Intro to the Site

Posted on July 1, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Welcome to Cinematter! This is the part of the site where I explain a bit about its purpose, and ramble on and on about myself.

The Origin of the Site

If you want a full history of the site, click here. I started the site in July 1995 under the title Shreck’s Cinema. It started as just a test project. I was seeing lots and lots of movies, and was interested in learning HTML, so I decided to merge the two interests.

I had been keeping track of all the movies I had ever seen in a database as a part time hobby, with ratings of 1-10. I decided to post the most recent results on the site, so (in one day) I quickly whipped up 60 or so short summary reviews for the movies I had seen so far in 1995, and I posted them all on one rather long page which became the first Shreck’s Cinema. No graphics, just one HTML page.

Why Shreck’s Cinema? Well, in honor of Max Shreck? Who is Max Shreck you ask? Why, he was the actor (under a pseudonym) who portrayed the original Nosferatu. Suffice it to say I chose the name as a homage, but it didn’t describe the site very well, and hence the name changed…

The first page worked well, so I decided to branch out. Another project I worked on in my spare time was to collect information on upcoming movies. I always enjoy getting the Summer or Fall Preview issues of Entertainment Weekly or Premiere, and my intent was to provide my own personal Movie Preview page year round. The Coming Attractions page started small, with only about fifty upcoming movies…but quickly began to swell.

Four years and over 700 reviews later, the site changed considerably.  It gained graphics, frames, a search engine, a new name (‘Cinematter’) and a database backend.

In 2000, I took what was hoped to be a short hiatus with the site.  It happened to take quite a bit longer than I originally planned!  Still an avid movie watcher, my reviews had taken a back seat.  After three uncompleted relaunches of the site in 2004, 2006 and 2009, 2011 proved that the fourth time’s the charm.  The outdated release date information was truncated from the site, which was moved to the WordPress platform.

About Your Friendly Reviewer

If you must know information about me, I was born in Poughkeepsie, NY, educated in Berkeley, CA, and currently living in and about Dallas, Texas. In addition to Cinematter, my reviews were published monthly in Current Diversions, a newspaper catering to Beaufort and Hilton Head, South Carolina. When I was actively reviewing, I was a member, and the webmaster of The Online Film Critics Society. From 1999-2000, I was also a member of that group’s Governing Committee.  I see on average 200 films per year, and frequent the Toronto International Film Festival, the Dallas Film Festival, and South by Southwest.  Recently, I’m taking a whirlwind tour through film history, watching all the films in the National Film Registry in chronological order (with a handful of assorted other high profile films of each year tossed in as well).  Midway through this three-year project, I hope to be complete by the end of 2012.

Posted in Article | Comments Off on Intro to the Site

Site History

Posted on July 1, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

The Evolution of Cinematter:

July 1995 – Website created (at Texas Metronet) originally titled Shreck’s Cinema
Originally composed of two text-only pages:
One page of summary/reviews for 1995 movies, and one page of coming attractions.

July 1995 – Added additional pages:
Ranked lists of 1993 and 1994 films
Initial Introduction page
Links page

August 1995 – First graphics added to page.
Ticket rating replaced 1-10 rating system.

October 1995 – Split reviews page into multiple pages:
an ordered and an alphabetical list, and one page per review.
Passed 10,000 Total Requests.

November 1995 – Added Imagemap support

January 1996 – Archived review page as 1995 pages, created 1996 pages with same format
Passed 50,000 Total Requests.

March 1996 – Got rid of the hideous fluorescent green background, replaced with bland grey

May 1996 – Added reviews of video releases.
Passed 100,000 Total Requests.

August 1996 – Major site overhaul!
Added frames support.
Eliminated links list
Divided Coming Attractions list into date list with individual descriptions

October 1996 – Added changes list for Coming Attractions page
Passed 500,000 Total Requests.

November 1996 – Site moved to Pair Networks
Registered domain name: www.shreck.com was born.

January 1997 – Archived 1996 reviews, created new 1997 pages
Removed non-review lists for 1993 and 1994.
Joined Commonwealth Network.
Passed 1,000,000 Total Requests.

