giancarlorocks Reviews

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

A Quasi-western draped in political undertones...

[11 September 2003]

Political commentary is to be expected in the creative medium of filmmaking. Yet, there is a time and a place for it. One would not expect to witness political undertones in a Robert Rodriguez film. Ergo, ‘Once Upon A Time in Mexico' is a brash, violent and massively disappointing debacle, which holds Rodriguez's follow up to the gaudy 1995 film ‘ Desperado' as a quasi-western wrapped in a Mexican political sentiment. Rodriguez first burst onto the Hollywood mainstream with his impressive $7,000 film ‘El Mariachi' which was later remade into his 1995 signature film ‘Desperado'. Sadly, since then, Rodriguez's best achievement has been the highly lucrative ‘Spy Kids' trilogy for Miramax banking in more than 275$ Million in total. Yet, just when we thought Rodriguez would display his true affinity for filmmaking, he drapes himself with the love a country (Mexico) and engineers despondent political commentary masquerading as an action film. Filled with extemporaneous characters, blurred action sequences displaying the lack of choreography and plenty of comedic misfires, the film that could have been – was not. ‘Once Upon A Time in Mexico' is a calamity since it was the spawn of one of the most gifted Directors out there today. Rodriguez so eloquently states in his opening Western sequence filled with guitar solos through his credits that he shot, chopped and scored the film. And while it was indeed a labor of love, he does his best at parlaying his love for cinema. Yet his convoluted script and lack of action sequences leaves the filmgoer bitter and once again in revolution against the lack of worthy Hollywood cinema. Antonio Banderas reprises his role as the guitar wielding, gun-toting El Mariachi who actually dwells in the background of this multi-layered, ambitious misfortune of a storyline which spirals into eternal script damnation. Willem Dafoe wins this year's ‘Miscast Actor of the Year' Award as he thickens a horrendous Mexican accent to portray Armando Barillo, a Mexican Drug Lord who intends to overthrow the Mexican President. Johnny Depp (whose gracious acting styles, wicked one-liners and bloodied missing eyeballs cannot even save this film) is a corrupt CIA agent who demands payback for the uprising and employs El Mariachi to ensure the uprising does not go according to plans. Inside this thick, abrupt, coarse and difficult-when-it-does-have-to-difficult storyline lays a story (somewhere) about lost love, vendettas and retribution. Therein lies the problem. The vengeance and retribution should have been at the forefront of this film instead of casting a treatise on Mexico's political state.

Banderas does his best to speak as little as possible while Rodriguez displays his editing skills in excess of as he uses transitions and dissolves at every waking moment, which further saddens the film and proves to be disappointing for an Artist of his once thought of inherent brilliance. What keeps this film going through its many gaps is the constant appearance of a blistering cast. Just as the film begins to dip, there is Mickey Rourke appearing as a washed out fugitive. Then as his underdeveloped character begins to become tiring, there is the sexy Eva Mendes (2 Fast 2 Furious, Training Day) portraying an equally underdeveloped Mexican Officer. Wait; just as the script becomes obscenely over-the- top, we have Ruben Blades (Devil's Own, Color of Night) appearing as a retired FBI Agent adamant about putting a stop to Barillo's tyrannical feats. And just when you think you can't possibly see any space for another dumb-witted character, Rodriguez lays it thick with the biggest of them all - there is Enrique Iglesias; mole and all, prostituting himself for a dollar (much like he does in real life). Rodriguez stuns the audience with the lack of action, the missing depth in storytelling and the absence of Salma Hayek for a ridiculous reasons which to this point I still do not know how bettered the script. Without releasing any information, her absence is supposed to make the audience see how it fuels the rage behind ‘El Mariachi'. Yet Rodriguez is too busy trying to display his lack of proficient storytelling that he completely misdirects his stressing of the main points of the film. In a disappointing direction for the film, the main character is the country of Mexico and masked behind this glamororized B-Movie Western is a strong political sentiment that is completely misplaced.

Giancarlo's Rating: *1/2

Daredevil (2003)

There isn't a lazier way to leave a sequel open...

[8/10 · 17 February 2003]

The most exasperating aspect of Ben Affleck's newest catastrophe is how

ineffective ‘Daredevil' is as a so-called Blockbuster. Set in current day New York, the film traces the origins of an enigmatic superhero similar to the

beginnings of the greatest superhero of all – Batman. As in the former film, the press also languishes Daredevil's existence and brings forth artists' renderings of a half vampire, half man prowling the streets at night. Perhaps if the

superhero actually was a half man -half vampire, the film would have been

much more stirring Directed by Mark Steven Johnson, Fox had apparently hired him for his die- hard vision of the film, yet, I see absolutely no vision in this film. A film can work only if a story is present, in ‘Daredevil' there is the reoccurring theme of

retribution, yet absolutely no story which is serving as a trajectory for the actions on screen. It seems like Johnson elected to play it safe and as a result, there is no dichotomy within the character of Matt Murdock-unsighted Lawyer by day,

buffed crime fighter by night. Furthermore, it does not help when he is played by Ben Affleck. Not taking anything away from Ben Affleck, but there is absolutely no delivery in his

performance. It seems as if Ben was just along for the ride knowing his career will not be stunned if the movie fails. Yet, in five years time, we all know Ben will be looking back and saying, ‘What was I thinking?'. Seeing as Tim Burton is the pioneer of the dark and gothic film, there is such a thing as too dark and gothic. ‘Daredevil' suffers from this infectious flaw as we see the hero only in dark alleys and choreographed sequences with barely any

light on screen. Taking into account the mastery of such films as ‘Batman' and ‘The Crow', that image worked for those creations, yet in this film, when we

actually see Daredevil in a lighted room, we cannot help but laugh at the

stupidity of this character. He is simply not believable, many times I found myself as well as others rooting for the villain in order to end Daredevil's miserable display of self-righteousness. His origins are retold in a formulaic fashion, and his appeal for justice comes out of the loss for someone – as it always is. Yet, Director Mark Steven Johnson suffers from the curse ‘Batman Returns' suffered from – an inundation of

characters. Colin Farrell is maliciously cast as the venerable villain ‘Bullseye'. He is probably the best part of the film. Despite his limited dialogue, he

relinquishes this role and creates a veritable good time as his homicidal angst works well. Then there is another villain played by Michael Clarke Duncan,

many have lamented that his ‘Kingpin' comic book character is of a white male Caucasian, but Duncan plays it well as best as he can as a huge Black Man

with arms of steel as will be seen in the studio-set filmed fabricated climax. Wait - enemies do not stop there. Within the city of New York, there is another unbalanced mind by the name of Elektra Natchios who after seeing her father

murdered by Daredevil, decides to also put on a suit and wreak havoc all in

hopes of defeating Daredevil. Now, I was expecting a good time at the movies, but this film can be equated with pure mindless dribble. I did enjoy the dark tone of the film and the nihilistic beliefs of the murderous Daredevil character, but the rest of the film was wasted celluloid. The only great part is at the very end within the showdown of

Daredevil and Kingpin. If someone can think of a lazier way of keeping a sequel open – please let me know. Furthermore, this film has the most ineffective use of camera angles. Usually the ‘Dutch Tilt' is supposed to evoke some kind of anticipation within a scene, yet, Johnson implements the angles during a standard courtroom sequence.

There are some great shots, but none of them innovative. Furthermore, as

aforementioned it is too dark of a film and the overabundance of darkness

probably is used as a cosmetic to mask the most horrible screenplay for a comic book character besides the Dolph Lundgren fiasco ‘The Punisher'. Johnson

also wrote the film and I admire him for trying to cram in as much as he could for the movie buck. But that is where the problem is – he crammed in too much.

Furthermore, there were so many fade-outs to end scenes in the film it gave me a headache. It seemed as if the rushed postproduction schedule rushed the

editing of the film, which is also tepid at best. In conclusion, when it comes to film I am both selective and cynical. I am very harsh when it comes to film because they cost a lot to see and many times we

waste our time on them and cannot get that valuable time back – this is a solid example. The magic of cinema is slowly escaping us as studios are bringing

forth plenty of bad cinema all in the name of a dollar. While it will have a strong opening weekend, it will succumb to a horrible second weekend, as the word

will be out on the horridness of this film. By the way, if you really like the Bullseye character, stick around during the end credits, there is a little

surprise…

Giancarlo's Rating: *

About Schmidt (2002)

A Coming of Age film, without the 'Coming of Age'...

[3 January 2003]

Director Alexander Payne first caught my eye with his 1999 eye opener

‘Election'. Matthew Broderick and an undiscovered Reese Witherspoon starred

in that fine film dealing with conflict and pride. In his newest outing, Payne directs the sublime Jack Nicholson in one of his richest roles and conflict and pride are also brought to the forefront in a delightful little film entitled ‘About Schmidt'. Payne engineers a rich screenplay which stems from a novel by Louis

Begley. Payne's screenplay allows Nicholson to show a wide array of range

and depth as his Warren Schmidt is a character befuddled by inner angst and a lack of true satisfaction with life. Payne sets the story in his hometown of

Omaha,Nebraska ( One of the Theatre Marquis in Omaha showed the title for

‘Sideways', Payne's yet to be released Project). and uses the simplistic setting to retell the complicated story of a retired Assistant Vice President of an

Insurance carrier who must deal with his abrupt end to normality.

Or so one thinks. As the film unravels, we are introduced to a myriad of characters and dilemmas as Warren Schmidt makes us understand the

monotony and tediousness of his life. Payne opens the film with a smart little series of shots displaying the building where Schmidt works. After a quirky few shots presenting the high rise building as the centerpiece in the middle of a small town, Payne thrusts the viewer right into the empty office of a lonesome Schmidt counting down the seconds until his retirement. Without saying a word for the first three minutes of the film, we can already feel the loneliness and discontent of this man. Payne unravels his characters at a ‘snails pace' intentionally so the audience can appreciate and understand the complexities of these well written

characters. Schmidt's biggest complexity is his unhappiness. The character

deliciously incarnated by Jack Nicholson is a treat to watch as he wrestles with his inner angst. Payne's screenplay tackles issues many grapple with on a

regular basis: Have I made a difference in the world? Was my life worth

anything? Did I lead a good life? All these questions arise when Nicholson retires and is forced to travel the US to celebrate his daughter's wedding. Without giving too much away, the

script is just superb. The character of Warren Schmidt is a sad and insecure

individual who for all of his life despite his wife, or his child, has never really spoken with anyone. Payne uses an unconventional outlet for Schmidt to vent,

for not even his adulterous best friend can be turned to anymore. Schmidt's

character seemed cold and frail, but he warmed up to an overseas child foster care program. For twenty two dollars a month, Schmidt was not only able to help a child in Tanzania, but he was able to help himself as those letters sent to his foster child were testaments of his repressed good nature and dire loneliness, Some hurdles discovered along the way are close deaths within the family, an idiotic future son in law and a daughter he would do anything in the world for. Payne paints a miraculous portrait of appreciation and zest for life and does so in at times a quite comedic manner without being overbearingly funny. Payne directs the film with a touch of class as he presents us with a fresh and awe inspring tale of insipdness and hostility for one's life. It is a coming of age film without the coming of age. It simply tells the story of a man searching for inner peace. It shows us how easy it is to get caught up in our careers, in our successes, that many tend to forget the riches far past those of monetary value. The film is a remarkable journey into a thorough soul searching session and additional marvelous performances add to the anti-generic film that it is. Kathy Bates, Howard Hesseman and Dermot Mulroney add to the brilliance of this film. A categorically great film for anyone who has dealt with crises of their own and wants to see how other would deal with their troubles.

Giancarlo's Rating: ***

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Refreshing Opening Credits... Unrefreshing Film...

[31 December 2002]

'Catch Me if You Can' (2002) Dreamworks Pictures 2 Hrs. 20 Mins. Starring: Leonardo Di Caprio, Tom Hanks and Christopher Walken. Directed by: Steven Spielberg.

