morality tale, this is certainly a curious film that is surprisingly entertaining despite several rather distracting flaws.

In the middle of the night, a hideous monster has been kidnapping people engaged in amorous activities, including a couple making out in a park, a lesbian couple, a quartet of hippie orgiasts, a nymphomaniac, a young man exiting a gay bar, and the beautiful stripper Rachel (Gloria Prat). Ambitious reporter George (Ricardo Bauleo) suspects something the authorities do not, and soon he is investigating the estate of the curious Dr. Humpp (Aldo Barbero) himself. Here he finds the doctor engaged in mad experiments and guided by a disembodied brain kept active in an electrically charged solution. Dr. Humpp believes the secret to eternal life lies in the chemicals produced by the body during sex, and he's been using it to keep himself alive. George is captured, and he must find a way out with Rachel before they become slaves to the doctor's whims.

The film's premise is absurd, yet somehow it manages to sustain itself well given the film's tone and feel. The visuals certainly help, but not in the way you'd expect. While the cast, particularly the leads, are all quite attractive, it's the way the picture is filmed and not the flesh that makes it exciting. Writer/director Emilio Vieyra films the entire picture in a very lovely chiaroscuro that heightens and deepens the black-and-white imagery to levels of art. The direction itself is above average, with a few scenes -- most notably the oddly poetic image of Dr. Humpp's monstrous servant serenading Rachel with a lute -- being quite memorable.

Where the film falls apart has nothing to do with the director, the stars, or even the picture itself. When the film was picked up by an American distrbutor, over 17 minutes of sex-and-nudity footage was inserted into the film not only to pad the length, but to ostensibly heighten the adult-film quotient. These scenes add the lesbians, the hippie orgiasts, and the nymphomaniac to the cast, as well as some highly erotic sexual imagery added during a telepathic copulation between Prat and Bauleo (as part of one of the doctor's experiments). While the scenes fit well in that they aren't too far off from the original's look to be distracting, they often add unnecessary sex to a film that's more interested in other things, such as the ramifications of the doctor's work and the societal attitudes toward sex.

In addition to the scenes being extraneous, they often have the side effect of being unintentionally funny, which also distracts from the main thread of the film. The hippies, in particular, are quite humorous, especially with the exaggerated voice over work common of many erotic films of the time. The entire film has a serviceable, if not above average, English dub (the original was in Spanish) that works more often than it doesn't, at least in terms of language. To the American distributor's credit, the additional scenes are added quite well, and the dub is used quite skillfully to explain their presence.

Despite these flaws, the film is visually entertaining, which is one of the best things one can say about b-movies of this caliber. Definitely one of the finer entries in Something Weird's catalog, alongside classics like "Satan In High Heels" and "Mantis In Lace", and definitely one for b-movie and vintage exploitation enthusiasts. Others may not find as much to enjoy, and for those, I suggest you get in the front row with the robots and start your mocking. So, something for everybody. 6 out of 10.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

The Most Offensive Story Ever Told

[1/10 · 1 March 2004]

Films about the life of Jesus Christ, the Messiah of the Christian religion, are almost always fraught with at least a little controversy. From "King Of Kings" to "Jesus Christ Superstar" to "The Last Temptation Of Christ", these films have always rankled those whose personal Jesus does not match that of the films. Sometime a movie comes along that is so personal that only those of the exact same mindset can even hope to appreciate it. Such a film is "The Passion Of The Christ", which is quite possibly the most offensive and repulsive film ever made.

Directed and co-written by Mel Gibson, "The Passion Of The Christ" is a meditation on the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus, a period documented in the Stations of the Cross in the Catholic Church (Gibson himself belongs to a fundamentalist Catholic tradition). Gibson assumes that the audience is already familiar with Christian scripture, and for the sake of argument, so will I. I will not try to relate what happens here, as there are numerous contradictory accounts and interpretations of these materials. So I'll just get right into why this movie is an unadulterated punishment on good taste.

The movie is violent. Graphically violent. Needlessly violent. The screen is drenched in blood and viscera, and as Jesus, Jim Caviezel spends much of the two-hour film caked in fake blood. A scene where Jesus is caned and scourged by sadistic Roman centurions lasts a full 10 minutes, each lash dwelt upon with an unnerving eroticism. Indeed, the violence can only be described as pornographic: excessive, lovingly filmed, and designed to elicit primal emotions. Every cut, every bruise is gazed upon with a longing that only the Marquis de Sade could possibly appreciate. While crucifixion was indeed a violent way to condemn a criminal, the punishment merited out to Jesus is unduly severe, even for Roman law of the time, and Gibson is giddy to shove each and every drop of blood into the faces of spectators.

But what about the acting and the direction? Not since the days of silent films have I seen such an abundance of enthusiastic overacting and broad, exaggerated emotions. Subtlety is not one of Gibson's strong points, and even with a few very fine actors here -- Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdaelne, Hristo Shopov as Pontius Pilate, and Maia Morgenstern as Jesus's mother Mary -- the performances are all either overwrought to the point of comedy or underplayed to the point of boredom. Characterizations are extreme and nothing resembling nuance or complexity is even attempted. Caviezel himself lacks any charisma or gravity, and even in the flashbacks where he isn't covered in 20 gallons of karo syrup, he makes you wonder why anyone would follow someone so lacking in magnetism. Gibson also has developed a fond fascination with slow-motion, as if he thinks it's the only editing tool that can add dramatic impact to a scene.

The plot, as it is, is confusing enough without Gibson giving most of the characters names. You are assumed to have read the Christian gospels and know all the players in the story when the opening montage rolls. Those who aren't as familiar will leave themselves wondering what in the hell is going on. The two Marys follow Jesus throughout the film, along with one of his disciples, who is never given a name. Gibson has taken a small part of the gospels and stretched it out to a padded, dull two hour film, adding unnecessary violence (the gospels say very little on what was actually done to Jesus) and characters. The Devil appears as an androgynous being, played by a woman (Rosalinda Celentano) and dubbed over with a man's voice. Often, she appears in visions to tempt Jesus with imagery that appears to have come directly from Gibson's head with no meaning for anybody else.