April 1997 – Major graphical changes:
Got rid of the Shreck Cat (no, it WASN’T Felix)
Added some more color to the site (replaced grey background with blue)
Added link to search engine for Coming Attractions page (to be replaced in December)

July 1997 – Passed 2,000,000 Total Requests.
Integrated change lists and posted on front page.

September 1997 – Added MPAA ratings to Coming Attractions and Reviews.

October 1997 – Passed 3,000,000 Total Requests.
Added links for movie trailers to the Coming Attractions List

December 1997 – Added database backend to site
Added true search capability.
Added links to the Internet Movie Database from each movie page.

January 1998 – More graphical changes (new logo and buttons)
Added the ability to customize the lists.
First annual Online Film Critics Society awards given out.
Added the Articles page.

April 1998 – New site name The site name officially became Cinematter Although www.shreck.com still works, www.cinematter.com is the new URL Passed 5,000,000 Total Requests!

June 1998 – Added OFCS Website link to page
(The OFCS website was partly hosted on Cinematter, 1998-2000)
Recognition: Hot Site of the Week from The Writer’s Guild of America

July 1998 – Updated database backend to MySQL.
Created new intro page.

August 1998 – Finally posted updated pics of self.
Recognition: #61 on the World Charts Top 100 Homepages

October 1998
Recognition: #53 on the World Charts Top 100 Homepages
Recognition: A mention in CyberStuff:
Cinematter: There is no dearth of movie web sites on the web these days. in fact, some of the most popular are overseen by major companies. Then there’s Cinematter. It may not be as well known, but it is jam packed with information and is extremely easy to navigate. What’s more, even with frames, it does not come off as cluttered as many sites with similar content. Accessing the home page gives you three frames: current films, recent changes to the site and a navigation bar. As one delves a bit deeper, you’ll find future release schedules for both theatrical and home video and movie reviews going back four years. It may not have all the bells and whistles of its brethren, but you’ll like it.

February 1999
Yet another site revision. Changed frame layout, color, graphics and font scheme.
Recognition: Link of the Week at The UK Critic homepage
Passed 10,000,000 total requests.

March 1999
Added the Comments engine to the site.
Recognition: Named “one of the best movie related research sites on the web” by the Hollywood Stock Exchange’s Mac Daddy: H$ Millions For The Taking.

June 1999
Recognition: Link of the Week at scr(i)pt Magazine.

June 2000
“Brief” hiatus from reviewing…

2004, 2006, 2009
Aborted attempts to relaunch the site on a variety of new platforms.

June 2011
Cinematter relaunches under the WordPress platform

Posted in Article | Comments Off on Site History

Wild Wild West - * 1/2*

Posted on June 30, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Wild Wild West

Ah, the Old West…a time filled with dusty gunslingers, dirty scoundrels, rocket powered bicycles, and giant mechanical machines of destruction. Something is wrong here. That something is the remake of the television series, The Wild Wild West (newly rechristened without the “The”). A nearly incomprehensible action comedy, this new Wild Wild West has plenty of bluster, but no strength to back it up.

James West (Will Smith) is a rarity, a black U.S. Marshal in 1869… one who works prominently in the deep South. Armed with a hip 1990’s attitude, and plenty of big guns, West’s preferred technique is to enter every situation with guns blazing.

Artemus Gordon (Kevin Kline) is a different kind of Marshal. A master of invention and disguise, Artemus prefers the weapons of subtlety and subterfuge. Naturally, as with all movie partners, he and West rarely get along.

But, following the hoariest of buddy film cliches, the unlikely partners are forced to team up. This time, they must discover why the mysterious Dr. Arliss Loveless (Kenneth Branagh) has kidnapped the country’s top scientists. President Grant gives the two lawmen one week to decypher the mystery.

The big budget adaptations of campy 1960s TV shows have been spotty at best, and Wild Wild West proves no exception. It’s a film where the plot considerations came secondary to the ambitions of the special effects artists. Overdesigned and underthought, Wild Wild West attempts to patch its threadbare plot with bigger and noisier effects than the TV show could ever match, but the subterfuge doesn’t work.

The effects are done well, but we are long past the era in which good special effects alone could carry a movie. Though they attempt to evoke a James Bond meets Jules Verne flavor, most of the gadgetry simply seems out of place. Perhaps with a better script, the flaws wouldn’t be as obvious.