Perhaps this is just cynicism influencing my decision, but I came to expect much more form this collaborative trident. One of the greatest Directors assembles a cast wherein Leonardo Di Caprio and Tom Hanks share the screen in a genre-less film and out of all this talent; a mixed feeling arises when exiting the screening. How could it be all this talent concocted this mediocre film? Furthermore, what was the direction and drive for the film? Was it a comedy, a crime caper, or just an outlet to admirably lens Di Caprio's blue eyes from as many angles as possible?

Director Steven Spielberg recreates the unreal yet true story of Frank Abagnale Jr. by casting Leonardo Di Caprio as a charming and surreal con man. Spielberg opens the movie with a refreshingly different credit sequence using John Williams' main theme as the tone setter for the film. Williams' superb saxophone/jazz tune carries weight in the film as it is replayed constantly displaying the cat and mouse game unraveling on screen.

The film opens where it ends. Many filmmakers get caught in a pratfall when utilizing a jumping timeline in films, yet thankfully due to Spielberg's craftsmanship, the jumps are seamless until the final 20 minutes of the film. Despite our knowing how the film will end, it does not serve as a detriment to the movie going experience; instead, Spielberg slowly introduces us to the ensuing relationship that develops between the cat (Tom Hanks' FBI Agent Carl Hanratty) and the mouse (Leonardo Di Caprio's Frank Abagnale). Yet, in some instances, it could be completely the opposite as the roles are reversed. Spielberg shrewdly and meticulously demonstrates that despite Abagnale's reckless attempts in breaking the law, he is still a troubled young teenage boy searching for solace in all his wranglings.

In the 1960's, Frank Abagnale was a young and extremely successful con man who passed himself as a Doctor, a Lawyer and even as an airline pilot for Pan Am. To add to all this, he was not even 18. Spielberg goes into great length to show the troubled relationship his parent's had and their divorce served as the catalyst for Abagnale's troubles. On the run, with no means of cash, he stumbled upon the art of forging checks. This is where his real claim to fame lie, he began passing fraudulent checks all over the country for large sums of money. Therefore, in a sense he was a successful and calculating bank robber, utilizing his smile instead of a gun to prey on innocent female tellers.

Of course the film is a cat and mouse game and Hanks' character makes it a mission to hunt down and capture Abagnale's streak of scams. Hanks incarnates the loneliest of FBI Agents and packs on a few pounds and an annoying Southern accent to play the role of a gullible yet at times brilliant and compassionate man who comes to respect and even admire his catch.

Without giving too much away, the imprisonment sequences at the end of the film are short and unclear in terms of timeline. Our Master Storyteller loses control in the editing room as we see Abagnale not serving out his full sentence due to a plea bargain; yet, the timeline is lackluster as we jump from one year to the other without grounding ourselves in the calendar.

Perhaps this was intentional as Spielberg aims to recreate the lunacy of the situation and aims to propel the viewer into a whirlwind as Abagnale was. Furthermore, the cast profits from some memorable scenes thanks in part due to Jeff Nathanson's (Speed 2: Cruise Control) sporadically enjoyable script. Di Caprio uses his charm to engineer his character and Spielberg just adores bringing out his blue eyes in the film whereas Hanks adds another notch to his belt playing this weightful 'fella' who obsesses over the capture of Abagnale.

While it does have its' memorable moments where Abagnale and Hanratty aim to outdo one another in terms of the 'oneup' (e.g. The airport sequence and the Limo Driver), I cannot make myself understand how such a sluggish film could be concocted by the filmmakers. The most radiant aspect of the film lies in seeing Christopher Walken be himself on screen. Playing Abagnale Senior, he relishes every scene he is in and adds class to a film that should have been a surefire hit.

Instead, it seems as if the crew decided to take a Holiday and made a film simply for the sheer angst of it and release the project. When one is working on a project of this magnitude, perhaps it is easy to expect much more, consequently increasing the expectations of a film. But when a filmmaker who has brought us bold films such as 'Minority Report' and 'Saving Private Ryan' reduces himself to a charitable film such as this, it is quite easy to be disappointed.

Giancarlo's Rating: **

Gangs of New York (2002)

NOT A MASTERPIECE, BUT A GREAT 'HEAVY' FILM...

[8/10 · 29 December 2002]

For all its' Uber-violence, 'Gangs of New York' is a majestic piece of filmmaking. Director Martin Scorcese reunites once again with Editor Thelma Schoonmaker and Production Designer Dante Ferretti thusly recreating a potion of a country's history spectacled with infestation, disease and rampant violence. These are but some of the characteristics employed in an unconventional manner in hopes of telling a memorable story. Scorcese displays to the filmmaking world how imaginative he can be with his long overdue, epic and costly motion picture based upon a time in New York City's history where violence was not sporadic, but a necessity for survival. Set directly in New York's Five Points District, on a micro scale the film tells the vengeful story of Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo Di Caprio), a young man who returns 16 years after being banished from Five Points after witnessing his father's defeat at the hands of a vicious rival known as Bill The Butcher; infamous for his fixation with the meats and his innate sense of slaughterous murder. Upon Amsterdam's return, he has but one aim - avenge his father's death at the hands of the vicious 'community leader' William Cutting,, a.k.a. Bill The Butcher. Cutting prides himself as being a sadistic and remorseless thug who surrounds himself with the filth of the community in order to profit himself and his political allies. Daniel Day Lewis comes out of seclusion for a craft he apparently dislikes and simply nails this performance as a sophisticated and well-spoken murderer who has no parameters nor morals to bound him. He fights for the Yankee Way and opposes anyone who threatens the American lifestyle.

On a macro scale, the story is a piece of American history as it recreates the arduous battles commenced in 1846 between the Irish settlers and the Anglo- Saxon 'natives' who sought to protect their country against foreigners. In all of this, the draft riots are explicitly revealed as those who chose not to fight were sought out and forced to. At one point, the film effortlessly demonstrates how immigrants were drafted right off the boats as they had a suitcase from a foreign country one moment, and an American Uniform the next practically unable to speak the English language, yet ready to wage war against an unknown enemy. The draft riot scene is a pivotal sequence in the film as it prepares the anti-climactic finale in which more violence and an astonishing amount of blood are spilled over the original streets of New York. This film makes every effort in highlighting what the term 'gang' means as it has undergone various permutations in definition. The original story by Jay Cocks (The Age of Innocence) has been filtered by Kenneth Lonergan (Analyze This) and Steven Zaillan (Hannibal) and contains the conventional pratfalls of Hollywood Cinema such as double crosses and plot twists, yet they are thankfully kept to a minimal. The story retains its core not so much on the development of the characters, but on the development of the times and interestingly enough, the interplay between Bill The Butcher and his rival Priest Vallon was stressed. Despite their differences and years after Priest's death, The Butcher still honored and celebrated his life. Sharing the same values and only divided by faith, honor was still a trait some had amidst all the ruins. Throughout all this lies an ingenious film in which Scorcese allows his characters to develop and evolve, as the film is a delicate piece of cinema balanced against a sensitive subject matter and directed with the utmost class and originality. Production Designer Dante Ferretti recreates the filth-infested streets and deplorable living conditions as poverty, decay, infestation and paucity are not spared in order to retell one of the vilest stories in recent memory. Those who are familiar with Scorcese's work will know he is the machine behind such films as 'Casino', 'Goodfellas' and the perennial classics 'Taxi Driver' and 'Raging Bull'. Those films are always under constant attack for the apparently amoral manner in which they exude violence, and now Scorcese can add the cornerstone of all violent films with 'Gangs of New York'. This is a perversely tempestuous violence-riddled film filled with gore, viciousness and intensity all in good use in order to demonstrate the living conditions when everyone had to sleep with one eye open. The film commences with no opening credits, just the company credits roll as we see Liam Neeson play the character of Priest Vallon, a highly admirable Community leader also fighting for what he believes in, the safety and prosperity of the Irish people based in New York. As the film opens, we see him bestow values upon a young Amsterdam Vallon as an opening battle sequence of epic proportions is mounting. The weapons are being bladed, prayers are being said and families are told goodbye as these warriors will clash on the streets of New York for the right to claim property and ownership of honor amongst thieves. Eerily close to the Brian De Palma School of suspenseful filmmaking, Scorcese seems to take a page from the aforementioned Director as the opening sequence is mounted in a very resourceful manner. Quick editing cuts thanks to Thelma Schoonmaker's hand demonstrate the weapons being sharpened as one tracking camera shot pans through the Dead Rabbits Gang led by Priest Vallon as the increasing volume in music indicates war is near. The camera tracks all the characters as we have been inside from the beginning of the film, and we have been introduced to the poverty and wretchedness of the times in a dark and cold shelter. Then the camera points towards a door and as it opens, all we see is a blanket of white symbolically representing the purity of the war and its' valor, but foreshadowing the red coat of paint about the cover the cobble stoned streets of New York. Phenomenal. That is filmmaking, and as the pace quickens, the war commences as challenges are made, met and the massacre ensues as our film slowly introduces the viewer to the violence as Scorcese aims to condition the viewer - B.F. Skinner style. This is somewhat different than his other outings whereas in both 'Goodfellas' and 'Casino' Scorcese boldly introduces ultra-violence without the slightest amount of warning. In this film, Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis) commences the war immediately as he slices and dices his way through the street enmeshed in a series of direct stab wounds yet no blood, but as he progresses and continues his assault, the knives are introduced as blood soaked, then the puncture wounds are accentuated as he pierces his way through flesh and finally we see his face saturated in the blood of others against the intentionally misplaced musical score of Howard Shore (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy).

This sets the tone for a film not aiming to please anyone or to alleviate the discourse of cinematic violence. It recreates a time when violence was rampant and for the purposes of storytelling, the violence quotient was necessary to give justice to the lewdness of the situation. Even women are not spared as Cameron Diaz portrays a charismatic pocket thief named Jennie Everdeane.

Despite her romantic engagement with Amsterdam, through her savage beating Scorcese displays no one was spared during the riots from the hands of predatory thieves who were vying to survive. Many have voiced criticism over the lengthy running time, and while many have stated there were segments which could have been trimmed, I disagree. At a running time of approximately two hours and forty minutes, the film recreates a piece of history sought with fragility and values conveyed to the viewer. People would give their lives for this war waged for the rights to claim ownership of NYC and it was of the utmost importance to develop that religious fanaticism closely. The characters in the film resemble heavily wrapped boxes, in which Scorcese allows to be unwrapped a little at a time; all the while he displays his prowess as a Director who astonishes with this film. For it is true the pacing was uneven at times, and the unraveling of the characters could have been sped up. But all of this is intentional in order to evoke a climax which represents their war between the Foreigners and the Anglo-Saxons in a city that had enough of its' riotous ways. While the violence will surely turn off Academy Members, Daniel Day Lewis' performance will not and this film will stand the true test of time as a story so unequivocally told it will remain indelibly etched in viewers minds long after the final sequence. Transition shots display the evolution of New York City from a point of view of a tombstone nestled right under the Brooklyn Bridge. Cross dissolves start in 1863 and documents the changes from that exact point up until the time the Two Towers of NYC were standing. Perhaps reminding the world despite the progression of mankind, we are still not civilized.

Giancarlo's Rating: ***

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

A spectacle that marries Myth and Method...

