Originally posted 12 December 2000
Movies: An Even Dozen Are Reviewed
Oops!...I did it again.
I let more than two months lapse since my last review, and now I've got a dozen films to write up. To ease the strain on everyone, I'm going to give you a countdown--worst to best. Don't get confused! Last time, I did it the other way around.
12. Easily, the most wretched movie I've seen all year--possibly in all of my life--is "Dungeons & Dragons." I saw it at midnight in Boston last Friday, with my brother, Dan, and a bunch of cast members from Dan's new play. One of Dan's actors, Tori, has become a D&D convert late in life and was hot to see this flick. So that's my excuse.
The good news is, Tori is really very cool, and unlike many of the other patrons at this near-sold out, opening-night show, she did not find it imperative to dress up in Gothic garb for the event. It would have been okay if she had, though: the wacky, voluble audience made this crapfest bearable. From the first scene, in which it becomes clear that Jeremy Irons's right-hand guy, Damodar, wears light blue lipstick all the time, there's no getting away from the B-movie, "Rocky Horror" nature of "D&D." When guys in the audience sporting Viking helmets yelled at the screen, it seemed totally appropriate.
After all, "D&D" rips off major scenes from every "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" movie, but does nothing interesting of its own. The concept sucks. The acting sucks. The screenplay sucks. The costumes suck. The music sucks. The lighting sucks. It's a long way from "Brideshead Revisited," Mr. Irons.
My guess is that the producers spent $15 to make this movie. But Dan's housemate Chyld thinks the production price tag might have run as high as $1,500. I don't know. How much can a couple of flashlights and some cellophane paper cost?
Although we enjoyed trashing the movie immediately afterwards, by the next day, we couldn't remember enough of "Dungeons & Dragons" to merely mock it.
11. For a little while, before I inadvertently violated my contract, I wrote movie reviews for GirlsOn.com. The first film I endured was "Just One Time," a soggy little pre-wedding comedy made by first-time director Lane Janger. The movie had some cool gay people in it, but what comedy doesn't? Jennifer Esposito and Guillermo Diaz play the queers, and they're pretty much the only memorable elements of this trifle, along with the female lead's glasses.
10. The second film I sat through for GirlsOn was "The Weekend," which has more accomplished actors than "Just One Time," and better scenery, but is nauseatingly pretentious. I took my neighbor Amy to the screening, and she hated it. What's to like when Brooke Shields attempts a serious dramatic role?
9. The last film I saw for GirlsOn was "Non-Stop," a 1996 Japanese flick that got its first US release this fall. I took my neighbor Rich to the screening, and he hated it. True, the screenplay dragged, the acting was weak and the cinematography dull, but at least the movie was short. (Btw, in my last review, I asked whether Rich should be promoted from "neighbor" to "friend" status. The results of that poll were inconclusive, but Rich and I have since solved the problem by starting to introduce ourselves as cousins in order to disabuse people of the notion that we are a couple. The misinterpretation of our relationship happens with alarming frequency: at parties, people ask us questions like, "So where do you two live?"; at restaurants, we are invariably seated at the most romantic corner tables. Presumably, people think we're together because we're very comfortable ignoring each other in public. This cousins experiment is still fledgling (and I botched it rather spectacularly at a party on Sunday night, first introducing Rich as my cousin and later explaining to the same woman how Rich and I met in the dog run), but it has temporarily solved Rich's identity problem on these pages.)
8. I wanted to like "Bamboozled," Spike Lee's latest offering, but I didn't. I saw it in late October with Alex, a friend of Erik & Stephanie's. Jada Pinkett looks terrific in some Versace suits, and Savion Glover dances his ass off, but the movie fails to make the political point it seems to striving for. Here's what I did derive from that movie-going experience: it's probably a bad idea for me to go to the movies on a first date. After a phone call during which we picked a film together, decided on a good theater at which to see it, chose the method of ticket procurement and agreed on the time to meet, Alex and I had already expended nearly all of our first-date good-will capital. When we met up, Alex commented that I had very specific requirements in movie going--and, at that point, we hadn't even discussed my seating desires.