Conceived as an action comedy, Wild Wild West fails a crucial test: nearly all of its jokes fall flat. There are a few unique sequences that show promise (such as an elaborate trap involving magnetic neck braces, or a surreal sequence involving living paintings), yet they never conclude in a satisfying manner. Instead, the script is packed to the gills with over-obvious race jokes, tiresome drag humor, and an entire series of jokes regarding the ambiguously gay relationship between West and Gordon. (Of course, the film throws in a completely purposeless role for Salma Hayek in an attempt to clarify the situation.)

None of the actors here are even given a chance to shine. Instead, they’re drowned in the overbearing special effects and the chokingly bad attempts at humor. Will Smith is hampered at every turn by awkward explanations of his anachronistic existence, Kevin Kline is overshadowed by his nonstop gadgetry, and Kenneth Branagh’s scenery chewing is allowed to run unabated. No one here is cast in a good light.

Director Barry Sonnenfeld obviously intended this to be a humorous romp ala Men in Black, but this technowestern tale is a ghost town of humor. The incongruous special effects can’t prop up the rickety plot, and as for the rest…well, it’s mild mild.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Wild Wild West

South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut - * * *

Posted on June 30, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut

It was inevitible that the cable cartoon hit South Park would eventually worm its way into theaters. A show stifled even by the minimal censorship of cable TV, South Park was begging for the freedom to be as crude and vulgar as possible. Now in the movie, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, it gets its chance. A rarity, an R-rated cartoon, South Park easily earns its rating with hefty doses of obscenity and violence, but, for those that can stomach it, it’s actually a strangely entertaining film.

For those unfamiliar with the cartoon, it follows the exploits of four cherubic children (who look like they have leapt from a preschooler’s adaptation of the Peanuts comic strip) in the wintery town of South Park, Colorado. The twist is that these kids are anything but cherubic, with dirty mouths and minds. Packed to the gills with violence and vulgarity, South Park has always been intended as a cartoon for adults…which explains its popularity with children.

Freed from the restrictions of cable television, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of the show, have decided to push the limits of the rating system. Now, instead of bleeping the foul-mouthed boys, audiences can discover the true epithets of obscenity that can pour from their mouths. This, combined with more violence and nudity than you’d find in the TV show, gives South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut an advantage over other feature length TV cartoon adaptations. It actually can offer something on the big screen that is more than just a long episode.

The plot follows the four boys, Kyle, Stan, Cartman and Kenny as they find their way into the vulgar new “Terence and Phillip movie”. The corruption of their young minds which ensues ultimately leads to a war between the United States and Canada, and the threat of ultimate Armageddon as Satan plots to take over the world (as soon as he can escape his codependent relationship with the recently deceased, and overly sexual, Sadaam Hussein.)

Parker and Stone have ingeniously incorporated right into the movie their rebuttal to any attacks on the relative merits of South Park. The Terence and Phillip movie is obviously a stand-in for their own film (albeit in an exaggerated and even more vulgar way). Anyone complaining about the contents of South Park, or its effects on uncorrupted young minds, will be immediately compared to the similar contemptuous figures in the movie.

South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut certainly pushes the boundaries of the R rating. If it were a live action film, it would be a heavy NC-17. If you’re not the type who can find humor in a song such as Uncle F****, composed of nearly nonstop vulgarity, this movie is not for you.

That said, if you’re still interested in the film, there’s some good news for you. The film is very funny, with plenty of moments bordering on the hilarious. Though it derives a good measure of its attempts at humor from the aforementioned vulgarity, the film also satirizes modern culture and attitudes. From international politics to Jar Jar Binks, this movie is an equal opportunity offender.

Fans of the show might be taken aback by the film’s nonstop musical numbers. An attempt to mock both Disney cartoons and Broadway theater, the songs also have the advantage of padding out an otherwise short movie. There’s not much more material here than you’d find in a typical 30-minute show, but the film manages to stretch that out to nearly an hour and a half. The musical numbers are enjoyable for the most part, but begin to wear out their welcome as the film plods along.