[19 December 2002]

'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' continues exactly where the first left off. The majestic panoramic shots introduce the viewer to the frenzy that is 'The Lord of The Rings' and the epic saga continues as the audience quickly becomes reacquainted with the cast of characters that first appeared last Christmas. Director Peter Jackson closely adheres to his general strategy that was introduced in the first film. Seeing as the three films were filmed consecutively, his strategy seems to be efficient. This strategy includes picturesque cinematography, stunning visual effects and his trademark and climactic theatrical action sequences are all included in this arcane three-hour opus that is not applicable to all tastes. Those fans that have religiously followed the filming and releases will be quite pleased with the end result. Fans such as myself who first tasted the LOTR aura will also enjoy the film, and more so, might enjoy it even more than the first film. It is a much more thought provoking film as the unexplained is explored and the entire film serves as a nice supplement to the origin piece. It should be mentioned that Jackson is not trying to win over any new LOTR fans, he starts his picture quickly and galvanizes the viewer with a myriad of subplots the viewer must swiftly adapt to as they all have one link - the ring. Upon the first film's release last Christmas, I was very skeptic about the quality of the film residing in the hands of Director Peter Jackson. His previous efforts included the small film 'Heavenly Creatures' and the Michael J. Fox Horror/Comedy 'The Frighteners'. Yet upon the original LOTR film completion, I respected and admired the filmmaker for his ambitious undertaking, but could not find myself frenzied with the film. This was in part to my stubborn view that Jackson had more focus on style than substance. In my eyes, the original wanted to impress more than tell a story. As such, while the first film was grand in its' own way, the second reigns superior due to its juxtaposition of subplots, main plot and gothic approach in story telling. The second film neglects the aspect of brotherhood and good reason, themes the first film heavily explored. This film also releases focus on the power of the ring, this piece looks at the journey of one's inner strength, as all our characters must succumb to the realization that their mission to destroy the ring might destroy themselves. This realization arises due to the separation of our 7 characters that appeared in the original film. In this session, they are one less and the six characters embark on a journey separate from one another all in the hopes of one mission - destroying the ring. Fans will remember Jackson made it a point to demonstrate the power of the ring, yet in this film, the power is emoted in a subtle manner. Its' carrier, Frodo (played once again with childish angst by Elijah Wood) is held hostage by the mystical power of this ring and instead of displaying its utter destruction upon others, Jackson shows the inner battle of Frodo between himself and the ring. As the carrier of the ring, many inner battles arise as he must guard himself and others from the malevolence of the ring. Far superior than the first, this film captures all the mythology, the mystery and the metamorphosis between all the characters and their descent into a fierce battle with the villains of Middle-earth. This film is a bleak, morbid, dark three hour epic that moves much more quickly than the first in terms of plot development. As always, the action sequences are spectacular and serve not as eye candy, but as a device of story telling. Jackson fills his frames and paints his pictures with uber-detail as each frame of this film carries his imprint. It would be unfair of me to fully review this film, as I aforementioned; this is not a film I would regularly look forward to. Mythology and folklore are not cinematic themes that appease me, yet the quality of this film is above standard and its style are to be envied. As such, I know many critics have also hailed this film a masterpiece and one of the year's best films. Let me repeat, this is not the type of film that excites me terribly. Yet, it still is a good film, with phenomenal production values and a score by Howard Shore that will leave you breathless during the epic sequences. That said, come Oscar time, it will not obtain as much attention as the first did. The film holds nothing revolutionary except for a CGI Composition that actually becomes a key figure within the film.

The stunning complexity behind the character 'Smeagol', a devilish looking creature stalking Frodo and Sam (the Hobbits guarding the ring) is astonishing. The New Zealand Company Weta Digital has pushed the limits of technology with a psychotic and at times quite amicable creature that plays with the feelings of the audience as he battles his inner psychosis. The craft and artisanship behind this character allowed it to be a truly believable and viable character able to emote feeling, anger and inner hatred. As the movie progresses, we discover this creature - Smeagol was not always a hideously disfigured creature, but he contains a past directly linked with the ring. And as the film ends, he plays a pivotal role in setting up the final and grandest of the three pictures. It is difficult to review a film of this caliber. It can be summarized clearly this film; in my opinion it is one notch above the original. It focuses less on the Orcs and all the other evil-doers and spotlights the ring and the journey behind it, and what lies ahead. This is truly another ambitious undertaking and a testament to Jackson's passion for the film. Jackson has tremendous actors in front of the camera allowing to capture some wonderfully framed sequences and the irreverent Sir Ian McKellan returns once again as Gandolf. The cast is just a small element of a film that marries myth and method in quite a sublime way. It encompasses adventure, myth, inner hatred, greed and most of all temptation. While it surely will not be on my Top 5 List of 2002, it still is recommended if the material attracts you.

Giancarlo's Rating: **1/2

Eight Crazy Nights (2002)

A degrading animated film offering absolutely nothing...

[25 November 2002]

Despite its' well intentioned theme of kindness to all, this film should have practiced what it preached and should have been kind to all by never have been being made. Banking on the popularity of the Adam Sandler brand of immature toilet humour, this animated musical/comedy/debacle is a complete blueprint of Sandler's warped and juvenile mindset. While this juvenile and unripe humour worked for perennial Sandler classics such as 'The Waterboy' and 'Happy Gilmore', as of late Sandler has deteriorated into a one-hit wonder running the same gags in premeditated recycled junk. This animated waste of crayon falls superbly in that category and heralds Sandler's career as a 'has been'. Or has it? This critic enjoys theorizing and will do so with the following statements. Just recently Sandler has attempted to diversify in the Paul Thomas Anderson film 'Punch-Drunk Love' and with all due respect - it works. And now, at the time of this writing, he will star opposite Jack Nicholson in the upcoming comedy 'Anger Management'. Therefore, we ask the question - is Adam Sandler's career really faltering? This critic thinks not, the only assumption we can make is that Sandler's name usually guarantees some green provided he is in the immature context.

Furthermore, it helps if you own your production company and have 'carte blanche' over a film. Such is the case with Sandler's 'Eight Crazy Nights'. His production company Happy Madison produced the film and as a result, this truly is Adam Sandler's film. Unfortunately, it is not a crazy movie and it might have the kiddies irk a smile but for the devote Sandler fan, it will utter devastation as this film is one for the trash. The animated film incorporates characters Sandler featured in his Comic audio CD's and gives some story to the elder Whitey Duvall (voiced by Adam Sandler), a soft-spoken senior who lives with his fraternal twin sister, Eleanor. What seems to be a film centered on the animated character that looks awfully similar to the real life Adam Sandler, in reality, it is about the elder Whitey who takes in the distraught Davey Stone (also voiced by Sandler). The film happens to occur throughout the Hanukkah Holiday while we see the formulaic transformation of an inebriated and rude man undergo a major transformation under the wings of the elder man. In terms of plot and sheer fun, this movie passed through three writers (Brooks Arthur, Allen Covert and Brad Isaacs) upon a story Sandler had concerted and is an utter waste of time. The animation is simplistic and the story runs at a snail's pace. Furthermore, this film is a testament to the power of Sandler in Hollywood. Even the worst of films can be made as long as there is a star attached to it. How many times have we seen this happen? The film simply seems like a hobby Sandler had and he incorporated all of his childish and clichéd funny segments into an unfunny and boorish film.

Moreover, while I appreciate his attempt in diversification, it is a major disappointment to see Sandler's mass appeal reduced to such a disenchanted status in terms of the comedic abilities that made him what he is. It would be an overstatement to suggest avoiding this film at all costs. While I did not expect a great film, I at least expected a film that would place me in the Holiday spirit. Not even that expectation was accomplished. On a final note, for all those Sandler fans that anticipate the third version of his famous Hanukkah song, they will have to sit through this sluggish film in order to hear the song. Trust me, it isn't worth it.

Giancarlo's Rating: *

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Just as fun as the first...

[10/10 · 20 November 2002]

The magic seems to be diluted and the aura of originality not as refreshing, yet'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets' is just as inventive as ever. Many thanks in part to the insanely creative author J.K. Rowling who writes

wondrously and as a result, Director Chris Columbus has the difficult task of eliminating the minor details and engineering a film just as imaginative as the first. At a running time of 2Hrs. and 40Mins., the children were glued to their seats as Harry and the gang return for a second delightful adventure. This time, we are treated to a minor yet delicious role in Kenneth Branagh as Professor

Gilderoy Lockhart. His comedic and well timed facial mannerisms bring a

sprinkle of comedy as this sequel is much darker and intense than the first. Director Chris Columbus handles the assignment to the sequel in an

excellent manner as he jumps right into the story sweeping the audience right off their feet and into the thick story line. In the first film, Director Columbus took great pride in presenting the major set pieces as spectacles to be awed over. Yet in this film, scenery such as Diagon Alley and Hogwarts Dining Room are

regarded as regular set pieces and Columbus propels us directly into the film. Watch how the Quidditch scene is introduced, it will tell you how quick the movie wants to move. Daniel Radcliffe returns as Potter in a more of a brutish and aggressive role than that of the first. His tarnished features serve justice to his crusade against a malevolent force basing itself out of Hogwarts. Evil forces lurk in the hallways at Hogwarts resulting in students becoming petrified and as a result becoming

inanimate. Harry refuses to listen to a self-mutilating elf named Doby who

incessantly asks him not to return. Yet, upon his return the action ensues and the magic proceeds as this sequel might not as be refreshing as the first film, but still just as effective. If we dissect the film, we can see that this is an ambitious film and quite a difficult task piecing together all the perennial elements from the first film. Yet Columbus aggregates all the essential factors necessary for a fantasy film and succeeds at delivering a children's fairy tale with the impeccability of a major motion picture feel. As in the first film, the enchanting element is pervasive as those religiously affixed fans will have plenty to gawk over as this film delivers the goods for a second time.

Giancarlo's Rating: ***

Femme Fatale (2002)

No other Director builds suspense as De Palma can...

[5 November 2002]

Femme Fatale' (2002) Warner Bros. 1 Hr. 50 Mins. Starring: Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, Peter Coyote, Antonio Banderas and Gregg

Henry. Directed by: Brian De Palma. Viewed: 11.04.2002 AMC Cinemas 22. Hall 3 (1.85) There is no other modern-day Feature Film Director who can single handedly

build suspense in an elegant and exciting manner as Brian De Palma can. To

many this can come as an overstatement, and this critic is aware that the

proponents of Hitchcock and M. Night Shymalan will rise and criticize. But allow me to reiterate, De Palma is the master of modern day suspense.

After a string of simply awful films starting with the immensely disappointing ‘Mission: Impossible', he then went on to direct the experimental ‘Snake Eyes' and failed once again with ‘Mission to Mars'. This trilogy of films, which featured truly deplorable cinema, tarnished De Palma's status and as a result, he

seemed to be an outcast for quite some time (Please bear in mind; this is the same Director who brought to the world ‘Carlito's Way', ‘Body Double',

‘Scarface' and the masterful ‘ The Untouchables'. A lower class of film is

unacceptable when such masterpieces were brought forward).

And while the 80's were kind to De Palma, the 90's were not – yet, it can be

noted every time he did not deliver, he returned with a truly surreal experience, as was the case with the 1990 fiasco ‘The Bonfire of the Vanities'. After being hailed as one of the worst films of the year, he fired back with ‘Raising Cain'. A psychological journey, which proved he had the prerequisites to helm a crafty film.

Here is Mr. De Palma again in the year 2002 with a personal ‘F-You' to the

Hollywood elite as he silences those who criticized him before. Please note, I am an avid follower of De Palma's work and as such have always extrapolated

some cinematic ‘avant-garde ness' with even his worst films. But with his newest film ‘Femme Fatale', it is a moviegoer's dream to view a wave of technical

craftsmanship on this film.

‘Femme Fatale' is quite the eye opener, not only for Rebecca Romijn-Stamos'

lusty scenes, but also for its' technical merit. Not only can De Palma build

suspense like no other, but he can also make effective use of the split-screen shot in a truly auspicious manner. All this being said, ‘Femme Fatale' is

nowhere near to being a masterpiece, but it is indeed a step in the right

direction for our newly rediscovered Director.

De Palma wrote and lensed ‘Femme Fatale' in a no-holds barred manner.