Much has been made of the film being anti-Semitic. Indeed, many Passion plays in the Middle Ages were used to fuel the idea of "blood libel": that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, which in turn led to much Jewish persecution. The Catholic Church has since rejected this notion, but not the order to which Gibson subscribes. The Jews in the film hiss their desires for Jesus' death through rotted teeth, and since the film is not placed in the proper religious or political context of the time, the viewer is led to believe that the Jews hated Jesus so much that they had to kill him, when in reality, he was an unfortunate political pawn in a Jewish attempt to undermine the occupying Roman government. But Jews aren't the only ones treated with contempt. The Romans are all sadistic drunkards, gays like King Herod are pigs, and women are unfit for anything but weeping and looking on in rapt agony. Gibson can't even get his languages straight, using High Latin when he should be using Vulgate, and then having his actors mispronounce what is used.

This film is disgusting and repulsive on a level I can't even gauge. Besides that, it commits the cardinal sin of being stultifyingly dull. Half-way through the film, the viewer has become so numbed to the violence committed that nothing registers. People already inclined to follow Gibson's warped view of what many see as a beautiful mystery will certainly enjoy seeing their Savior whipped, beaten, scourged, and humiliated like a party favor at an S&M dungeon. Everybody else will only be appalled that Gibson could take such liberties with writings that many see as holy, and that he could engage in such an arrogant display of self-righteous torture. For indeed, this film is a punishment to sit through, and even at the end, you still feel unclean.

This film is Gibson's own "Battlefield Earth" with a higher special effects budget. Don't waste your time. If you really want to see Christ this badly, go to a church. And if you don't, then avoid this movie like the plague. 1 out of 10.

The Pace That Kills (1935)

The shockingly bad movie that kills brain cells

[3/10 · 21 February 2004]

In the 1930's, a rash of "youth gone wild" films hit theatres and grindhouses across the U. S. These "cautionary tales" were really no more than cheap exploitation films marketed under the guise of advisory: don't let this happen to you or your children, and watch as they act like sex-crazed maniacs! Alluring, repulsive, campy, and downright horrible in equal measure, these films tried so hard and yet failed so spectacularly to be either entertaining to its target audience or informational, riddled as they were with sub-par talent and heinous misinformation. While the granddaddy of all of these is the now-classic "Reefer Madness", a few years before that came "The Pace That Kills", marketed today under the title "Cocaine Fiends."

Jane (Lois January) is a good country girl that helps Mother out in the local cafe. When fast-talking criminal Nick (Noel Madison) hides out in her diner, Jane is swept up in his life of big city crime and cocaine peddling with her first shot of Nick's special "headache powder". He convinces her to move to the city with him, where she quickly becomes a strung-out addict with no control over her life and renames herself "Lil". Also dragged into this malestrom of mobsters, molls, and white dust is Jane's naive brother Eddie (Dean Benton), his impressionable girlfriend, and a spoiled heiress. Crime, perversion, and youth gone "wild" abound!

Obviously, the idea of wild was much different 70 years ago. The most wild acts in the film -- including cocaine use, unmarried sex, and murder -- are shown off camera or only hinted at. In fact, the main hook of the film is largely absent from most of it. We're supposed to believe that because of cocaine, all of these characters are doomed, yet the drug itself only comes up a handful of times in the course of the picture. As for the "perversion", girls show no skin and the romantic relations between the characters lack anything resembling passion or chemistry. Compare this to "Reefer Madness", where several female characters were shown in states of undress and the targeted drug played a central role in the direct downfall of several of the characters.

The script is merely mediocre, and the acting is surprisingly adept, although given the context of the film, it doesn't take much to impress. Lois January is actually quite convincing as Jane/Lil, and toward the end of the film, when she gives in to her new persona, you believe the actress' pain. Dean Benton also has a few good moments, especially during a speech where Eddie realizes that he is, indeed, a "hophead." Where the film falters is pacing, structure, plot, and direction. Which, of course, means the foundation of the entire film is shaky at best. The last act veers wildly off its already worn tracks, and while it mostly avoids the fatalistic ending of "Reefer Madness", it also makes no sense in relation to the rest of the story. A good half of the subplots of the film are never resolved or brought together, and viewers will end up feeling cheated. And to feel cheated by "Cocaine Fiends" is a low that not even the finest "headache powder" will cure. The film tries desperately to blend drama, romance, musical, action, and crime into a whole and fails to produce anything resembling any of those.

Part of this may be due to the print itself. Although billed at 68 minutes here on the IMDB, the Alpha Home Video DVD print (which bills the film as "Cocaine Fiends" in a value-priced, stand-alone DVD) is only 60 minutes, and in at least half of the scenes, the film itself skips, leaving several lines of dialogue and explanation in a bloody heap on the cutting room floor. The sound is also horrendous, and Eddie's girlfriend seemed to go by any number of names due to the appalling lack of clarity in the audio track (I heard Betty, Fanny, Sandy, and a few others). In comparison, "Reefer Madness"'s print is in much better shape.

Although the film does have a few redeeming moments, and it's great for a laugh or for sampling into your latest electronica masterpiece, it's a pale shadow of "Reefer Madness", a standard by which it has no choice but to be judged against. Better to skip this one and go to the wild abandon to end all wild abandons. At least for 1930's youth. 3 out of 10.

Foxy Brown (1974)

A chick with drive who don't take no jive

[7/10 · 2 February 2004]

In 1973, the film "Coffy" made Pam Grier a star, a permanent icon of the blaxploitation films of the era, and a symbol of female empowerment in the face of racial tension. She also kicked a whole lot of tail. Writer and director of "Coffy", Jack Hill, had finished a script for a sequel when the studio decided at the last minute that it didn't want to film a sequel to "Coffy." Re-working his script, Hill gave birth to what could arguably the seminal female blaxploitation film: "Foxy Brown."

Foxy Brown (Pam Grier) is a strong woman striving for a better world. While she attempts to help her drug-dealing brother Link (Antonio Fargas) change his ways, she waits for her federal cop boyfriend Dalton (Terry Carter) to recover from plastic surgery designed to hide him from the drug lords he informed on. Renaming himself Michael, he plans to run away with Foxy to a new life. All of his plans crumble, however, when Link discovers Michael's true identity, and informs on him for a hefty sum to the devious Miss Katherine (Katheryn Loder) and the suave Stve Elias (Peter Brown). When Katherine's goons kill Michael in Foxy's house, Foxy swears revenge. She infiltrates a call girl ring run by Katherine in an attempt to bring the crime lord down in the name of vengeance.