There’s not much point to South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. Depending on your point of view, the film is either an argument for or against strict censorship. Sure, the film has no merit…but it’s amusing. It’s up to you to decide if that is enough.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , | Comments Off on South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut

Big Daddy - * 1/2*

Posted on June 25, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Adam Sandler movies have typically been an acquired taste. However, starting with The Wedding Singer, he has been trying to broaden his appeal. Big Daddy is another film where he attempts to tone down his schtick and widen his audience. Yet, he still hasn’t found the proper mixture of juvenile humor and adult sophistication. Big Daddy speedily falls into a rut, and never reemerges.

Sonny Koufax (Adam Sandler) coulda been a contender. He had great potential in law school, and only needed to pass the bar exam. Then a cab ran over his foot, and his life completely changed. The $200,000 he won in the settlement gave him the luxury to be exceedingly lazy. It was a lifestyle he liked. He took a one-day-a-week job as a tollbooth attendant, and has spent the last few years living a life of responsibility-free adolescence.

When his girlfriend, Vanessa (Kristy Swanson) dumps him for a man with a plan, Sonny is determined to win her back. As luck would have it, responsibility just falls right in his lap. Social Services drops off a small kid, Julian (Cole and Dylan Sprouse), who is apparently the son of Sonny’s out-of-country roomate, Kevin (Jon Stewart). Sonny decides to adopt the kid himself, to show Vanessa that he can be a responsible adult.

However, Sonny soon discovers that child rearing isn’t as easy as he hoped. When Vanessa refuses to accept him back, Sonny discovers himself stuck with the kid. While he practices a unique brand of permissive parenting (letting Julian do whatever he pleases), Sonny attempts to woo a new girlfriend, Layla (Joey Lauren Adams).

The gimmick is simple. The juvenile adult is forced to look after an actual juvenile. And, as might be expected, most of the humor is rather…juvenile. Watching Sandler teach the kid inappropriate behavior is funny the first time around. But the gag quickly wears out its welcome.

How does Big Daddy compare with the rest of the Adam Sandler genre? In truth, it’s a mixed bag. The film has a similar one-joke structure as most of Sandler’s films, however, in this case, the joke isn’t quite up to par. Sandler is playing, for the most part, a “normal” guy, albeit one with a childish attitude. Sandler has gotten most of his mileage from being a child in an adult’s body. But, unlike, say, The Waterboy, Big Daddy is grounded in reality, and that restriction keeps the movie from taking any chances.

Sandler’s penchant for sappiness continues unabated in Big Daddy, unfortunately, his character is never able to earn the sympathy he longs for. For a character supposedly well versed in the law, Sonny Koufax seems to have very little regard for it. After watching him commit several felonies and multiple misdemeanors, it is very hard to root for him in the film’s ultimate will-he-keep-the-kid conclusion.

In its best moments, Big Daddy earns the occasional laugh. However, the gimmick quickly turns repetitive. Instead of an impishly humorous comedy, Big Daddy merely becomes a lesson of “How to Raise a Sociopath”.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Big Daddy

An Ideal Husband - * * * 1/2*

Posted on June 18, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

A delightful adaptation of Oscar Wilde’s play, An Ideal Husband can describe both a potential and a myth. With wonderful use of wordplay, thoroughly enjoyable characters, and one singularly outstanding performance, this period comedy ranks as one of the best films of this year.

The ideal husband of the title is none other than successful political Sir Robert Chiltern (Jeremy Northam). Upwardly mobile, and blessed with a wondrous wife, Gertrude (Cate Blanchett), Sir Robert seems to be perfect in every way. That is until Mrs. Cheveley (Julianne Moore) comes to town.

Early in Sir Robert’s career, he made a mistake…a grievous one. However, he got away with it, and only one piece of evidence remains. That evidence is a letter now in the possession of the cunning Mrs. Cheveley. Sir Robert must do as she demands, or his entire life will be destroyed.

Adding to this mischief is Lord Goring (Rupert Everett), a confirmed bachelor with a wry overdose of wit. A good friend to both Sir Robert and Gertrude (as well as Sir Robert’s lovestruck sister, Mabel (Minnie Driver)), Lord Goring has also had romantic ties to Mrs. Cheveley in the past. Now, he finds himself caught in the center of the machinations, and he must struggle to protect both his friends and his friendships.