There are enough plot twists and turns to outdo a roller coaster and while the acting is a tad on the shady side, De Palma compensates with some stunning

visuals courtesy of Cinematographer Thierry Arbogast (The Professional, The

Fifth Element) and a visceral score by Ryuichi Sakamoto (The Last Emperor,

Snake Eyes).

Starring Rebecca Romijn-Stamos in a cataclysmic career turn and the generic

Antonio Banderas who always strokes his hair to the back of his head, De

Palma's script manages to make these two tepid characters actually watchable

as he unravels a crafty and witty film filled with plot holes and irregularities. Yet, despite these flaws, De Palma engineers a truly refreshing film that will have many pondering over the film after its' run time of 1hr and 50mins.

Romijn-Stamos stars as the sultry and seductive Laure Ash, a simply

stunning thief who wishes to escape her crooked past after she nabs a 10$

Million diamond bustier at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival. The film opens with one of the most invigorating scenes in recent memory as De Palma displays his technical prowess by amalgamating all the characteristics, which allow for great cinema. The introductory sequence opens with images from the Billy Wilder

classic ‘Double Indemnity' and slowly combines the art of editing, music and

Direction as we are whisked away to the Film Festival where one of the biggest heists is about to take place.

De Palma uses his crew well as he creates a ubiquitous introductory

sequence that will have the discerning viewer salivating due to its' rich

techniques. From there, the double crosses and the ‘I saw that coming'

sequences surmount as the film turns in every which direction except that of a bad film. One only has to study the dialogue (watch for Romijn-Stamos'

dialogue with Banderas when they are about to have anal sex) and they will

know De Palma was going for a different type of film noir. Surely influenced by David Lynch's ‘Mulholland Drive' the film is quite exciting and is sincerely worth a look for its' merit, skill and clout as a film.

In this type of film, it is fairly simple to run into the pratfall of a typical Hollywood ending, yet here, the script calls for much symbolism and metaphoric references (the necklace results in ‘divine justice'?) as this Hollywood piece seems like a foreign film. Filmed in France and using much French talent behind the camera, it retains a sense of foreignness as De Palma presents another

memorable opening sequence. The first 20 minutes of the film are mostly all in the Parisian language and subtitles guide the viewer as the ride ensues. De

Palma even inserts true French talent such as Sandrine Bonnaire and Henri

Ernst at the Cannes Film Festival to lend the film some authenticity.

In a nutshell, the film is worth a look due to its' elevated filmmaking from De Palma and any movie that stars a generic Banderas that is actually watchable

must be well made. De Palma displays hints of untapped and rejuvenated

brilliance and while it is not the greatest film, it s definitely a solid film.

Giancarlo's Rating: **1/2

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

A discourse into the psyche of a pathologically disturbed loner...

[1 November 2002]

Paul Thomas Anderson delivers an unconventional and lucid journey in

‘Punch Drunk Love'. This anti-romantic film sprinkled with themes of decadence, repressed anger and pathological destruction is a true marvel to watch

especially if like myself, one lacks the slightest idea what the film is about. Opening without introductory credits and with an abrupt wide angle shot of Adam Sandler's mentally unstable Barry Egan spooling over a great subplot

involving Frequent Flyer Miles, the film immerses into a world of intrigue and inquiry as nothing comes across, as one would expect. Anderson first came into the circuit as a small time Director in his interesting yet unfulfilling venture ‘Sydney' (a.k.a Hard Eight). Yet the cataclysmic film, which propelled him, was that of ‘Boogie Nights'. ‘Nights' not only turned heads for its' star Mark Wahlberg and nearly gained Burt Reynolds an Oscar, but it also solidified Anderson as a Director who can quell great talent and vision with his witty writing style. ‘Magnolia' bordered on the insane but still provided a stellar cast in roles we will likely never see them again in (remember Tom Cruise's

mantra in Magnolia?). In Anderson's current film, he turns more heads with his visceral lensing style and anti-nostalgic score from composer Jon Brion. His score can unequivocally change the entire scene in a film to create absolute anarchy or uncontrollable lust all within the confines of Anderson's tight shots. The surprisingly short ‘Punch Drunk Love' is at best a fairly interesting quasi- experimental film if not only for Sandler's performance. Anderson took a great risk with the casting of the lukewarm Sandler as his main convoluted character Barry Egan. Yet, for all his comedic failings in the past, Sandler's Egan conveys emotional distress and a tortured childhood similar to that of a ticking time bomb. Yet all that can be banished when a match making session ensues and

Egan gains interest in a bombshell devilishly played by Emily Watson.

Without giving away too much of the script, all we can say is that after viewing this film, one will think twice about calling a phone sex line and

submitting their credit card number over the telephone. Obstacles arise when

Egan finally confronts his verbally abusive and torturous sisters and wants to make a life with his new love, yet the phone sex fiasco ensues and the anti- climactic climax unfolds leaving many vexed. Yet, one will understand that

Anderson's script need not call for a vengeance filled climax nor a sound

resolution. Calling upon the same method actors Anderson usually casts as Philip

Seymour Hoffman and Luis Guzman, his script drives this film into uncharted

waters leaving conventionalism behind and simply focuses in 90 minutes upon

the wranglings of a couple who seem destined not to be with one another. At

times it may come across a truly morbid piece and at times serenely comical, but it is definitely worth a look for those wanting to escape the formulaic crass some deem good cinema. It will not overwhelm you in the way ‘Boogie Nights' did, but it will certainly enlighten the viewer as to how different styles in filmmaking are pioneered.

Giancarlo's Rating: **1/2

Jackass: The Movie (2002)

A Morally bankrupt that stands inferior to the show - but a good laugh...

[27 October 2002]

A couple of years ago, MTV had decided to target Generation X by taking a then unknown Johnny Knoxville and making him the ringleader of a cohort of

men as they attempted the insane. That television show became a cult hit and

was known solely as ‘Jackass'. The show gained an enormous amount of

popularity as its' precariously named hosts such as Steve-O and Party Boy

attempted the most idiotic yet comedic tasks which garnered them the right to become overnight sensations. Yet amidst the mayhem such as Human Jai Alai and Human Weapons

testing, controversy arose as uneducated teens from across the country

emulated those exact stunts and as a result – the show was banned. Here we

are in 2002 and ‘Jackass: The Movie' has just been released with no

improvement in style or stunts. For those who are not familiar with the MTV show, ‘Jackass' was a half hour of brilliant insanity. By no means were the Producers of the show trying to

reinvent the wheel, they simply videotaped a bunch of guys doing stupid things – and it worked. In the feature film, the producers who are also active

participants in some of the stunts display no effort in making the phenomenon of ‘Jackass' bigger than it already is. Shot in Digital Video, and with a regular television aspect ratio of 1:78:1 that seems stretched to fit in the regular 1:85 cinematic ratio, this film comes off as somewhat of a disappointment that will deliver no supplemental feeling of

satiation nor of exuberance compared to watching a decent television episode

of Jackass. Being a true ‘closet fan' of the original television series, I have been exposed to all of the antics of the gang including my perennial favorite, Partyboy (Chris Pontius). Yet, this film will definitely attract new fans that have never witnessed the original curmudgeons of the cast. I on the other hand have fallen into the pratfall of being conditioned to their antics and did not laugh as hard nor as loud as I would have expected. The film opens with a prophetic sequence in which all our characters ranging from Preston to Wee Man are riding downhill in an oversized shopping cart

while an apocalyptic instrumental theme rings through the theater from the likes of Mozart and Beethoven. As the camera pans across the gang with their

names in classic White Jackass script, explosions go off as observable

Styrofoam pieces of supposed rock hit our characters one at a time. But, the

speed is real and so are the falls when they occur. At this point, the discerning viewer can spot what I like to call the ‘studio touches'. Even the introductory sequence's climactic shopping cart crash seems staged as the whole crew in

their oversized shopping cart violently crash into a fruit stand which appears to be conveniently padded. That is when I thought the Jackass-ers had sold out,

but as the classic black fade blanketed the screen, the title came over and

Johnny Knoxville and the crew returned to what they did best – cause trouble. Memorable sequences include the opening as Johnny and the gang rent a

car and use it in a demolition derby only to return to the lot and demand the renter pay for the damages. Also, Steve-O returns to his hygienically humiliating ways as he wrestles alligators and snorts some foreign food only to post second to Ryan Dunn's vintage visit to a proctologist to discover he has a Hot Wheels car intentionally lodged in his anus. Fascinating footage indeed, yet this is not applicable to all tastes. Even I found myself turning away as Dave England ate a snow cone containing his

own urine and many, many sequences of human feces featured as the

centerpiece for segment's punch line. In any event, using the noun ‘film' to describe this motion picture would be a misallocation of vocabulary. It contains no script, no objective, it is simply an extended version of the television screened in a dark room enabling ushers to ask for I.D. upon everyone's entrance (and I mean everyone) in order to get the underage fans from not seeing the film. In short, this is definitely nothing

groundbreaking and one could wait for the DVD to screen the film. The ‘movie' regularly borders on the inane and stupidity of humans yet, there is an audience for it as was demonstrated at the screening. ‘Jackass: The Movie' is by no means a little gem. It is a morally bankrupt film, which adds nothing useful to society except a good laugh. I seem disappointed in the film because I was expecting some fairly fresh and new ideas. Yet, many times the avid fan was treated to recycled fair and lack of cameos such as Brad Pitt's absence. Instead, we were treated to Henry Rollins and series regular

Tony Hawk. Instead of cool stunts, the apparent theme was ‘Let's see how gross we can be'. Which is not the reason I became a true Jackass fan. Instead, the film contains some memorable sequences including the only other ‘studio

touch' that actually works at the very end of the film. As the credits roll, make sure you stick around for the ‘sequel' that has already been worked on – a

studio touch that actually works.

Giancarlo's Rating: **

Ghost Ship (2002)

A trepid and cliched film with a partially redeeming ending...

[23 October 2002]

Despite its' poignant ending which includes a suggestive supernatural twist, ‘Ghost Ship' is about as empty as a sunken vessel. My apologies for the

horrendous analogy, but this film is truly an unfortunate attempt at breathing new life into the tired genre of horror. Director Steve Beck first started his career as a Visual Effects Supervisor working on such movies as ‘The Hunt for Red

October' and ‘The Abyss'. In this film, he takes his love for aquatic shots and desecrates an even more desecrated plot with silly banter, horrible acting and ambitious angles that result in a flawed film. The only element that redeems this film from being an annihilation of the human intellect, is its' interesting and somewhat surprising ending. Make no mistake, we are not talking about a ‘Sixth Sense' ending, but as the audience becomes conditioned to predictable, formulaic dribble in this film

which offers nothing new to this wasted genre, suddenly comes this twist ending that seems grandiose due to the context it is situated in.

Director Beck's first feature was ‘Thir13een Ghosts', and while it was a stylish and empty film, ‘Ghost Ship's visuals are mundane and dry, even with the

abundance of water occupying the frame. Producers Robert Zemeckis (yes

that Robert Zemeckis) and Joel ‘The Matrix' Silver continue churning cost

conscious horror fare from their Dark Castle Entertainment division. This is the third feature after ‘House on Haunted Hill' and ‘Thir13een Ghosts'. The result: the least satisfying of the three but with a creepy ending that is brought to life by the infusion of a refreshing heavy metal score that replaces the tiresome

unoriginal and repetitive score of Music composer John Frizzell.

The film opens with an eye-opening counter-horrific credit sequence

reminiscent of the 1950's Frankie Vallie pictures. Pink titles underlined by a nostalgic score introduce us to the film as even the film's title is presented in a pink bubble gum font. That sets the stage for a malicious and violent opening sequence where the camera pans over all the victims in a 1950's cruise liner

who await a gruesome death. Cut to present day as actor Gabriel Byrne cannot find himself another ‘The Usual Suspects' script and has to settle for a seemingly out of work actor

position in this film. Also, fresh from her departure from ER, Julianna Margulies is introduced as a tough talking tom-boyish character who fears nothing, but

who will as the visions commence later on in the film.