Hill has created an iconic character in Foxy Brown, a character who has been copied and referenced to varying degrees of success since her inception (most shamefully in Beyonce Knowles' character of Foxy Cleopatra in "Austin Powers in Goldmember"). It's not difficult to see why. As embodied by Grier, Foxy is the ultimate female: beautiful, sexy, intelligent, and undeniably fierce. Grier is such a pleasure to watch on screen that you sometimes forget about the lack of support she has around her or the simplistic morals of the story.

Loder's Miss Katherine Wall is a villainess of operatic proportions, filled with delightful malice and sadistic impulse. Brown's Steve is just as good, every inch the handsome mid-70s man. Fargas is also memorable as the weasely and cowardly Link, but outside of these three, the supporting players are only adequate. While Junita Brown's doomed call girl has her moments, the rest of the supporting cast is fairly flat, with line readings not having the right amount of emotion (either too much or too little) and often hitting just off-key of the psychological and emotional core that they need to strike.

While Hill's script taps deep into the racial biases of the 70s, and is filled with the appropriate amount of slang and tension, his characters are often moral absolutes with little in shades of grey or complex motivations. Often, this exists on a similar plane to race: with the exception of Dalton/Michael's fellow agents, every white person in the film is shown as uncaring at best, evil of the highest order at worst. By the same token, with the exception of Link and a fellow dope dealer, the black characters are heroic and upright. In the context of the film, the conceit is appropriate, but it can lead to some viewers being upset or failing to take into account the politics of the time that would lead to such a depiction and dismissing the film out of hand.

Despite these flaws, "Foxy Brown" is definitely a film to watch not just for historical value, but for the remarkable performance of Pam Grier, an actress just as strong and beautiful today as she was in 1974. Whenever she's on the screen, you immediately forget about any imperfections in the movie. As the theme song says, she is "superbad." And that's good. 7 out of 10.

Fantasia (1940)

A brilliant and progressive film and a hallmark of animation

[10/10 · 2 February 2004]

In 1940, Walt Disney released the ambitious film "Fantasia," a marriage of classical music and (for the time) contemporary animation in an effort to expose audiences to the possibilities of animation as well as the beauty of the music presented. A dismal failure in its initial release, "Fantasia" was close to being forgotten by the world, and even Walt Disney himself had distanced himself from his once beloved creation. Subsequent re-releases, however, have exposed new and more receptive audiences to this brilliant film.

"Fantasia" takes many well-known pieces of classical music and presents them in new and dynamic ways. While some work better than others, none of them falls below a very high standard of quality. By today's standards, the animation could be considered crude and the images simplistic, but all of the CGI flash in the world couldn't replace the impact some of these images maintain.

Several high points dot the film. The "Nutcracker Suite" is cast as a ballet of nature, with bouncing mushrooms in the "Chinese Dance" and tiny faeries spreading dew across the awakening world in "The Dance Of The Sugar Plum Fairy." "The Dance Of The Hours" takes a familiar, and perhaps staid, ballet piece and turns it on its ear, casting such unlikely prima ballerinas as ostriches, hippos, elephants, and a pack of menacing alligators.

The crowning achievement of the film, however, is not the over-played "Sorceror's Apprentice," as many claim. Although the music is expressive and the animation well-done, it's commonality has taken some of the dynamic that the piece once had. No, the most striking moments come from the pairing of Mussorgsky's menacing "Night On Bald Mountain" and Schubert's celestial "Ave Maria."

"Night On Bald Mountain" marks an undeniably mature moment in the Disney universe. In this piece, Tchernabog, an ancient god of evil (although he is associated with the Christian Devil in the film) summons his followers to Bald Mountain, where all manor of demons, wicked spirits, and imps cavort in his unholy presence. But as powerful as he may be, even the mighty god trembles before the power of the dawn, and with the church bells, his revelry is finished and the world sanctifies itself to the "Ave Maria", one of the most beautifully pure pieces ever composed (at least in this reviewer's opinion).

As with all other Disney films, "Fantasia" is subject to the whims and fancies of the Disney marketing department, who infamously take titles out of production for years on end in an effort to build up consumer demand. Should "Fantasia" ever come to a theatre near you, do not hesitate to see it. Should you be lucky enough to find a copy to purchase, do so. A hallmark of animation such as this deserves to be enjoyed by as many people as possible. 10 out of 10.

Jawbreaker (1999)

A sweet and colorful dark comedy that's still a little hard to swallow

[7/10 · 21 January 2004]

Much like the candy that bears it's name, "Jawbreaker" is a sweet, infectious dark comedy that wants you to enjoy it for a good, long time. Unfortunately, also like the candy, the film is a little hard to swallow, and it doesn't last as long or come on as strong as it's name would lead you to believe. But even though you know that much candy is bad for you, you still want to have it.

On her 17th birthday, popular girl Liz (Charlotte Ayanna, here as Charlotte Roldan), a member of the "Flawless Four," is kidnapped by her best friends Courtney (Rose McGowan), Marcie (Julie Benz), and Julie (Rebecca Gayheart) as a prank, her screams muffled by a huge jawbreaker. The prank goes horribly wrong, however, when Liz chokes to death on the candy. Instead of going to the authorities, as Julie insists, Courtney devises a massive plan to cover up the death, a plan discovered by the unpopular and awkward Fern (Judy Greer). To win her silence, Courtney makes Fern in her own image, renaming her Vylette and allowing her to hang and commiserate with the most popular people in school. As Fern becomes intoxicated with her new-found power, Julie becomes more concerned with her friend's death, and Courtney spins a devious web of lies and trickery. Enter Detective Vera Cruz (Pam Grier), the only person who may be able to get to the bottom of the crime. But what does all this mean for the Prom?

Writer and director Darren Stein as obviously seen "Heathers" a good number of times. Like that classic film of teen angst, "Jawbreaker" is a dark comedy set in a high school, featuring an accidental murder of a popular student. While "Jawbreaker" is certainly more colorful than "Heathers", both in terms of set design and characters, it also comes off as a pale imitation. The students live their lives in near-vacuums, with parents showing up only occasionally, and then only as ineffective or ignorant. The impact of their actions on the community at large is only hinted at, and as a result, you never feel as if anything important in the reality of this film has ever happened.

