Playing by Heart - * * *

Posted on December 30, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Playing by Heart is a film that would like to think of itself as an intricate puzzle, whose pieces smoothly slide into place as the film progresses. However, as a puzzle, Playing By Heart is fairly simple. Luckily, observing the artwork of the individual pieces is more than enough reward.

Playing by Heart interweaves six distinct storylines. At first, there seems to be no connection between them, except for involving people, love, and relationships. Yet, as the film progresses, it is obvious that all six storylines are going to intertwine by the end. The matter of how becomes relatively obvious well before the final act.

Hugh (Dennis Quaid) has a penchant for wandering forlornly into bars and unravelling his depressing life story to a complete stranger. Gracie (Madeleine Stowe) and Roger (Anthony Edwards) have a fulfilling sex life. Too bad they’re both married to other people. Paul (Sean Connery) and Hannah (Gena Rowlands) are a long-married couple facing a troublesome future, and an even more troublesome past. Joan (Angelina Jolie) is on the relationship rebound, and is determined to win the affections of Keenan (Ryan Phillippe), a self-obsessed boy who doesn’t date. Mark (Jay Mohr) is dying of AIDS, and has only his mother Mildred (Ellen Burstyn) for comfort. And finally, Meredith (Gillian Anderson) has been burned before, and wants nothing more to do with men. However, that doesn’t stop the friendly Trent (Jon Stewart) from trying.

Even with six plotlines in the air, Playing By Heart never lets one drop. Whenever one plotline starts to sag, another deftly steps in to take its place. And yet, even with all the switching and swapping, the film is never confusing. And, somehow, Playing By Heart avoids the pitfall of other films with ensemble storylines: making a few of the plots much more interesting than the others. Even the film’s weakest plot (the languid affair between Madeleine Stowe and Anthony Edwards) never gets completely boring.

The movie is not as skillful, however, when trying to be spontaneous. Every move of Playing By Heart seems carefully calculated, and when it tries to surprise the audience, the effort just falls flat. Nowhere is this more true than at the film’s finale, when everything just happens to neatly fall together.

The pair with the best chemistry in the film is easily Connery and Rowlands. They settle so deeply in their roles, that it truly seems they’ve been together for a long time. Anjelina Jolie and Ryan Phillippe are a close second, and certainly have the plotline with the most energy. Throughout the whole film, there’s nary a poor performance to be seen.

Though at times it borders on being contrived, on the whole, Playing By Heart is a touching rumination on the various flavors of love.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Playing by Heart

A Civil Action - * * *

Posted on December 25, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

A Civil Action

Not your typical legal drama, A Civil Action eschews grandiose cinematic gestures in favor of a slightly more grounded (and definitely more cynical) interpretation of the legal process. It provides an always interesting, and sometimes fascinating, glimpse inside the workings of our courts.

Jan Schlichtmann (John Travolta) is your typical personal-injury lawyer. He begins the film by coldly describing the monetary value of various types of clients. Matter-of-factly, he explains the rules you must follow to win lawsuits. One of those rules is to never, ever, start truly caring about your clients. That is the rule Jan breaks one day, and A Civil Action is a movie about the consequences.

In the small town of Woburn, Massachusetts, several children have died from leukemia, all within a few short years. The parents blame the town’s drinking water, which has been found to contain traces of the toxic chemical TCE. Who is the cause of this pollution? All traces point to two local companies…owned by much larger ones with very deep pockets: W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods.

Though at first hesitant, Jan’s small firm takes the case out of hopes of a quick, rich settlement. However, when Jan becomes emotionally involved, he dares to do something he never should: take the case to trial. There, he bets his entire firm in his quest to find the truth and to get justice…but is it a gamble he can win?

The best parts of A Civil Action are the nuggets of lawyerly truths spouted by both Jan, and Jerome Facher (Robert Duvall), an eccentric elder defense attorney who knows all the rules of the game. Depending on your viewpoint, these details may seem either cynical or realistic… but they certainly are thought-provoking.

At first, the film looks like it might boil down into your typical Grisham-esque legal potboiler. However, the film is a bit more complex than that. Based on an actual case, A Civil Action tries to be more realistic with its depiction of the legal system. But, that leads to the question: does the film sacrifice entertainment for the sake of accuracy?

When looking at the film from the fact that there are no grand cinematic gestures (such as secret witnesses or courtroom brawls), you might conclude that the answer is “yes”. But, A Civil Action finds its entertainment in the details of how the legal process actually works, and in the coterie of fine performances that fill the film.

Regarding those performances, the standouts are the always good Duvall, and William H. Macy (as the accountant at Jan’s firm who tries in vain to keep the rising costs from becoming overwhelming). Duvall gets the plum role, though. He’s a defense lawyer, so you might think at first that he’s one of the bad guys…but the film never sinks to that level of simplicity. Instead, he is a fully fleshed out character, and perhaps the only one in the film who knows where everything is heading.