7. & 6. I can't decide which I found most adequate, "Best in Show" or "Quills." I saw "Best in Show," the latest from Christopher Guest ("Waiting for Guffman," "This is Spinal Tap"), by myself at the Sony Gigaplex on 68th & Broadway a few weeks ago. The film has a good attitude, and I smiled throughout it. But I didn't really laugh much, and although it's chock-a-block with dogs, most of them aren't terribly cute. "Quills," a movie about the Marquis de Sade, really isn't very good (nor is it historically accurate, if you care about that sort of thing, and one character uses the word "sadism" during the film, which strikes me as grossly anachronistic). Also, the film is unnecessarily yucky (although non-sexual). But Geoffrey Rush is a lot of fun to watch as the Marquis, and I like Kate Winslet, despite her droopy role in this.
Perhaps more revolting than the film was my experience in the theater--and I'm not talking about the other audience members. I saw "Quills" at the Lincoln Plaza theater on Broadway and 63rd, which Rich refers to as the Schlepperplex because it is patronized largely by old, unfashionable Jews who live in the area and by younger, slightly hipper people who are on their way to becoming old, unfashionable Jews. Anyway, I (being in the latter category) went by myself to the movie on a rainy Tuesday night, and it was not crowded. I settled into a seat in the fifth row center--heaven. I put my umbrella on one side and turned to put my damp coat on the other, where I was aghast to discover a large cockroach--about the size of a pecan--trooping across the seatback. Not wanting to lose my seat, I reached into my pocket, pulled out a tissue, flicked the insect to the floor and stepped on it. All without screaming or otherwise making a scene. But I spent the duration of the film freaked out. Rich has redubbed that theater the Roachplex.
5. I love Hong Kong action movies. The more kung fu, as far as I'm concerned, the better. So I was delighted a few weeks ago to go see "Martial Arts of Shaolin," one of Jet Li's early movies (1986), at Anthology Film Archives. My movie-going partner was Marc, with whom a friend of a friend had set me up. Marc has absolutely no interest in martial arts movies (so we will not be going out again), but he was a good sport about seeing this flick at a weird downtown movie house (so weird that when the film sold out, the box office kept selling tickets and the ushers just dragged chairs from the lobby into the theater for the spillover patrons). Anyway, I liked the movie, but I didn't looooove it: not enough soul.
4. Recently, I went by myself to the Film Forum to see the 1963 British comedy "Billy Liar." I had read that it was a great classic, and my expectations were high. The movie didn't deliver--I hardly laughed at all--but I really appreciated the acting and the concept (it's about a guy who can't tell the truth). Also, excellent clothes.
3. I saw a matinee of "Charlie's Angels" on opening weekend with my friend Lisa; we were the oldest people there by 15 years. But I didn't care: I was either going to love the movie or I was going to have fun hating it. I'm pleased to report that I had a great time watching Hollywood's latest regurgitation of '70's pop culture. Sure it's silly, but the babes kick some serious ass, and they really know how to wear lipstick effectively. Also, Bill Murray is a hoot (who else can play Bosley and not appear to be leering at the Angels the whole time?). It is good, campy fun with some fine action scenes. I was thoroughly entertained.
2. I saw "You Can Count on Me" on opening night about a month ago, and now I can't remember whether I saw it with Rich or with somebody else. No, wait! I saw it with Rich at the Sony Gigaplex; I remember because beforehand, in the lobby, we ran into Rich's ex-girlfriend and her sister, both of whom know I'm not Rich's cousin. Anyhoo. "You Can Count on Me" is the first directorial effort from playwright and screenwriter Ken Lonergan ("Analyze This"). It's a finely observed film about a sister and brother, now adults, whose parents were killed thirty years ago; the sister has stayed in the town where they were born, and the brother, a drifter, has come back for a visit. The story is told with restraint and humor, and the acting is spot on. If you haven't seen this film yet, do so. It's enjoyable and satisfying.
1. Admittedly, our winner today is something of a dimpled-chad candidate: because I saw "The Apartment" on video, not on a big screen, and because I'd seen it several times before, it's not a clear winner in this contest. So, depending on Supreme Court rulings, "You Can Count on Me" might be declared victorious. Still, "The Apartment" is wonderful. Dan and Mom and I rented it on Thanksgiving night, and we all stayed awake for this 1960 Billy Wilder romantic comedy. Unfortunately, my large-ish dog kept wandering in front of the set, obscuring all views of Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine. But we persevered--at least there were no people shouting at the screen or roaches walking across our laps--and we were richly rewarded. Rent this baby at your earliest convenience.
Comments