That being said, the movie is still pretty sweet. Rose McGowan is cruel and calculating villain, terrifying in her powers of manipulation and contingency. Julie Benz is the perfect toadie, existing only to buoy Courtney's already swollen ego. Rebecca Gayheart's warm-natured Julie is a stark contrast to Courtney's "Satan-in-heels" persona, and Judy Greer is wonderful to watch as she goes from under-appreciated geek to power-mad diva. Pam Grier is, as always, a pleasure to watch, even if her role seems too small. The interactions between her and Rose McGowan are some of the highlights of the film. A good supporting cast also deserves mention, most notably Carol Kane as the slightly daffy school principal, Marilyn Manson as a seedy barfly, and Ethan Erickson as the dumb jock being relentlessly manipulated by Courtney's sex games.

While the script is full of caustic one-liners, it never succumbs to its own hipness. The characters are witty, but not nearly as unrealistically urbane as the characters in movies like "Scream." Some scenes and interactions come off as gratuitous, and to be sure there are a number of times when Stein really wants you to notice to how well he paid attention at film school. But there are a number of scenes that gain new meaning when analyzed in the larger scheme of the movie, and a repeat viewing may be in order to catch the full signifcance. You may sometimes get so distracted by the candy-colored schemes (McGowan's lips alone may send you into insulin shock) that you'll forget about the plot.

Some may see the movie as derivative, and there are certainly a large number of detractors. But taken on its own merits, "Jawbreaker" is a fun, giddily dark comedy that requires more than few licks to get to the bottom of. Just keep your consumption to a moderate amount, and you'll do fine. 7 out of 10.

Monster (2003)

An uneven melodrama saved by the hands of Charlize Theron

[6/10 · 19 January 2004]

A powerful performance by Charlize Theron. I never in my life though I would ever say those words. Dancer/model Theron always struck as me as pretty first, actress second. It didn't help that she was normally cast in dreadfully mediocre films as a woman in peril: "The Astronaut's Wife", "Sweet November", and so on. Her work in "The Italian Job" hinted at more ability than she led many to believe, but it's her role in "Monster" that reveals to the world that without a doubt, Theron is a power to be reckoned with.

Based on the the life of Aileen Wornos, the film begins in the 1980's, when Wornos (Charlize Theron) was a hitch-hiking prostitute. As the film opens, she's about to kill herself after spending her last money on beer. Unwittingly walking into a gay bar, she meets young, naive Selby (Christina Ricci), who's been sent to live with her aunt in Florida in an effort to cleanse her of her homosexuality. Aileen, who's never been in a relationship with a woman before, warms up to her. As their relationship progresses, the two being to believe they're in love, and Aileen resolves to clean her life up and find legitimate work to support them. After a humiliating series of job interviews, she returns to prostitution. When one of her johns tries to rape her, Aileen kills him. This begins a new chapter in her life with Selby, where Selby doesn't ask where Aileen gets her money, and Aileen is filled with a twisted sense of empowerment, killing any john she can in the belief that all of her customers are potential rapists. She went on to become the United States' first female serial killer, and she shot several men before being arrested.

But the story of Wornos and Selby is immaterial, really. The main attraction to this movie is Theron's performance. Theron also served as producer on the film, and she studied footage and documents on Wornos extensively (the real Wornos was executed in 2002). Theron disappears so fully into Wornos that even when you look in her eyes, there's no trace of the actress there. Much has been made of Theron's physical transformation, and it bears repeating. Theron's Wornos is someone with a soul so broken that it can't help but physically manifest itself. Model-beautiful Theron has done much to reflect this, including adding a highly unflattering 30 pounds, allowing her hair to become stringy and greasy, and gaining a hard, leathery skin tone. Add to this an uncanny duplication of Wornos' speech and mannerisms, and Theron's transformation becomes downright chilling in its accuracy.

This is both the film's greatest asset and its biggest weakness. Theron's performance is so amazing, it makes the other actors around her seem unprepared. Christina Ricci tries her best with the innocent, gullible Selby, but she's too kewpie-doll cute and innocent to make you believe she'd ever spend her life with someone as scarred as Wornos. At the same time, Theron unwittingly spotlights the wavering, uneven tone of writer/director Patty Jenkins' overall film. Theron is amazing, but Jenkins never knows quite what to do with her. Jenkins alternates, sometimes within the same scene, between making us feel sympathy for the damaged Wornos (a victim of childhood abuse, teenage pregnancy, and a prostitute since the age of 13) and making us feel repulsed by the levels of cruelty and abuse she herself can descend to. Jenkins wants to have it both ways, but she never displays enough evidence to leave the decision up to the audience. Additionally, the scenes exist out of a clear sense of progression. We're never sure how much time has passed between scenes, and no attempt is ever made to put the movie into a historical context aside from a few song references and hairstyles. This makes the film seem like it's taking place in a different world altogether as opposed to being set in the real one, starring a cast of people based on real humans.

Without the unbridled power and ferocity behind Theron's performance, "Monster" would be a highly forgettable, well-intentioned biopic that suffered from a lack of vision. It's Theron that holds the film together, that serves as its cold heart and its anchor. Besides being one of the best female performances in a while, it's a revelation of Theron's dedication and ability. A high recommendation for fans of strong female performances, but for a more coherent story about Wornos, I recommend you check out one of Nick Broomfield's documentaries. 6 out of 10.

Tru Calling (2003–2005)

An argument for "Faith: The Vampire Slayer"

[14 January 2004]

Eliza Dushku rose to prominence during the 3rd season of the TV show "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer." Playing Faith, a bad-girl slayer with a penchant for tank tops and excess violence that contrasted perfectly with Sarah Michelle Gellar's conflicted and confused Buffy, Dushku made a huge impression on the show's audience. Soon, feature film roles followed as well as a return to "Buffy" during it's final season. Much speculation ensued as to whether Dushku would star in a spin-off series highlighting her character's quest for redemption from her troubled past. Unfortunately for everybody involved, Dushku decided not to pursue this path and instead signed up for Fox's dreadful and cliched new series "Tru Calling."