All these characters compose the core of a salvage crew who set out to sail after this 1953 Ocean liner, which mysteriously disappeared. As the crew

attempts to tow the liner back to shore, they notice the most surreal and violent events ever witnessed. Mind you, not all of our cast of characters make it out alive to see the reason behind the boat's disappearance retold in an impressive timely and flashy edited sequence. Flashy is not an adjective one would want to associate with this film. The film is generic and tiresome except as aforementioned for the final 20 minutes.

While it does not offer anything new to the genre, it insults the audience with the less is more take that eventually offers absolutely nothing.

`Ghost Ship' will probably satisfy the hard core horror fans due to its' extreme and vicious massacres, yet the film offers no horror and suffers from its' own ambitious yet unfulfilled suggestivity.

Giancarlo's Rating: *1/2

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002)

A decimation of action films...

[20 September 2002]

Director Wych Kaosayananda; who so self consciously goes by the name Kaos, makes his first feature film debut thusly desecrating the very fabric of Lucy Liu's appeal, and whatever appeal Antonio Banderas had remaining. How justified the Director's last name is as he truly engineers a chaotic film in ‘Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever', a deplorable debacle offering nothing but uncomfort and lunacy while one is confined to this poor excuse for cinema. The film's characters are lifted from an unheard video game and the plot is something no will ever hear of because there is none. The film is a poorly choreographed and poorly filmed exhibition of monotonous, action sequences. Now this critic loves a good action rush just as much as the next person, yet, when they are poorly staged and lack meaning, then it is a sin to watch all that money wasted on those explosions when it does not elicit the desired effect. The film stars Lucy Liu who apparently enjoys being typecast as an action vixen; the film also stars the abominable Antonio Banderas who each respectively portray Agent Sever and Agent Ecks. Both are rogue agents with a supposed hidden past but it is poorly brought to life and when it is, it does not mean anything to viewers because nobody cares. Why is this? Because in film school, they teach a course entitled ‘character development'. This film lacks any development be it character, story or authenticity. The film's wafer-thin plot revolves around a young kidnapped child who within him contains a new assassinating mechanism that can from within the victim emit a fatal dose. As contrived and ridiculous as it sounds, one must have no worries, the faint idea of an iota of a plot is hinted within the first ten minutes and then is long forgotten. Large guns and ridiculous one-liners substitute intelligence as our two characters first confront one another, and then as the film's trailer reveals, collaborate in finding and destroying the film's incomprehensible villain. Keep in mind, rampant gunplay and large explosions inhibit the city of Vancouver, Canada where the filming took place and where the film sets itself in. If I may, I have a theory concerning this decision on the film's location. Warner Bros. must have knew what a tepid film this would be and if they knew, what executive in their right mind would permit it? Yet, that is another story for another time. This film could have easily taken place in Los Angeles or New York, as the horrible plot has no real purpose for being in Canada. Yet, they decided to shoot and set the film in Vancouver. As the avid film lover knows, Vancouver is one of the cities dubbed, ‘Hollywood North'. With this in mind, Warners must have decided it was less costly to shoot in Vancouver than in L.A. or some other Urban metropolis and decided to decimate the streets of Vancouver making Canada's beloved Mounties (the equivalent of the U.S.'s F.B.I.) look like pansies. All in the name of saving money on a film the executives knew would not make any.

In any event, realism lacks in ‘Ballistic' as Vancouver's sheets are utterly destroyed and a cat and mouse game ensues as our two heroes battle it out all over the city resulting in a horrible climax set in some underground layer in Agent Sever resides in with an unlimited amount of resources and weaponry. The question remains: who is she, and where did she get all this money? The answer is never revealed. Ray Park (of Star Wars' Darth Maul fame) makes a supporting play in this film and his martial arts talents are wasted as he does not act and does not use his skills in front of the camera. After the buildup for this battle between Agent Sever and Park's character, the audience is treated to a knife fight lasting all but a couple of seconds – phenomenal filmmaking indeed. You have a black belt in Lucy Liu, and a proven Martial Arts Master in Ray Park, and this is what the film can come up with? The rest of the film plays like a hybrid of failed ‘Matrix-like' nostalgia breeding with a Michael Bay wannabe ambition. The only problem - the director does not have the vision of a Michael Bay, nor the skill of the Wachowski Brothers. From the film's very opening when the credits roll; we are catapulted into this film that sets itself up similar to those awful action films of the 1980's. ‘The Matrix' composer Don Davis creates the film's score, but the film opens with some slow rock similar to that of those 80's movies and constantly jumps from rock to tepid techno never complimenting the film's action. The only effect it elicits is a lamentable attitude due to the film's score. Don Davis has certainly done better (look for his score in ‘Bound') yet demotes himself and proves he needs a strong film, for a strong score. Moreover, Director Kaos works with Argentinean Cinematographer Julio Macat who has lensed comedies such as ‘Home Alone 2' and ‘Cats & Dogs', yet he has never photographed a full-fledged action film. And it shows. The framing of the film admonishes at being something it is not and results in a terribly awful film that displays to what extent new talent can be like. The recycling of film is one aspect; anyone can borrow ideas and turn them into their own for a film. Yet, when one lacks ingenuity and relies in borrowing ideas from other action films and fails at plagiarizing these ideas, then there must be a call to action – to never see another film by Thailand Director Kaos again. And while we are at airing our lemons, I have had enough of Antonio Banderas and his bad movies also.

Giancarlo's Rating: *

Feardotcom (2002)

A Cinematic Perversion...

[30 August 2002]

The most memorable aspect of ‘FearDotCom' was the amount of walkouts witnessed during a press screening of the film. Expectations were low regarding the film and Director William Malone had the regrettable ‘House on Haunted Hill' to his credit, yet this film sinks cinema to a new low and begs the question: Why? How can such a perverse and sick tale make it to the silver screen where legends are born and magic is made? This film is both an abortion and a perversion of cinema. If the above sentences seem vented and unprofessional, it is because they are. Cinema is an artistic medium in which professionals aim at conveying a message through film, whether it is a brainless actioneer, or a well made suspense, there always seems to be a purpose. In this instance, if the aim was to disturb, then Director William Malone and his dismal freak of a film have succeeded, yet in an improper and crude manner. Stephen Dorff (Blade) tarnishes his resume by taking on the lead in this quasi-thriller/horror that is not scary – just disturbing. Films such as ‘Seven' and ‘In the Mouth of Madness' were disturbing films but they had a nucleus to them, this film is just a debacle in every sense of the word. It aims at substituting storytelling with dark visuals in an attempt to create mood, when it all creates is an urge to walk out. Dorff plays a New York detective who investigates the deaths of citizens who die exactly 48 hours after logging onto a website of the said film. Written by long time Hollywood producer Moshe Diamant, this deplorable film aims at being something it is not. Malone aims at shooting a film taking a page from the Alex Proyas (The Crow, Dark City) book of filmmaking. He makes every attempt at shooting this film in dark palettes and including thunderous bolts complimenting the rain whenever he can. That might be fine in some films, yet when it is overused and unnecessary, it becomes overtly distracting. Furthermore, although Malone has an innate sense of framing his subjects, he simply uses his characters to take up space in his frame and does not use them to tell a story. Is he to blame? Or is the ludicrous script to be fingered? In any event, this is a disturbing and vile film that will be indelibly etched within the viewers mind for how profane of a film it really is. This film does not connect on many levels and while the script has been highlighted, it does not help when you have a second rate cast leading the way. Dorff suffers from a case of wanting to make himself standout cursing every possible second and looking scruffy. While the leading lady Natasha McElhone, dons the unfortunate investigative cap as she plays a Department of Health official sent to investigate these bodies that are appearing all over the city. Suffering from internal hemorrhaging and bleeding noses, these victims appear to all have died from a slow and menacing descent into torturous pains. Yet, they all share that one element, they have all accessed the site. Alas, the only way to resolve this mystery is to enter the site. Up to this point in the film, I contained myself and went on watching and tried to distance myself from the stupidity of the film. But, with every bad film; it just gets worse before getting better. And as the audience slowly dissipated only one hour after the film, I watched as this formulaic and generic piece of film was being projected and I ultimately decided I had had enough.

As our main character was accessing the site and as more sick and vile images were momentarily flashed onto the screen, I knew there no art in this film. Just trash. I refused to be insulted any further and for the first time ever, I left a screening. Up to that point, the first hour demonstrated a weak script, trepid direction and a feel that caused much discomfort. Movies are not supposed to make you feel uncomfortable.

For all you cynics out there, the Fantasia Film Festival is this critic's favorite film festival (too bad it was cancelled this year) and this festival has allowed the true screening of such schlock films as the early Dario Argento films and other twisted films. There is good schlock, and then there is just plain stupidity. This film falls into the latter. Perhaps the Director was aiming for sheer stupidity, if he did, then he succeeded. But the first 60 minutes were regarded as a punishment in my book. I do not know if the author was trying to be a cross between David Fincher and David Cronenberg, trying to be John Carpenter and Clive Barker. What is even scarier is that a great actor such as Stephen Rea has demoted himself in appearing in such a disgusting film. Granted, the whole film was not viewed, but I can guarantee no matter how great a climax, it could not have redeemed this disastrous waste of celluloid. This is why I have not taken an analytical and academic approach to this as I usually do. It does not deserve it. I heard many within the film questioning whether this was a commentary on how the Internet affects our lives? To them I reply, from what I saw, computers were barely used in the film, that is how much of a commentary they were aiming at.

Giancarlo's rating: N/A

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)

An innocent and sweet-like fable...

[25 August 2002]

Writer-Star Nia Vardalos has been a relatively quiet actress for quite some time. She has made some appearances in notable television shows such as ‘The Drew Carey Show' and ‘Boy Meets World'. Her acting in film has been limited to low budget films and she had never up to this point been able to captivate an audience and raise her stock – until now.

‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding' is an interesting little film containing some fun ethnocentric humor making it hard to turn away from. While it might not be the most sophisticated piece of film to come our way, this film tells a story and that is the sole focus of the film. Director Joel Zwick's first foray into cinema proves successful holistically due to Vardalos' witty and relevant script. The film at times seem played out in the tradition of a long television show and contains many bits of sitcom-esque gags that do not quite work on the big screen, but as a whole, this film works and is pulled by the authentic performance of Nia Vardalos. Vardalos stars as Fortoula Portokalos, a thirty something single woman working in her constrictive father's restaurant. As the days pass, she becomes restless and aspires for something more than waiting tables. And so begins the journey of our character as she enrolls in college, undergoes a major transformation and finds employment in her aunt's travel agency. Thus allowing her exposure to the real world and enabling her to meet the man of her dreams. The only problem with this man is – he is not of Greek origin. The film conveys the importance of her mate being Greek and shows the family in complete disarray upon her announcement of the couple. It is made clear by the man of the house, Toula's father; Gus Portokalos, played with warmth and stubbornness by Michael Constantine, those non-Greek are not welcome. One needed improvement was the sitcom-esque running gag for a period within the film when Toula's father would bring home a prospective candidate for her love. Of course, they were all Greek, yet they did not have that quality Toula wanted. Although the scenes were barely seconds in length, so much more could have been done to give this transition in the film some depth and longevity, instead, we are suckered into a cheap laugh merely upon their appearance and the film cuts back to Toula and her love interest in love once again against all wishes. John Corbett plays the all American boy; Ian Miller, and finally gets a chance to show Hollywood he has a hint of leading man status, but that trait is quickly brushed off as the focal point of the film is Toula's character. The entrance of the WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) character; Ian Miller, permits some comical scenes in which the respective families are compared for their celebrations, their ideologies and their food.