Rupert Everett is the heart and soul of this movie, and he carries it off with healthy dollops of witty sarcasm. His Lord Goring is a delight both to watch and listen to. The movie positively crackles when he’s onscreen.

It’s a shame that the other characters aren’t nearly as vibrant, but that doesn’t make them bad, by any means. Julianne Moore is appropriately scheming, but is never reduced to a mere caricature of evil. Jeremy Northam and Cate Blanchett have the worst time, because their characters are so dreadfully bland in the face of the competition. However, they both remain sympathetic enough to root for. Minnie Driver seems out of place throughout most of the movie, but at least she’s charmingly so.

Writer-director Oliver Parker penned this wonderful adaptation of Oscar Wilde’s turn of the century play. Having previously truncated Shakespeare’s Othello almost to the point of butchery, here he shows a slightly greater admiration for the source. There are a few changes, but they all seem to be ones for the better.

Don’t let the period setting deceive you. This is not a staid drawing rooms and tea drama. Rather, it’s a deliriously enjoyable comedy with dashes of plots and romance. Don’t miss this one.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on An Ideal Husband

The General’s Daughter - * *

Posted on June 18, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

The hallmarks of a good mystery are an intriguing setup, and an array of unexpected twists. The General’s Daughter does wonderfully with the former, but stumbles a bit around the twists. They’re unexpected, all right, and there are plenty of them…but they rarely flow logically from the story. The result is a misfire. But, at least, it’s a misfire with a good cast.

Leslie Stefanson plays the title character, Captain Elisabeth Campbell, the daughter of General Joe Campbell (James Cromwell). General Campbell is a very powerful man, who, after his retirement in a few short days, is expected to be a shoo-in for a Vice Presidential slot. However, his plans are thrown into jeopardy when a family tragedy strikes: Elisabeth is discovered, having been raped and murdered on the base.

Enter Warrant Officer Paul Brenner (John Travolta), a career military man who idolizes the General. Brenner is given a tight deadline to solve the case, otherwise the FBI will be called in, and the general’s reputation will be forever tarnished. Against his will, Brenner is teamed up with an ex-beau, Sarah Sunhill (Madeleine Stowe), another investigator who specializes in rape cases. The two have a mysterious history that is never explained, and serves simply as a plot device to allow them to bicker cutely throughout the film.

The lengthy list of suspects is intimidating. Could Elisabeth’s superior, Colonel Robert Moore (James Woods), know more than he slyly lets on? What about Col. William Kent (Timothy Hutton), who has a strange habit of being in the right place at just the right time. Then there’s Col. George Fowler (Clarence Williams III), the General’s right hand man. Is the General himself involved? With only thirty-six hours to solve the crime, Brenner and Sunhill have the odds stacked against them.

It is standard operating procedure for this type of film to be stuffed to the gills with red herring after red herring. Naturally, every suspect will have had both motive and opportunity to commit the crimes. At one point, Brenner rattles off a succinct listing of possible motives for murder: “Profit, revenge, jealousy, to conceal a crime, to avoid humiliation and disgrace, or plain old homicidal mania.” At one time or another, nearly all of these motives seem applicable to at least one cast member. A taut mystery would take this fertile ground and grow a ripe and intriguing film. But the mystery of The General’s Daughter simply withers on the vine.

The problem is with the script. To give it credit, there are a few sharp lines of dialogue scattered throughout. However, all too often, characters are forced to act out of character. They do and say things that are completely unexpected, and don’t follow from what we know or learn about them. Their actions have the sole purpose of creating another twist or otherwise lengthening the plot. A few good twists are always welcome, but much more work needed to be done here to make any of these ones believable.

Our attention might stray completely were it not for the sheer magnetism of two of the actors onscreen. The first is John Travolta. (Don’t panic, he soon loses the cheesy Southern accent with which he begins the picture.) Faced with torn loyalties, and an unrelenting yearning for justice, he is able to maintain our interest, even as the rest of the movie encourages us to groan.

But, just as impressive as Travolta, yet in a smaller role, is James Woods. Even though his character suffers from the same lack of realistic behavior as the rest of the cast, he somehow manages to arrest our attention. Would his character do the things he does? Probably not. But Woods’ intensity makes the point moot. We’re willing to watch him do anything, no matter how illogical.