Tru Davies (Dushku) lost her mother at a young age, a victim of a horrible crime. After graduating from college, a budget crisis causes her to lose an internship at a clinic and she must settle for a job in the morgue. Here she discovers that she has the ability to go back in time one full day to prevent an untimely death, a power activated when a fresh corpse in the morgue calls for her help (no, seriously). Intertwined with her new supernatural duty is Tru's relationship with her gambling-addict brother (Shawn Reaves), her cokehead lawyer sister (A. J. Cook), and the fact that her boss (Zack Galifinakis) is on to her new powers. Every week, Tru faces a new death, a new mystery, and a new chance to run through the nameless city of the show without a sports bra.

And the ultimate question is "Who cares?" The show's central conceit has been done numerous times to varying degrees of success, including in the television show "Early Edition." Here, it's mainly a marketing trick to make the show stand out, and it's handled with a not-entirely shocking lack of grace and finesse. Tru goes back in time, and details that should not have changed one bit are now radically different without any input from her. The show's producers also have no respect for the passage of time. Scenes will happen just moments apart, but natural lighting will be hours in difference.

The show displays an alarming contempt for its audience's intelligence as well, with some of the most mediocre scripts ever rejected by a university creative writing class. Half of the show is spent rehashing events that have just happened, and a good chunk of each show's teaser is used to explain the premise of the show. At the half-way mark, there's even a "Previously on Tru Calling" montage in case you just tuned in at the half-hour point. There is little resembling logic or consistency in the plots or in any of the character's motives.

The acting is sub-par for the most part, with a cavalcade of soap-opera refugees and C-movie stars filling in for real actors. The only actor with any real ability in this sorry mess is Dushku, who does what she can with the ugly dialog she's forced to utter, but all the lip gloss in the world can't hide the shoddy craftsmanship put into this show. Dushku isn't a great actress by any means, but she has a healthy amount of charisma that has helped her develop a fairly loyal fan base. It's just a shame that she's settled for such a bland show instead of allowing Joss Whedon to give her something meatier for her to work with.

In its first season, "Tru Calling" managed to miss the ax that was falling upon nearly every other new show on Fox at the same time. Here's hoping that the show won't get renewed and that Dushku can go on to some real challenges. 3 out of 10.

Girls Will Be Girls (2003)

A campy and catty blend of melodrama and comedy

[8/10 · 15 December 2003]

Like the love child of "Absolutely Fabulous" and every novel Jacqueline Susann's ever written, "Girls Will Be Girls" is an 80-minute festival of campy trash, hilarious one-liners, and bitchy, catty women. The only catch this time is that the women are all played by men.

Evie (Jack Plotnick) is a washed-up B-movie actress who is decidedly not aging gracefully. She lives with Coco (Clinton Leupp), her more grounded friend who functions mainly as Evie's maid and abuse magnet. Into their lives walks their new roommate Varla (Jeffery Roberson), an aspiring starlet whose late mother Marla (also Roberson in flashbacks) was also Evie's most hated acting rival. All of them have dreams, of course. Evie's dreams involve drinking as many martinis as she can and then having plenty of sex with anyone available. Coco still pines for the hunky abortion doctor that operated on her many years ago. Varla hopes to become the actress that her mother couldn't while dealing with the advances of Evie's gorgeous but microscopically-endowed son Stevie (Ron Mathews). Of course, there are hidden motives galore, and more than one mean-spirited one-liner.

The gimmick of this film, that all the women are played by men, is never as overstated as you may think. After all, the characters are all female, and they are treated in the story as if they are female. It's only slightly different than young boys performing the female roles in Shakespeare's plays. The camp value of the movie focuses not on the drag spectacle, but on the unrelenting melodrama and silliness of the plot, taking the elements of ridiculous films like "Valley Of The Dolls" and upping them to a level so ludicrous, they can only be considered comedy. That the framework of the film makes all of these developments seem perfectly natural and realistic is a credit to director and writer Richard Day.

The actors are all quite game and in on the absurdity of their surroundings. Plotnick is quite humorous, dropping the most mean-spirited one-liners you'll ever laugh at, and the clips of Evie performing in the 60's stinker "Asteroid" resemble nothing less than Morgan Fairchild on quaaludes. Leupp reprises the role of Coco from his scene-stealing moments in the movie "Trick", and he imbues the character both with a humorous sense of bad luck and an immediately sympathetic personality. Roberson is not quite as spectacular as his co-stars, but he gives the naive, trusting Varla a great heart and a hilarious scene involving opera and cheese in a can. Even Mathews is great, all melodramatic soap hunk and hair product.

While the movie receives high marks for style, including efficient and effective set design and a very nice score, it's a very loud movie in the sense that every scene is turned up to 11. While this works most of the time, even at the film's short running time, it tends to strain. The ending veers sharply away from comedy into deep melodramatic territory, and even though it is diffused quite handily, the film almost drowns in TV-movie-of-the-week sap before the mood lightens again. Also, some may find the hostile attitudes of some of the characters, mainly Evie and to a degree Coco, to be too off-putting for comfort. Evie, especially, is one of the most unsympathetic characters you'll meet in a film this year.

Regardless, the film is hilarious and immensely entertaining. A high recommendation for anyone who likes divas, camp, or catty fun. And don't forget to bring the cheese. 8 out of 10.

Test Tube Teens from the Year 2000 (1994 Video)

The argument for the continued existence of "MST3K"

[6/10 · 7 November 2003]

"Mystery Science Theatre 3000", or "MST3K" as it's known to its fans, was unceremoniously taken off the air several years ago, much to the dismay of film geeks like myself. This wonderful show took horrid, so-bad-they're-hilarious films and inserted its own irreverent commentary, well before such features were common on DVDs (or even before DVDs existed). At 74 minutes, David DeCoteau's (under one of his several aliases) opus "Test Tube Teens From The Year 2000" (aka "Virgin Hunters") is a perfect excuse to bring the show back, as it's tailor made for a fresh commentary by Mike/Joel and the 'bots. There's even room for commercials!