Despite the flaws mentioned, it is still a worthy watch simply for the at times exaggerated actions of the family members. Being a Canadian of strong Italian Origin, I found myself relating to the cookouts, the overwhelmingly large families and the togetherness that stands at the heart of this innocent film. While it might not be the most clinical film made, Vardalos' script is what drives this film. As easily as it was able to captivate Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson to produce the film, it will captivate your attention for its' duration in an innocent and fantasy-like way.

Giancarlo's Rating: **1/2 (out of 4)

Blood Work (2002)

Eastwood is the Anti-Dirty Harry in this elegant and classy thriller...

[8 August 2002]

While it might not be the most stylish or fast paced manhunt thriller, Clint Eastwood's 'Blood Work' is still a very enjoyable piece of film. Stylish in its' own manner, this drama returns to the yesteryears of filmmaking and displays Eastwood's talent as an accomplished Director. Today's cinema heavily relies on nifty editing effects and fast paced dialogue to retain the interest of the impatient audience, yet Eastwood gives us a refreshing and simplistic tale revolving around the resolution of various dastardly murders.

Eastwood stars and directs in this manhunt thriller that still manages to retain the intriguing effect in a film in which the characters; not actions, drive the film. Based on the novel by Michael Connelly, Brian Helgeland (A Knight's Tale, Payback) transforms the novel into a great script. In this film, Eastwood plays the anti-Dirty Harry in typical Eastwood fashion as he is thrust back onto the case of a vicious serial killer two years after retirement.

As FBI Agent Terry McCaleb, he is forced off the case after suffering from a near fatal heart attack. Two years after, he is given a new heart and through a freak occurrence with the donor's heart, he is forced back onto the case allowing for an interesting cat and mouse chase.

Eastwood has his imprints all over the film as he sticks with Musical composer Lennie Niehaus for his film once again. Niehaus' sporadic and rare musical additions are usually jazz based and open the film in an elegant manner instead of the usual commercialist propaganda that is not needed when opening a film of this nature.

Instead, Eastwood treats us to a good old-fashioned hunt in which the mystery slowly unravels in front of the viewer allowing for only the clues to be deciphered. The plot is seemingly eerie and for some reason reminded me of Screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker's work (Sleepy Hollow, Seven) for how deliciously evil and calculated the motives for the crimes are. As a true professional, Eastwood lays low on the violence and while there are only a handful of action scenes, the tension builds as the clues become available and the audience begins to piece the puzzle together.

The ingenious script calls for some sold acting and the casting is excellent as Eastwood calls upon Angelica Huston as his perseverant Doctor and Jeff Daniels who at first seems to be only present for comic relief but has a surprisingly more important and unexpected role. Wanda De Jesus and Tina Lifford are also excellent as they round out the important cast members who all play a giant role in the serial killer's meticulous and mischievous plot.

As aforementioned, while it might not elicit the suspense thrills one would find in the Eastwood - Wolfgang Petersen collaboration 'In the Line of Fire', the film still is a well-crafted and engineered film that calls for attention. Yet, one point of contention is a love relationship that happens in the film. True: Eastwood is a legend and could do whatever he wants with his films, but somehow seeing a man his age hook up with a younger woman under those circumstances seemed to yell out 'insanity'. Perhaps to others it fit the film, but in this particular context, it seemed trivial and contrived and can make many wonder if Eastwood simply puts those scenes in to make himself appear to be the epitome of masculinity. In any event, it was a treat to see a 'back-to-basics' thriller that pays off at the end and avoids the formulaic clichés usually attached to these projects.

Giancarlo's Rating: **1/2

Signs (2002)

An unexpected fright-fest with intelligence...

[2 August 2002]

The Supernatural seems to be a strongpoint for Director M. Night Shymalan. His last three films have all built themselves upon a fixation with the unexplained. In ‘The Sixth Sense', he redefined the suspense genre with a perverse and surreal tale about immortality. In his second recognized venture, he returned with Bruce Willis and grappled with the concept of immortality once more. The Master Craftsman now teams with Mel Gibson as he creates his most thought provoking, frightful, suspenseful and intriguing tale yet. ‘Signs' has had the marketing vehicle from Touchstone Pictures selling the image of crop circles. Yet, those who have seen the film know the double meaning of the title of this ingenious and surprisingly scary film. If one were to watch the film, the focus should not be on getting scared, but it would be to experience cinema in its' greatest form, in its' greatest genre – through a suspense film that is actually suspenseful.

While watching the film, if one were to immerse themselves in this gem, the frights will come naturally. The origin of those frights will remain undisclosed; no spoilers will be given because it would be a sin to reveal the nature of this intricate and well-engineered piece of film. What can be said is a suggestion: have none of your friends advise you what it is about, or what it contains in terms of plot spoilers, for the effect will be lost.

What won't be lost is the viewer's memory of this movie, as it will be indelibly etched in the viewer's mind after experiencing this phenomenal piece. Mel Gibson stars as Reverend Graham Hess, a distraught man who begins to question his faith, even more than he already has, after unexplainable crop circles appear in his crops. Out in rural Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Gibson is the man of the house as his brother (the always astounding Joaquin Phoenix) Merrill Hess, lives with him and the Reverend's two young children. After paranoia soon turns into reality about the origin of the crop circles, the tension escalates as Shymalan brings us into an absolutely surreal journey with the supernatural (or is it?).

The film opens with long lost composer James Newton Howard's instrumental and influential score as the credits appear in a simplistic yet effective manner. A subtle gray/blue tint serves as the background for credits seemingly in a rich Majestic font and as the credits progress, so does the tension. The music quickens, the credits roll at a quicker pace and the viewer is catapulted into a truly memorable film experience. A difficult challenge would be to have a social discourse on the film's flaws. This is truly an amalgamation of all elements great and results in a very satisfying film about the supernatural, and our fears. Shymalan introduces us to the supernatural in an elegant and frightful manner as he takes a page from the Hitchcock school of filmmaking in terms of the antagonistic viewpoint – ‘less is more'. The sporadic sightings of the supernatural elements in the film will make one quiver and will make one wonder if they truly are just supernatural, or something so complex in which no one has the answer to. Shymalan pulls no punches as his well-written script has our central characters all with a story to tell. These characters are flawed and are not the most functional family members, yet when the tension escalates, (as in the boarded up basement scene right before the film's climax), they watch out for one another. The emphasis of the film though, is not on family. Shymalan uses the family analogy to allude to the underpinnings of the film's nucleus, which is faith; faith in a higher deity or a higher being, whatever one's belief may be. But the film's focal point (besides producing some powerful frights) is to have the viewer grapple with faith and morality. The film does a fantastic job at providing situations in which the viewer can place himself or herself in. What would you do if you knew it was the end of the world? Or, would you let your child die simply because you were too scared to go back upstairs and retrieve the child's medicine? These debates may not be welcome by many, but these situations do allude to some of the monstrous decisions undertaken by the Reverend and his family. The emotions conveyed are a direct result of the incredible acting brought forward under Shymalan's direction. Shymalan himself takes another nod at acting in his own film as he did in ‘Unbreakable' and once again follows in the steps of Master Hitchcock. He plays an integral role in the film's progression and his character is able to capture one of the unexplainable phenomena resulting for a heart-stopping scene in which the whole theatre will have their hearts in their throats at a moment. Shymalan has truly delivered a worthy piece of film and while it will be a commercial blockbuster, containing some traits of a commercial film, it really has so much more. In its' detail, Shymalan employs Cinematographer Tak Fujimoto who worked with Shymalan on ‘The Sixth Sense'. Even thought the film is centrally set in rural areas, the images within the film tell so many stories. This is a trait of a great film, and once seeing the film, there will be many more stories to tell.

Giancarlo's Rating: ***1/2

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

A dismal third attempt at recreating a shagadelic atmosphere...

[8/10 · 25 July 2002]

The best joke in the latest Austin Powers Film comes at the very end when our perrenial villain, Fat Bastard, compares his new look to a women's organ.The third and seemingly last of the Austin Powers films (we will get to that later); Austin Powers in Goldmember, is a disappointing finale if the trilogy does come to an end. This movie is susceptible to what I like to call, 'bowtie endings' in which all the characters are happy, everything falls into place and the masses are pleased with no clear cut solution. Pity, just when I thought the film would bring closure to a great little idea, it falters at a tremendous rate. This being said, please allow me the admittance of describing the feeling for such harsh opening remarks for the third installment of a once venerable franchise. The first Austin Powers film was a little gem. That film literally came out of nowhere and gained its' following on video cassette after a paltry box office. Upon the sequel, the same feel and excitement was elevated after the creative team knew they had to come up something fresh, and they did. For those who follow the films, the tone was set in the second film after a great opening sequence displayed the many abuses the male genitalia can undergo. In the third installment, all the energy runs dry after a hilarious cameo packed action sequence sets the running gag for the 'film within a film' concept. Once we are pleasantly surprised by whom Mike Myers and the rest of the team can assemble for cameo appearances, we are thwarted into vintage Austin Powers territory as the musical introductory sequence occurs. Unfortunately, not all the cameos in the world could save a deplorable and uncreative musical sequence that sets the tone for a heavily choreographed, mildly funny film that solemnly brings closure to the franchise.

Mike Myers returns as the heroic Austin Powers, he also returns as the villainous Dr. Evil and the evil henchman Fat Bastard. Amidst all the characters, the creators have decided to throw in another character who is supposed to be from Holland, yet has a freakishly accent reminiscent of New Jersey. The aptly named Goldmember has an affinity for all things gold, and he is supposed to be the driving force behind the evil schemes, yet his character is completetly futile in terms of plot development and those who saw the film, know there isn't even any closure to this character. The question arises - Will there be another Austin Powers film? If it is as recycled as this film was, many will take a pass at it. Some may be asking by this point, why so harsh? It is very simple. Avid fans who have come to know and love the immortal Austin Powers character know the man behind the character; Mike Myers, is a very talented and creative man. Insiders have always claimed many of the intuitive ideas were spawned from Myers and his thorough involvement within the script contributed to the success of the two films. Alas, this cannot be said for the third As aforementioned, from the musical introductory sequence, a morbid feeling came rushing over me as if to say, 'have they already used up all their ideas?'. Yes they have. Director Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Austin Powers) returns to helm the third installment in what proves to be a disappointing foray into comedy. Roach tries his best at simply running the camera as many of the skits seem to be strictly improvised grounded in about a couple of sentences of script. The key word is skit. This film lacks cohesiveness due to a complete omission of plot. The film mentions something about kidnapping Austin Powers' father (Sir Micheal Caine) and having Goldmember destroy the world. The gags have all been done before and this time, the audience is laughing at recycled elements from the first two films thrown into a pot. This film is like a best of gag reel and amalgamates all the best elements of the first two films and brings them together. It is simply a running skit of gags that in terms of story, do not contribute to one another. Remember the shadow scene from the second film, it is here. Remember the rivalry between Dr. Evil and his son Scott, it is here too. Remember the sequence where they get around saying a graphic word by alluding to it by spotting things in the sky (a la 'Hot Dog' skit in the second film), it is here also.

Spunk and creativity are lacking as the film takes on an uncomfortable tone of dismal classiness. The first two were funny, raunchy and wholesome films. This film will guarantee you many laughs, but when the film is over, one will be asking themselves what they were laughing about. It is that exact mindlessness that works against the film. So many times there were scenes that did not elicit laughs from the audience, yet they were still included in the final cut. A lot of little 'bits' in the film did not work, it seemed like a bad high school variety show at some points, but they were still in the film. It is inexplicable when there are uncomfortable pauses within in a comedy, something is incorrect. Adding to the demise of the film is Beyonce Knowles. A singer who makes her acting debut as Foxxy Cleopatra. A Hybrid of Shaft and Jackie Brown all rolled into one. Her character is endlessly annoying and is simply present to prompt awareness about Austin's biracial preferences. In any event, the film will elicit many laughs merely due to the immaturity of the jokes and the recycled cliches brought together. Will it leave the viewer with a dire need to watch it again as in the first two films, sadly no. This time, Austin is not shagadelic.