Madeleine Stowe is a good actress, but she is given very little to do here. The aforementioned romantic entanglement is underdeveloped and overused. Stowe has one strong scene, but the remainder of the time she’s either playing second banana to Travolta, or waiting to be put in some sort of distress. In either case, she’s woefully underused.

The General’s Daughter is ultimately disappointing. The talented cast and intriguing setup never can overcome the film’s fatally flawed script.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The General’s Daughter

Tarzan - * * *

Posted on June 16, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Tarzan

After their success with the spoofy George of the Jungle, it seems odd that Disney would focus on the legend of Tarzan for their latest animated feature. Still, the Edgar Rice Burroughs story is a classic, with plenty of good adventure possibilities. At least Disney avoided the temptation of having Brendan Fraser voice the title role. The end result is a likable, spectacularly animated film that is unfortunately weakened by the ol’ Disney formula.

The opening five minutes of this film are as intensely tragic as anything Disney has released so far. Barely escaping a fiery shipwreck, Tarzan’s parents find themselves stranded in the wilds of Africa. They briefly find peace, building shelter for themselves and their infant son. But before you can breathe a sigh of relief, their peace is forever shattered and young Tarzan is orphaned by the killing claws of Sabor the leopard. But the tragedy doesn’t stop there… Meanwhile in the jungle, a family of apes, Kala (Glenn Close) and Kerchak (Lance Henriksen), are raising a young son of their own…only to lose him to Sabor as well.

Needless to say, Kala discovers the infant Tarzan, and brings him home to be raised among the apes. Kerchak frowns upon this, but tolerates the human’s presence with a disapproving eye. As Tarzan grows (voiced by Alex D. Linz), he constantly struggles to gain Kerchak’s approval. Even though he is different from all his family and friends, Tarzan strives to be the best ape he can be.

Flash forward several years. The adult Tarzan (now voiced by Tony Goldwyn), still seeks Kerchak’s favor, and has proven to be more resourceful than any of the apes had imagined. But, it is not until Tarzan encounters his first humans that he discovers why he has always felt out of place. Professor Porter (Nigel Hawthorne), his daughter Jane (Minnie Driver), and their gun-happy assistant, Clayton (Brian Blessed), have traveled to Africa to study the apes. Instead, they discover Tarzan, and he gets his first taste of human society.

And it is here that the film’s major weakness shows its head. Tarzan’s quest for self-identity, and his struggle for Kerchak’s approval are both involving and well done. But, once the humans arrive, the film bogs itself down in the mechanizations of the weakly evil Clayton and his uninteresting schemes. Why Disney had to introduce such a pathetic villain at this late in the game is beyond me. It smells like strict adherence to the Disney formula, which necessitates an evil villain, even in the most character based story. Whatever the reason, it is a bad move.

As usual, Disney has chosen to team the hero up with “amusing” sidekicks. This time, Tarzan’s given a gorilla best buddy, Terk (Rosie O’Donnell), and a neurotic elephant, Tantor (Wayne Knight). However, at least their antics, aside from a Stomp-like musical interlude, are rarely distracting.

The animation done on the film is extremely first rate. Disney consistently pushes the boundaries of animation quality (at least with their theatrical releases). The jungle background are lush and alive, with an almost 3-D sense of tangibility. The characters are well drawn, particularly with respect their lifelike movement.

Although Tarzan performs his famous yodel, this time he doesn’t swing through the trees as much as he slides on the branches. It makes for an interesting visual effect, but it sure must be rough on the feet!

The transition into the world of talking apes is well done, though a bit disorienting at first. The apes are only intelligible when there are no (non-Tarzan) humans around. Otherwise, they make traditional ape noises (as does Tarzan when he’s first discovered). This way the film is able to bridge the gap between Tarzan’s two worlds without sacrificing too much credibility.

The songs in Tarzan, aside from one short lullaby verse, and the musical number mentioned above, are layered over the action (ala Toy Story), rather than sung by the characters. Phil Collins provides the music, and most of the songs are enjoyable, if all a bit similar.