In the year 2019, an American corporation has overtaken the globe. At the behest of board member Camella Swales (Morgan Fairchild), Supercorp has banned sex in all its forms, resulting in humans being grown from test tubes (hence the confusing title...the protagonists were birthed in the year 2000). A professor who's part of an underground resistance (Ian Abercrombie) sends two of his students back in time to stop this from happening: the cute-but-geeky Naldo (Brian Bremer) and hunky lunkhead Vin (Christopher Wolf). They are followed by their friend Reena (Sara Suzanne Brown) and a killer cyborg (Don Dowe). Back in 1994, the test tube teens must stop Camella, then the head of an all-girls academy, from ever attaining the power that will lead her to ban sex. Much hilarity and female nudity ensue.

By all rights, this film should be at best awful. The sets, script, effects, and actors are all on a strict budget, and it shows, quite painfully in some cases. But the film is highly enjoyable despite itself. One reason is its mercifully short length (and even then the plot seems stretched too thin) and the other is the winning attitudes of all the actors involved. Everyone in the film seems like they're enjoying themselves and are honestly trying to bring through a good performance. Nobody brings this across more than Fairchild, who seems to relish playing the icy Camella Swales with a tightly-wound bliss. Both Bremer and Wolf are also quite enjoyable and charming, and it helps that Wolf is an absolutely gorgeous man. There are also moments of genuine humor, especially through Dowe's hilarious Arnold Schwarzenegger impression as the killer android.

When bad films take themselves too seriously, they're painful to sit through, such as the ponderous and dreadful "The Hulk." But when they keep their tongues in cheek and just have fun with themselves, they're actually quite enjoyable. "Test Tube Teens" falls firmly into the latter category, and it's all the better for it. Especially if you're trapped on a satellite with two wise-cracking robots. 6 out of 10.

Voodoo Academy (2000 Video)

Finally! Exploitation for the rest of us!

[5/10 · 28 October 2003]

As a director, David DeCoteau has an extensive resume ranging from laughably cheap horror films ("Creepozoids"), late-night Cinemax adult "entertainment" ("Beach Babes From Beyond"), gay-film-fest favorites ("Leather Jacket Love Story"), and lame horror films ("Curse Of The Puppet Master"). That he uses about five aliases while directing should be a sign, but there is something indescribably alluring about watching a movie that is, simply, 100% pure trash. DeCoteau does not disappoint in this respect with the supernatural film "Voodoo Academy."

The plot centers around Carmichael Bible College, which apparently only enrolls six students each term. The college is run by the odd Mrs. Bouvier (Debra Mayer) and classes are taught by Hollis CarMichael (Chad Burris), an ex-Catholic priest who espouses a religion resembling a bizarre and clunky hybrid of Christianity and Scientology (check out the electro-charged confessional). However, as we learn before the opening credits even roll, Bouvier is in reality a wicked voodoo priestess and Hollis her nefarious assistant. When one of their rituals results in the death of a student, the duo recruit wholesome, clean-cut Christopher (Riley Smith) to fill his place. From the beginning, Christopher suspects something is amiss, and he soon begins to find out that dark and sinister forces are at work.

The film itself is an unabashed ode to trashy, campy dialogue as well as young men in designer underwear. Indeed, most of the film consists of scenes where at least one of the students is topless, working out, bathing, or simply skulking through the shadows in Ralph Lauren boxer briefs. That these students look quite good without their clothes on is an added bonus and is in fact the main reason anybody should even begin to rent or buy this film. Even Hollis -- a priest! -- has a topless scene. The plot, as little as there is, is telegraphed in the opening sequence, the actors by and large are wooden, and the special effects are imminently laughable. Never mind the lack of dramatic tension, the often grainy and washed out look of the film, and the absurdity of the premise, which features several scenes that exist only to present footage of the students touching themselves.

Still, this film has much to offer. As mentioned before, the film is pure trash in the best sense of the word. Few movies offer this degree of ridiculousness and remain watchable. The boys are all quite attractive and fit, and it's nice to see male flesh on display in horror films for once. And as horrible as the acting and dialogue can be, it's still better than sitting through another showing of "Star Wars Episode II." It's also nice to realize that filming this picture prepared Drew Fuller (who plays Paul St. Clair) for his role on the equally trashy but beyond redemption TV series "Charmed."

A note to viewers: This film should only be watched in its unedited form (the DVD is labeled "Lunar Edition" and "Director's Cut"). There is a massive amount of homoeroticism in this film, and the edited version removes most of it. And if you cut out the shirtless young men, you lose most of the reason the watch this film.

5 out of 10.

The Order (2003)

A schizophrenic, old-world thriller that's still worth a viewing

[3/10 · 8 September 2003]

In the bygone days of the Catholic Church, a sin-eater was an individual that, through ritual, would take the sins of a dying person upon themselves. Often, these people were excommunicate or similar individuals who the church would not absolve, thereby denying them entrance into Heaven. The sin-eaters were seen as blasphemous, circumventing the chruch's monopoly on redemption. Sex this up a bit with some overt supernatural mojo, let the concept wander where it may, and you have "The Order", a movie that combines "Stigmata"'s religious anti-authoritarianism, "The X-Files"' paranormal investigation, and "The Thorn Birds"' sexual spirituality into an odd melange that sometimes works.

Alex (Heath Ledger) is a rogue priest, one of the last members of the Order of the Carolingians, a semi-heretical order of knowledge-seeking, demon-fighting priests. When Alex's mentor is found dead under bizarre circumstances, Bishop Driscoll (Peter Weller) sends Alex to investigate. Tagging along are fellow Carolingian Thomas (Mark Addy) and Mara (Shannyn Sossman), who was subject to one of Alex's exorcisms a year prior. The three go to Rome to investigate and are drawn into a dark underworld of bizarre Catholic heresy, ominous prophecies, demonic intrusions, and a man claiming to be the last surviving Sin-Eater (Benno Furmann).

Written and directed by Brian Helgeland (who worked with the same principals on the scattershot and half-hearted "A Knight's Tale"), the film is an odd one, and difficult to classify. It wants to be several things at once -- supernatural thriller, religious intrigue, dramatic television pilot -- and only sometimes succeeds at any of them. This isn't helped by the slow pace or the fact that most of the actors seem to be sleepwalking through their performances with occasional bursts of brilliance. Ledger, in particular, has a particularly stunning scene of despair in an otherwise monochromatic performance. Sossman, however, displayed the same disconnected performance that she's given in all of her films (most notably in "The Rules Of Attraction").