Giancarlo's Rating: **

Road to Perdition (2002)

A truly authentic and astounding piece of film...

[8/10 · 12 July 2002]

The basis which great film thrives upon are the characters. In his sophomore effort, Director Sam Mendes (American Beauty) once again takes his stage background and fuses fantastic character development with audacious storytelling. Road to Perdition stars a phenomenal cast which provides the basis for one of the best films of the year. From its' sleek directing, to its' riveting central conflict between son and father, this film must be screened more than once in order to truly appreciate the authentic and masterful product that has been engineered. Tom Hanks continues to follow in the paths of the other famous Tom, as he also amazes in his selection of roles. Opting for a flawed and merciless character, Hanks portrays Mike Sullivan; a hitman under employment of the venerable Paul Newman. Newman plays Irish Mob Gangster Paul Rooney, a ruthless and seemingly timid character who controls all, as demonstrated in the opening wake sequence. Set in the Depression-era 30's, the setting completes this taut tale of vengeance and loyalty as Mike Sullivan must protect his junior when he gives into his curiosity and discovers what his father does for a living. The bonds of loyalty and family are despaired as those friends one considered family, are in actuality their killers. After a regrettable series of events, Michael Sullivan is forced to protect his son from those same people he worked for in fear of the young one divulging the information witnessed, thus compromising the whole organization. Director Sam Mendes proves with this very film that his previous effort, American Beauty, was not a stroke of luck. Based upon a graphic novel written by Max Allen Collins and Richard Piers Rayner, David Self's script based on the graphic novel allows Mendes to lift the imagery and visuals instilled within that novel. The subtle brilliance of the film resides in the aesthetic aspect, it has been quite some time since the concepts of style and substance may be both equally and positively discussed within the same film. The film's style is a surreal scope of visceral beauty. Mendes once again teams with Cinematographer Conrad L. Hall in order to lens this magnificent looking film. From the streaming bead of raindrops to the lush oceanic view, to the ambience captured in front of the lens, this film contains a myriad of memorable sequences (One such sequence is the Tommy-gun in the rain sequence) attributable duly to the visual stylings of Conrad L. Hall and the vision of Sam Mendes. Mendes also succeeds in the plot department. One of my biggest fears before entering the film would be to discover how much content can be extrapolated from a graphic novel. The film's nucleus is not on the notion of gangsterism, but on the notion of familial ties and loyalty. From the film's opening, we notice the salty relationship between the young Sullivan and his senior, as the film progresses, we see a certain sense of preference from one son to another as Hanks invites affection from one child and not from the other. Yet, throughout the tumultuous and stricken-riddled times, under pressure, a relationship forms between father and son as they escape danger and form an actual bond based on emotion and not one of a sanguinal affiliation. The debate of style over substance can be put to rest because this film has many of the prerequisites that are needed to create a truly great piece of film. As aforementioned, one of the traits was the acting. The film's focal point is the father and son relationship witnessed through a triadic loop. Allegiances and blood are witnessed as three different sets of father – son relationships are jeopardized. As Sullivan is protecting his son, Newman's character is also protecting his, and while all this transpires, the bond that Hanks and Newman's characters possessed is also put to the test. Paul Newman does an absolute astounding piece of character incarnation with his brief albeit imperative role. Yet, audience members will retain the devilish snare of Jude Law's hired assassin role as Law tears into his cunning character's portrayal. It would be criminal to exclude Stanley Tucci's role as Frank NItti, Al Capone's right hand man. Finally, Tyler Doelich is brute and compliments the ongoing relationship between himself and Hanks as this young actor holds his own against the remarkable Tom Hanks. The film in essence is an audacious piece of cinema not because it is a gangster film, but because it is a piece about the relationships in our lives that were not held dear to us, and upon second chance, given the opportunity, we can resuscitate those failed relationships. If we look at the greatest gangster films made such as Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather I, or Martin Scorcese's Goodfellas, these films were great not because of their torrid love affair with gangsterism, but because it explored the trivial relationships normal society could have never understood and put them on a template. Loyalties and bonds can be easily decimated, and in this film, the relationships examined are two fold. One of which is the fascination within a crime family and its' many drawbacks, but secondly and most important of all, it is about the emotional toll it may take upon the members of these organizations. Jennifer Jason Leigh portrays Sullivan's wife and within the limited amount of time we see the pair together, the scenes allude to an impersonal and fabricated relationship. With the demands of ‘evening assignments' for the Man of the house, relationships are not sincere and dependence more than romance seems to be the centerpiece of the relationship. Mendes will reap the benefits of this film for a long time. His vision and manipulation of the 30's crime era has resulted in a sleek, authentic and masterful film that requires full appreciation for the amalgamation of all the requirements that make cinema the art medium that it is.

Giancarlo's Rating: ***1/2

Not Another Teen Movie (2001)

Yes, another bad teen movie...

[5 July 2002]

What can one possibly expect from a film writhed with crude, sexual and perverse humor? The answer to that lies in one's expectations, yet there are certain limits to how far a film can go in terms of the aforementioned traits. Not Another Teen Movie starts off as a quasi-intelligent spoof of all the classic 80's films that paved the way for the movies of today. The film spares no expense at incorporating the iconic names of 80's film. From John Hughes High School, to the Anthony Michael Dining Hall, those intelligent elements wear off fast after one becomes accustomed to the tone of the film. From the opening sequence of a young teenager pleasing themselves, a viewer knows exactly what they are in for. The childish and immature toilet humour may elicit a few laughs, but it wears thin by the 30 minute mark. The cast of relative newcomers have all had prior roles yet never seem to be fully comfortable with the filth that is transpiring on screen. While the movie did seem to be actually spoofing other films of the same vein and having a successful go at it, it all disappears as sex, lust and gross-out humour are at the forefront of this ridiculous little film.

Films such as Scary Movie 2 can not but be compared to because they are the same type of film. Yet, what Scary Movie 2 had was the intellect to understand itself and never take itself seriously. It knew it was a dumb film with no chance of having respect from the media and simply delivered one silly laugh after the other. Yet, with Not Another teen Movie, it actually does take itself seriously and seems confused between being a send up of 80's films or the benevolent idiocy of present day toilet films. Furthermore, if it wants to be a send up of 80's films, why are all the classic 80's tunes remade into grunge tunes? All will have their own interpretation of the film and many will be appeased by the perverse humour, personally, as aforementioned – it wears thin fast. Unfortunately, this film has to be classified under one of those ‘seen the trailer – you've seen it all' flicks. The gags suitable for the general public are all crammed into the trailer while the more immature smut is reserved for the paying audience. From racist ideology to elders swapping saliva with young adults, this film will offend and besmirch many individuals. Many of which will say they had a laugh, but their lives were not made better for it.

Giancarlo's Rating: *1/2

Rollerball (2002)

An uncohesive piece of drudgery...

[5 July 2002]

Somewhere deep inside John McTiernan's ‘supposed' action fest is a tepid social commentary on the direction in which the line between sports and entertainment are intersecting. Rollerball is at best a hybrid of social commentary sprinkled with some of the worst acting, scripting, directing seen on the silver screen in a long time. Director John McTiernan has been in a slump over the past decade with the engineering of many mediocre films. Starting with Last Action Hero back in 1993, excluding Die Hard: With a Vengeance, and The Thomas Crown Affair (which really wasn't McTiernan's forte) this Director has not been consistent with his filmmaking. Therefore, skepticism was high upon screening this film. I have always admired this Director for his previous efforts and he always seems to hatch something new, yet in this film, it sinks to a new low. The film commences with its' hard rock and fervent editing in hopes of imparting upon the audience the dizzying effect this film wants to emit. Unfortunately, its' grand production values and mock storytelling cannot hide the fact that this is a poorly made film. Chris Klein stars as a young athlete unable to make a name for himself in North America Professional Sport. On a suggestion from his best friend Marcus (LL Cool J), he joins an overseas Sports Entertainment Empire called Rollerball. This mix of fast paced drudgery and furious speed leads to serious ramifications which question the integrity of the sport. Jean Reno plays Petrovich, an entrepreneur who decides to sell the sport as the most violent and fast piece of entertainment in order to land a contract with the North American market. Operating in remote and hostile countries in the Middle East, Petrovich wants to take the sport International and slowly escalates the game's danger in hopes of attracting ratings. Jean Reno does his worst to bring no class and no charisma to this awkward character while Chris Klein is just deplorable as even his beard seems painted on for how young he is to play the lead in this kind of film. McTiernan does his best to capture the ferocity of such a sport but fails horrible in what is the most taxing 90 minutes for a film. I can respect the fact that the film is not as visually a debacle as it could have been, nor is it as bad as I thought it would be –but it still is a bad film. One can simply take a look at any 10 minutes of the film and derive their own assumptions about the film; the elements that make a film a film are lacking in this piece. The only noteworthy and experimental aspect would be a scene of several minutes duration in which McTiernan lenses the scene with a NightVision Lens (Those green, grainy images) in order to evoke a feeling of compete and utter darkness. But that soon gives way to a mockery of a scene as all reality and excitement is washed away with some of the worst filmmaking in a long time.

Giancarlo's rating: * 1/2

Men in Black II (2002)

A piece of entertainment created through the art of recycling...

[4 July 2002]

Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones return in a mindless sequel that fares no better or no worse than the original. ‘Men in Black 2' is a repackaging of all the elements the first had and makes no attempt at a creative excursion. Sure, we discover we have some new aliens on earth (Oprah Winfrey) and we see some new gadgets, but nothing seems inventive in this Summer Sequel that will definitely attract the masses and disappoint the discerning viewers. Set in present day New York, the Men in Black are comfortably monitoring the extra terrestrial activity on earth when a new threat must be dealt with. Will Smith reprises his role as Agent J, the resilient and courageous Agent who was recruited in the first film by Tommy Lee Jones's character Agent K. In this installment, after being voided of his memories of the MIB, Agent K must be recruited by his old partner as only he knows the secret at stopping this new hybrid of evil – a voluptuous Lara Flynn Boyle. Boyle attempts at personifying evil but many will not be able to get past her black bra and full red lips as she portrays Serleena, a ravenous extra terrestrial hell bent on destroying the Men in Black. As one may expect, the plot is wafer – thin. The first indicative of a mediocre film is the running time. Director Barry Sonnenfeld seemed content to deliver a mediocre and thinly paced film that was barely 90 minutes long. Sonnenfeld took the exact same style and production values from the first and does not impress at all in this installment. This can be seen from the opening credits as the mosaic like credits seen in the first open the film along with the film's score. Even Danny Elfman's musical stylings do not seem at their norm as he tries his best to compliment the weak pace of the film. At just about 90 minutes, this would call for a fast paced film. Those who have seen the first film will easily become accustomed to this film's exact mirroring of the plot development. Scripted by Robert Gordon, the writer of this installment seems to have taken a page from the first film's writer Ed Solomon. The first film had Jones' character recruiting Smith's character; as aforementioned, the second has the exact opposite occurring. Set in a surreal and awkward New York, the film wastes no time introducing us to the weird and at times comedic aliens that inhabit the earth. From talking dogs to talking worms, to 200 foot aliens that reside in New York's subway tracks, Sonnenfeld wants to capture that same inventiveness and fails as we are treated to a film developed through the art of recycling.

The film impressively does not rely on special effects to dictate the story. Sonnenfled just uses them at the end to kill off a decent time at the movies with an overkill of stupidity. The film attempts at working on underdeveloped and uncaring characters as they are supposed to be the focal point of the film. Yet, they seem to be the laughing stock of the film as these are just about the most one-dimensional characters you will ever see. Smith and Jones seem to have a great rapport and are the film's only fun factor. Yet, romance sparks in the unlikeliest of places as love at first sight is experienced in this film foreshadowing a ridiculous and altruistic climax. The film's formula is simple: explain the threat, recruit Agent K, have fun with attempting to retrieve the memories Agent K had in order to save humanity, and roll the credits. In a nutshell, that is it. How fun can a movie like this be? Not that fun. The meat of the movie is in the middle section and surprisingly does not rely on aliens, it is between the interplay Smith and Jones have as they engage in some character clashing.