Tarzan is a fun film to watch, even if it does take a turn for the worse during the last act. It is worth watching for the high quality animation alone. However, it is a mystery why Disney doesn’t stretch its creative legs once and a while, and stretch the boundaries of it’s tiresome formula.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged | Comments Off on Tarzan

The Red Violin - * * *

Posted on June 11, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Samuel L. Jackson and Greta Scacchi are two owners of a red violin in this drama which traces the instrument through the centuries. Carlo Cecchi, Jean-Luc Bideau, Sylvia Chang, Colm Feore, Jason Flemyng, Irene Grazioli, Christoph Koncz, Don McKellar, Monique Mercure and Liu Zifeng also star. Francois Girard directs.

Capsule review: Beautiful imagery and music abounds. Although Samuel L. Jackson’s modern day story is awkwardly interwoven with the other four tales, it is the most interesting story the film has to tell. The other stories hold few surprises.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged | Comments Off on The Red Violin

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me - * *

Posted on June 11, 1999 by Madeleine Williams

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me

Sequels tend to appear in two distinct varieties. The rarest, yet most satisfying, are those which attempt to continue the action of the original, taking the characters and themes from the first and developing them in new and interesting ways. However, the vast majority of sequels are merely remakes, telling the same story as the original, with a few cosmetic differences, but everything else completely intact. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me is definitely one of the latter. The film shamelessly apes the original, and is never able to surpass it.

For those unfamiliar with Austin Powers (played by Mike Myers), he debuted in Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery two years ago. A product of the 1960s, Austin Powers is a British superspy from the era of James Bond and free love. Cryogenically frozen in the 60s, and thawed in the 90s, Austin is a man hopelessly out of touch with the times, and yet completely oblivious to the fact.

The Spy Who Shagged Me also marks the return of Austin Power’s nemesis, that Ernst Stavro Blofeld doppelganger, Dr. Evil (also played by Myers). This time around, with a nod to 1996’s The Island of Dr. Moreau, Dr. Evil is given a sidekick, Mini-Me (Verne Troyer), a clone one eighth his size, but eight times as evil.

With a typically convoluted plan, Dr. Evil schemes to travel back in time to 1969, when Austin Powers was still frozen. There, he will steal Austin’s “mojo”, and proceed with his plans of world domination. However, the mojo-less Austin Powers from the 1990s travels back in time to stop him. This time, Austin teams up with a 1960s CIA agent, Felicity Shagwell (Heather Graham) to stop Dr. Evil’s nefarious plans.

This time around, Austin isn’t nearly as interesting as his counterpart, Dr. Evil. In the first film, Austin was a fish out of water, a self-deluded misfit who didn’t realize he was totally uncool in the 1990s. Now, however, in the 1960s, Austin is back where he belongs. He no longer sticks out, and we must turn to Dr. Evil for consolation. Dr. Evil would stick out in any timeframe, and is certainly the more humorous character in this sequel.

The original Austin Powers had many hilarious moments, but stretched them out way too long. The Spy Who Shagged Me takes those exact same moments, and stretches them out even further. The first time Dr. Evil reprises his “zip it” comment, it elicits a chuckle of recognition. By the time he delivers the umpteenth variation, you simply wish he would follow his own advice. A little self-reference is occasionally a good thing. The Spy Who Shagged Me simply overdoes it.

That’s not to say the film is completely devoid of original humor, just that the moments are few and far between. Most of the new bits take the original film’s “naughty” sense of humor to the next step, with a Farrelly-inspired obsession with gross-out humor. However, the film does manage to score some points with its winking acknowledgment of continuity flaws, both with the first film, and the time travel plot as well. But the film’s best bit comes with a montage of verbal gags regarding Dr. Evil’s oddly shaped rocket.

The cast seems to have a good time with the film. Mike Myers gives his all in three separate roles. Though many of the gags sputter and fail, it’s not for a lack of Myers’ trying. Heather Graham is a little shallow as the female equivalent of Austin Powers, but maybe that’s the point. The true acting coup here, though, is Rob Lowe as a young Number 2. He delivers a dead-on impersonation of Robert Wagner…it’s truly eerie.

In the end, though, The Spy Who Shagged Me doesn’t deliver any more than the original, either in terms of humor or sheer entertainment. In fact, it’s so similar that you would do just as well rewatching the first Austin Powers on video.

Posted in 1999, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me