The plot itself meanders back and forth between several different story arcs, leading you to wonder which is the main one with each arc containing its share of red herrings. Large gaps of narrative appear to be lost between scenes at times, which can be confusing for many, but this is also one of the film's saving graces. The structure of the film -- coupled by the fact that there is never a truly clear antagonist until the very end of the film -- forces the viewer to analyze and reason in a time when most films are blatantly obvious about everything (the exception to this is historical background on the Carolingians and the practice of sin-eating, both of which are explained in dry exposition). Even at the beginning of the film, character relationships and history are inferred instead of explained. Combine this with the on-location shooting and judicious use of special effects, and you have a very old-world supernatural thriller, with even the opening credits reminiscent of something from the late 70's/early 80's.

A brief mention here, as well, for the subtle and organic score by David Torn, a combination of minimalist orchestration and Lisa Gerrard-style exotic vocals. A very nice score that is evocative without being bombastic and exists in a very deceptive simplicity.

A confusing plot, a lack of purpose, and sometimes sleepy performances would often damn a movie, but for some reason, "The Order" remains watchable. Many people will be very turned off by the movie for its odd sensibilities, and some may even become angry that they are forced to engage the higher functions of their brain to understand it. Still, the film's sheer intangibility will prevent it from being either a critical or commercial success until the DVD, which I'm sure will be stocked with copious amounts of deleted scenes. A recommended film only for people who like to think while they watch. 6 out of 10.

Boy Meets Boy (2003)

A minstrel show for gay men

[1/10 · 28 August 2003]

The recent boom of dating show on U. S. television screens has reached a fevered pitch since the first episode of "The Bachelor." Unsuspecting audiences have since been subjected to countless clones and variations, including "The Bachelorette", "Joe Millionaire", "For Love Or Money", and the execrable "Married By America." Hoping to cash in on this trend, and simultaneously tap and exploit a new demographic, Bravo has unleashed the disastrous "Boy Meets Boy" upon the world. And may they have mercy on us all.

The premise is simple and is designed to be light-hearted: an eligible gay man is courted by a number of suitors, eliminated show by show until one is left, but there's a twist. Half of the men are actually straight. This is not much of a big deal, but the inherent viciousness of the scenario kicks in after hearing the pay-off: if, at the end of the show, the gay man picks a straight man in disguise, the straight man wins a cash prize. The gay man gets nothing, or at least nothing more than a few parting gifts, a pat on the back, and a hearty round of "Aren't you embarrassed? Well, thanks for playing!"

Just the like the equally painful "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" (another Bravo program), this show is another example of stereotypes run amok. What makes it even worse, though, is the fact that straight men are playing UP these stereotypes for cash. The producers of this show believe that all you have to do is put enough hair gel in a man's hair, dress up in Abercrombie & Fitch with a pair of designer sandals, strip him of all body hair and fat and voila! It's the gay equivalent to putting a white performer in blackface, and just as offensive to those of us -- like myself -- who are genuinely gay and don't dress/act like that. It implies that gays have no variance or chance for individuality, that they can't behave like real people, only like stereotypes. Never mind the fact that the bank of suitors is sorely lacking in any kind of diversity. All are gym-toned, most are white, and all look far too scrubbed and cleaned.

This is another example of how, instead of fostering acceptance of gays as dynamic individuals capable of variance and change, Hollywood has again taken a stereotype and run with it all the way to the bank. I feel genuinely dirty watching this show, as show any gay man who sees this unabashed parade of soft-core pornography masquerading as legitimate television. 1 out of 10.

Queer Eye (2003–2007)

A shameful retread of tired stereotypes

[2/10 · 28 August 2003]

Occasionally a television show comes around that is deemed by many to be "groundbreaking" and "brave" in its portrayal of a social minority. Often, these critics are not part of the minority portrayed, and generally don't know a what they're talking about. Often, these shows devolve into showing nothing more than tired stereotypes that fail to show their characters as real humans, people incapable of advancing beyond their set of cliches. "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" is only the latest in a long line of painfully-rendered back-handed political correctness.

The premise of the show is this: five gay men that are "experts" in their fields perform an extreme makeover on a random heterosexual schlub, slowly transforming him into a clean-cut, fashion-conscious, overly groomed heterosexual version of themselves like mad doctors with expensive shoes. Ted (food/wine), Kyan (grooming), Thom (interior design), Carson (fashion), and Jai (culture) make up what has been termed "The Fab Five."

The premise of the show could be amusing if taken as a one-shot episode of "Ricki Lake" or another similar low-brow talk show. As a series, it grows old rapidly, with each episode seeming to be an only slightly different variation on a theme. This is not helped by the Fab Five themselves, as each one -- Carson especially -- come off as rude and arrogant to the point of derision. They may be experts in their fields, but that's no reason to belittle anybody who isn't.

Many people have celebrated this show and its success as bringing gay culture to the masses, so to speak, as if that hadn't already been done by Ellen Degeneres. The only thing this show does is portray all gay men has shrill, bitchy, shallow fashionistas with a fetish for materialism and hair product. Each man is only as deep as his specialty, and even then, none of them give any hint that they care about the world outside of Neiman Marcus. A person with no experience with gay culture or gay people would see this show and get a very skewed impression of gays.

As a gay man myself, I take great offense to this entire show, from its preening hosts to its insipid, infomercial-reject premise. Unfortunately, due to its massive ratings and the fact that some people actually consider this trash to be entertainment, it and shows like it will only continue to flourish. 2 out of 10.

The Magdalene Sisters (2002)

Heavy-handed and harrowing, but worth every minute

[8/10 · 24 August 2003]

Sometimes a film comes around that is so shocking in its portrayal of a venerable religion that it provokes no amount of outrage. "The Last Temptation Of Christ." "The Believer." These films receive press and scorn for simply daring to criticize or question religion instead of venerating it. Add to that list "The Magdalene Sisters."