Smith takes control of the film's opening as he showcases his character's bitterness towards loneliness in the employment. As a result, he falls for the girl in the crime scene (Rosario Dawson) who turns out to be much more important than she seems to be. Facing a threat; under strict orders from the returning Agent Z (Rip Torn); he is assigned to recruit Agent K and retrieve his memories. Sonnenfeld's direction is lackluster and makes it seem as if he knows how to direct a film ‘like the back of his hand'. This is stated due to the blatant lack of originality viewed resulting in this writer to think Sonnenfeld is better than any other Director. There is no effort seen on screen – not a good thing.

Still, the movie turns out to be not as bad as it could have been. Despite the flawed script, flawed characters and flawed directing, the film does retain a sense of fantasy that serves its' purpose. Smith's acting is average as he must act alongside a smile- less Jones as he tries his best not to crack a smile for his tough guy persona to play out for the story. In this review, references were constantly being made to the first film because if you have seen the first film, you have seen it all. A promising first 60 minutes fizzles out into an overblown, fabricated and corny climax that will leave audience members screaming for mercy. Without saying too much, romance has no part in science fiction/fantasy film, furthermore, using it as am apparatus to make the ‘wussies' in the audience sulk is insulting.

The worst part of the film is that it makes no attempt at trying to outdo itself. It is clear that Sonnenfeld and company decided to play it safe with this installment and did not even attempt to deliver the world an interesting piece of entertainment. Instead, we are treated to a film that is no better of no worse than the original.

Giancarlo's Rating: **

Mr. Deeds (2002)

A wretched piece of entertainment...

[25 June 2002]

The biggest flaw with Adam Sandler's latest film 'Mr. Deeds' is the romance factor. That being said, the film is a romantic comedy in its' purest form and that really does not leave much to the forethought of the rest of this critique. Sandler might leave the directing duties to his colleagues, but this film has all the imprints of a Sandler flick. Director Steven Brill (Little Nicky, Heavyweights) might have his name attached as Director, but Sandler's musical touches, the gross out gags and the toilet humor are pervasive in this film that rots as it progresses even more so than Sandler's 'Little Nicky' debacle. Based on the Frank Capra film 'Mr. Deeds Goes to Town', this film taints that classic by mere association due to its' horrendous direction, lackluster script and pathetic clichéd values. Sandler assembles the whole gang and fans will be able to spot the regulars he assembles for his films, yet the laughs elicited are due in part to the stupidity and ludicrousness this film emits. From Sandler's first foray into cinema, Sandler could have always made you walk out of the theatre with a laugh. Even with the deplorable 'Little Nicky' you still respected him for making you laugh, even if it was in the most ridiculous context ever. Yet, with this film, Sandler seems to have driven a terrible nail in his coffin as studios will balk at his weak product. The script is based upon Robert Riskin's script for Capra's film, but the differences are rampant. Set in present day, our Mr. Deeds (Sandler) inherits his Great Uncle's 40$ Billion Multimedia Empire. Forced into a brief stay in New York City to sign the legal papers, he becomes enchanted by a Reporter (Winona Ryder) who is posing as a school nurse to obtain the inside scoop for her tabloid television show. I do not know what is more embarrassing for Winona Ryder, getting caught shoplifting or having this film as the pedestal for her comeback. Her weakly detailed character has no background and is at the center of a thinly layered script in which the dialogue is even worse than that of George Lucas' last picture. As for Sandler, empathy is shared with him for he seems sorry for himself starring in this weak, recursive and studio driven film that seems to want to insult us and destroy Sandler's career with this miserable piece. The zest and the charisma Sandler displayed in 'Big Daddy' and 'Happy Gilmore' seems to be lost. In this film, Sandler portrays a well-grounded and down to earth small town man who does not care for money. Hollywood Insiders have said the same for Sandler, yet after screening this film, I wonder what makes him select his pieces. Is it his heart, or his wallet? This film does not contain one frame of worthiness, which is a shame considering Sandler has actors like John Turturro and Steve Buscemi in the film. The only thing I kept thinking to myself were these actors' respective portrayals in the Coen Brothers' classic 'The Big Lebowski'. I also thought to myself, how can they go from there to here? While this critique is jagged and does not shy away from criticizing the film, it must be noted that expectations were low before entering the film. Sandler is in a downward spiral and we all know it. Yet, even while 'Little Nicky' was horrible, it still made you smile. This film tears away at the seams for how poorly assembled it is made. Even Sandler's choice of music is weak as compared to his other films. The majority of romantic comedies are bad films, even 'Big Daddy' had a romantic undertone but that film handled it well. In this film, we are propelled into an unrealistic and morbid love affair between two characters we could not care less about. When screening a film and the feeling of pleasure suddenly turns into a chore, something is wrong. That can be applied to Sandler's career right now. He has lost a loyal fan with this terrible display of cinema and has tainted a Hollywood classic. What is next for Sandler? Honestly, who cares!

Giancarlo's Rating: *

Minority Report (2002)

A sophisticated cerebral thriller...

[21 June 2002]

It is rare when Hollywood films employ analytical thinking as a prerequisite for the complete admiration of a film. Cameron Crowe's Vanilla Sky succeeded in boggling the viewer with a quasi-masterpiece of storytelling (watch for Cameron Crowe's cameo here as he returns the favor for Spielberg's cameo in Vanilla Sky), and Spielberg's last film A.I. served as a melting pot for ethical and moralistic issues. In Minority Report, Spielberg is at it again brewing up another set of moralistic dilemmas that will have many conversing after the film. Tom Cruise headlines and adds another fantastic commercial piece to his portfolio that will be highly regarded among film fanatics. He portrays John Anderton, a Pre-Crime Officer whose responsibility is to arrest individuals before they commit a crime. Set in 2045, this experimental crime stopping division based in Washington, follows the visions of three gifted individuals known as the ‘Pre-Cogs'. They foresee the future and cause this special unit to capture the individuals who will commit these heinous crimes, before they happen. Before going national, this experiment needs the approval of the Federal Government and this opens the door for the film's villain (or is he?) Colin Farrell who elegantly portrays Detective Ed Witmer. While the scenes between Anderton and Witmer are scarce, when they occur, they are explosive. This is due to Spielberg's spell-binding and intoxicating direction. He sets up the pins and knocks them down in this crafty, sophisticated and cerebral thriller. How does one know Spielberg is masterful? The answer is very simple. It has happened on several instances that Directors who set their films in the future tend to get distracted by the setting and deter the film from storytelling because they are so fixated on wowing the audience with the futuristic sets and gadgets. Spielberg has experience, he is witty and he is the Master of Modern Day Cinema.

Spielberg does not allow himself to become distracted by the setting and simply uses the future as the focal point for the setting, and not the focal point for the film. Based on Phillip K. Dick's short story, Spielberg makes intelligent use of the futuristic gadgets and all the possibilities the future can offer us, but this cerebral film enables the setting to become part of the film and not the film itself. The special effects aid in the amalgamation of story and setting as the viewer will be entranced and enchanted with the craft and expertise Spielberg has instilled within this film. The film opens with a direct explanation on how the system works and makes no secret that this supposed highly sophisticated system does indeed have setbacks. From the immediate opening, the viewer is immersed in a feeling like no other as Spielberg and company pull no punches with this cerebral cinematic experience. From the glossy silver color palette of the film, to John Williams' subtle yet conducive score, this film is a testament to the soup of talent assembled for this film resulting in a memorable summer blockbuster. Spielberg's visually stunning film is rich in aesthetic and emotion as well. The performances drive this film to a somewhat typical Hollywood sell-out ending, but the manner in which it is engineered is sheer pleasure. At times formulaic and even predictable, these are minor elements that should not take away from the film's pleasure. As aforementioned, total concentration and immersion is a prerequisite to follow the fast paced script and lively action that accompanies it. One should not mistake this film for a sci-fi actioneer. While the film does contain some clichéd and overdramatic action sequences such as an overabundance of rocket-packing cops crashing through ceilings, the film is a thriller in its' purest form set against the backdrop of a futuristic crime-free society. Instead of demoting his film to action status with overtly orchestrated action sequences and heart pounding scores, Spielberg allows the action scenes to take a back seat to his dissertation on morality and ethics. The film raises some ethical issues and it seems as if Spielberg intentionally wants to scratch at the surface of these vast and confounding issues. It leaves one to wonder, is this technology a possibility? Would it be ethical to arrest someone based solely on the vision of ‘pre-cogs' ? Is there room for error? All these answers and many more arise out of this great film that sees Spielberg assembling another fantastic supporting cast. From Max Von Sydow as Director Burgess, to Samantha Morton as one of the Pre-Cogs to even Tim Blake Nelson (O Brother, Where Art Thou?). This film makes a groundbreaking mark in conception and originality and Spielberg as the captain of this film drives the performances home. Great performances reflect a great director; suffice it to say that this film succeeds on every level of cinema due in full recognition to the ambitious and masterful Steven Spielberg.

Giancarlo's Rating: ***1/2

Scooby-Doo (2002)

Scooby-Doo, Scooby SUCKS...

[20 June 2002]

There are many distasteful scenes in ‘Scooby-Doo' one of which is a scene based on laughless flatulence. That being said, the most atrocious element of the film is the flagrant script that seemed to have been written within a few hours. Director Raja Gosnell (Big Momma's House, Never Been Kissed) has nothing to work with in this truly deplorable film that leaves one wondering: Why is Hollywood churning out such unoriginal garbage?

Freddie Prinze, Jr., Sarah Michelle Gellar and Matthew Lillard highlight this ‘teeny-bopper' flick that uses every possible second to sneak in a song from the soundtrack and utterly wastes our time in this poor display of cinematic ingenuity. The decision to go with a computer animated Scooby Doo character was a costly one, and perhaps even the right one. But lackluster storytelling combined with atrocious scripting results in a truly uncomforting movie going experience. Clearly aimed at a target audience of children, the film will surely make the little ones bask in such a costly and eye-popping experience, but the overall feel of the film is that not even the children will stay put for the film's short running time. The creators of this film seem to think that children are naïve and unimpressionable. Yet the only impression children will receive is a feeling of complete disintegration of the Scooby Doo character. All our characters from Velma (Linda Cardellini) to Shaggy (Matthew Lillard) appear in this debacle of a film. As every great team has their triumphs and tribulations, so do the members of Mystery, Inc. After a two year hiatus, the gang returns to solve a mystery on the reclusive resort of Spooky Island. Owned by the eccentric Mondavarious (Rowan Atkinson), he hires the team to solve the gradual behaviorist changes noticed in the young party going clientele on the resort. Special effects as well as grandiose sets are rampant in this reported 63$ Million production, yet I would trade all that in for a script that made one single solitary ounce of sense. The film is quickly paced and leaves no room for the digestion of the devastatingly horrible film which eats away at your existence. The film opens up with the climax that every Scooby Doo cartoon had. The mystery is solved, the bad guy is caught and the gang celebrates. From the opening of the film, it is clear Director Raja Gosnell aims at capturing the campiness and the goofiness that was atypical within the cartoon series. Not to mention, the first act makes little effort at masking Shaggy liking for; shall we say, exotic tastes. The subtle marijuana references are plentiful and do provide for a good chuckle or two, but that is where it stops. The film attempts at capturing the innocence and exuberance as viewed in the series but fails on every level. The first act has a healthy dose of adventure and comedy, yet by the second act the elements become recycled and clichéd resulting in a truly unfitting experience. Some ideas are simply best left alone. Scooby Doo was one of them.

Giancarlo's Rating: * 1/2