Written and directed by Peter Mullan, the film takes a look at the Magdalene Laundries, an institution run by the Catholic Church in Ireland that began in the mid-1700s and continued until the last one was closed in 1996. "Wayward" and "sinful" girls were sent to these asylums, condemned to a life of slavery in the belief that it was the only way to cleanse their souls and keep them safe from temptation. Often, these girls had committed no crimes except simply embarrassing their families or just being female. 30,000 women were sent to the laundries during their existence, many growing old and dying there.

The film follows three young women, each one based on testimonials from survivors of the laundries. Margaret (Anne-Marie Duff) was sexually assaulted by a cousin and dared to complain about it. Rose (Dorothy Duffy) had a baby out of wedlock. Bernadette (Nora-Jane Noone) is merely a flirt, and there's never indication that she ever did anything more than tease anybody. They are overseen by the iron-fisted Sister Bridget (Geraldine McEwan), a nun who calmly talks about how sinful she believes the girls to be while counting the profits from the laundries (the girls are never paid for their work). The girls conspire to find a way to escape their confinement.

The movie is a no-frills affair. No special effects, no odd editing or camera angles, no high-profile action, not even much of a score. This works in the film's favor, as we are allowed to focus on the amazing performances by the leads. Most of the actresses are newcomers to the screen, while some are veteran British stage performers. All give strong, searing performances that are both harsh in their realism and stunning in their depth. It would be easy to cast Sister Bridget as a wicked tyrant, but even she has moments that reveal she may be an actual human and not simply an archetype. The strongest performance comes from Noone, who plays Bernadette as a vulnerable soul with a fiery core that resists every attempt to subdue her and refuses to change who she is.

The plot of the film is minimal, and towards the end it devolves into something resembling a B-movie escape-from-prison routine. However, plot is secondary again to the performances, which is the true reason to see the film. The film is also very heavy-handed in its depiction of the corruption and cruelty of the Catholic Church, painting everything in broad strokes of black and white: the nuns are bad, the girls are good. This is done to amplify the inherent malice of the institutions themselves, but it also serves to lessen the impact to those who most need to hear the message. It's dramatic polarization may lead some to discount it as sensational anti-Catholic propaganda (the Vatican has condemned the film, but nobody from the laundries has come forward to defend their behavior).

This movie will make you angry, it will make you sad, it will make you hopeful. It will take all of your emotions and multiply them by 10. It will make you appreciate the craft of acting once again in a summer filled with empty action vehicles and vapid vanity films masquerading as character studies. Most of all it will make you question the validity of organized religion and the twisted logic it inspires. A fine film that should be seen by all. 8 out of 10.

Spice World (1997)

Clever and energetic, and not nearly as bad as you've heard

[7/10 · 11 August 2003]

In the 1990's, the Spice Girls were the reigning queens of pop, selling countless amounts of records across the world. An unprecedented marketing blitz followed, culminating in the film "Spice World." Backlash was inevitable, and many were ready to dismiss the film or praise the film solely based on their dislike or enjoyment of the Spice Girls' music. When reviewed as a film in its own right, "Spice World" is a very entertaining movie with its tongue always firmly in its meta-textual cheek.

The Spice Girls -- Geri Halliwell (Ginger), Melanie Brown (Scary), Emma Bunton (Baby), Melanie Chisholm (Sporty), and Victoria Adams (Posh, now Victoria Beckham) -- play themselves. The Girls are getting ready for their first live concert in Royal Albert Hall, but their preparation is beset with several obstacles, including the overdue pregnancy of the Girls' best friend ("AbFab"'s Naoko Mori) and a vicious tabloid editor (Barry Humphries) that wants to see them ruined so he can the ensuing headlines will sell millions of papers. A host of supporting characters add to the mix, including the Girls' high-strung manager (Richard Grant), an insidious paparazzo (Richard O'Brien), a clueless documentary film-maker (Alan Cumming), and a Hollywood producer/screenwriter duo (George Wendt/Mark McKinney) relentless pitching ideas to the Girls' manager for movie spin-offs.

The Girls do play themselves to a point, but they are more accurately playing themselves as the public sees them. Sporty is always on an exercise bike, for instance, and Baby is never without a lollipop or stuffed animal. They live up to their stereotypes and play them to the ultimate hilt. The Girls themselves seem relaxed, with the most confident performance coming from Geri, who seems quite natural on the screen. Mel B and Emma both seem almost as relaxed, but Mel C seems like she needs a little more coaching on screen presence. Victoria, unfortunately, looks quite uncomfortable whenever the camera focuses on her, and in some scenes she actually comes off as resentful that she had to star in this film.

The director, Bob Spiers, is best known perhaps for his work on the series "Absolutely Fabulous", and he brings the same comic hand to this film has he did to that supremely funny show. The comedy is played light, never too much over-the-top, although a good deal of silliness is inserted. Dramatic moments are often muted by a small joke or bit of campy melodrama. Nothing is ever taken too seriously, and the film clips along at a good pace, peppered with hilarious fantasy sequences, knowing self-parody, and satirical jabs at everything from hospital drama to action movie car chases.

The film is full of cameos as well, including both musicians and non-musicians. Elvis Costello turns up as a bartender, while Meatloaf plays the driver of the Spice Bus (a double-decker bus emblazoned with SPICE on its roof). Jennifer Saunders shows up as a bitchy fashionista, while Bob Hoskins' role is too funny to give away here.

It's easy to see why some people dislike the film, however. The soundtrack tries to fit as many Spice Girls songs as possible into the film, which is to be expected, but the songs themselves are of a wildly varying quality, from the rousing "Spice Up Your Life" to the questionable "Viva Forever." It's also hard to buy the Girls' backstory as struggling musicians, and the film lacks any kind of dramatic tension, which may be intentional, but it gives the film a fluffy quality that does not appeal to everybody. Some moments in the film now seem oddly indicative of future events: about a year of the release, Geri would leave the group and the Girls' next album without her would signal the end of the act, with all the Girls going on to solo careers of amazingly diverse success (Geri and Mel C have score the best, while nobody wants to hear Victoria's album, ever). Keep this in mind during the fantasy sequence with Stephen Fry as a square judge.

All in all, "Spice World" is a very entertaining diversion. It's a pop song in film format: it's airy, fun, and slightly mindless, but for a while you forget about your worries. Certainly not as bad as people have made it out to be, but one to avoid if you really just don't like the Spice Girls. 7 out of 10.