A Civil Action has its faults. At times the film’s pacing begins to drag, and the film’s one caricature (a buffoonish defense lawyer) sticks out like a sore thumb amid the more realistic proceedings. But those only minimally detract from the film. The insightfulness of A Civil Action combined with the strong performances therein make this one worth your time.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on A Civil Action

Stepmom - * * 1/2*

Posted on December 25, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Stepmom

With a bland and unrevealing title like Stepmom, you might half expect a horror film about the mad matriarch of a dysfunctional family. That’s not the case here. Rather, Stepmom is another a long tradition of three-hankie weepies, and a rather archetypical one at that. Luckily, this tearjerking comedy-drama compensates for its familiar structure with several superior performances.

Luke and Jackie Harrison (Ed Harris and Susan Sarandon) have been divorced now for two years. They have joint custody of their two children: aspiring magician Ben (Liam Aiken), and the uncontrollably angry Anna (Jena Malone). Luke and Jackie are still on fairly good terms… until Luke’s girlfriend Isabel (Julia Roberts) moves in with him.

Isabel is a career photographer, who has had no experience with kids. She tries, but nothing she does can live up to the perfect example of motherhood, Jackie. Ben and Anna love tormenting her, and Jackie’s shrewish attitude doesn’t make Isabel feel welcome either.

But there’s another piece to this puzzle. Something which will cause everyone involved to reevaluate their feelings and attitudes. But can this non-traditional family bond together in a time of true crisis?

Stepmom shamelessly goes overboard in its attempts to manipulate your emotions. It pulls out every stop, and utilizes every trick in the book to wring that one last tear from your body. It performs these tasks strictly according to the tearjerker textbook. If you’ve seen even one tearjerker before this one, you’ll know exactly where the plot is going.

Still, there is considerable talent involved here. And despite, the blatant manipulation, the excellent performances that permeate the film somehow manage to redeem Stepmom. Both Susan Sarandon and Julia Roberts excel in the lead roles. Ed Harris, when he’s not busy being under-utilized, is a joy to watch as well. Even the children are above par for this sort of film., though Liam Aiken was seemingly cast on the basis of his infectious laugh alone.

The film itself is a bit rushed, confining all the action to a few short months. This dramatic shortcut does serve to heighten the emotional shocks of the film (the impacts are all felt sooner than they should be), but at the cost of realism.

After the end of Stepmom, you feel like a finely wrung sponge. The film may be completely by-the-book, but thanks to the performances at its center, its emotional manipulation succeeds. This may be a formulaic tearjerker, but it’s one done well.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Stepmom

The Faculty - * *

Posted on December 25, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

And another film rolls out of the teen-horror factory. But, The Faculty shows promise: it has some decent talent attached, and seems to be a change of pace from your run-of-the-mill serial killer stalking teenagers film. Is it any good? Well, it’s better than your standard slasher fare, but hardly enjoyable enough to be called a “good” movie.

There’s something odd about the faculty at Herrington High School. Not only have they begun consuming large quantities of water, but they’ve been acting…strangely. Could it be that alien body snatchers are at work? Several students think so.

An unlikely band of students team up to try and stop the invasion. It starts out with trendy cheerleader/newspaper editor Delilah (Jordana Brewster) and the hopelessly nerdy photographer Casey (Elijah Wood). But soon they’ve roped in Delilah’s ex-boyfriend, the ex-quarterback Stan (Shawn Wayne Hatosy), and the sci-fi obsessed gothic wannabe lesbian Stokely (Clea DuVall). Rounding out the group are the brilliant loser, who peddles his own homemade drugs, Zeke (Josh Hartnett), and the perky new girl, Marybeth (Laura Harris).

Armed only with their knowledge of body-snatcher cliches, these teens must face down such fearsome foes as Coach Willis (Robert Patrick), Nurse Harper (Salma Hayek), Miss Burke (Famke Janssen), Miss Olsen (Piper Laurie), and the sinister Principal Drake (Bebe Neuwirth).

The script for The Faculty was written by the vastly overrated Kevin Williamson, of Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer fame. Once again, he is good at pointing out cliches, but displays little or no originality of his own. Williamson does give the characters knowledge of those cliches (which raises him one rung above the average horror film writer), but doesn’t use that knowledge to go anywhere. As a result, the film simply revisits the same territory as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or The Thing, without any real surprises.

The characters, while all shallow archetypes, are at least well played. Those in, or recently out of, high school will recognize at least a few of the various types among the oversimplifications here. On a purely escapist revenge-seeking level, the film does work in a way. The every-teens here are able to wreak revenge upon the every-teachers who have tormented them.

The special effects of the film include some potentially interesting concepts, but they’re hamstrung by flawed execution. Many of the effects, which are intended to look creepy, are goofy instead. Even the film’s ultimate CGI creature looks rather unremarkable… The novelty of computer-generated monsters has worn off, and special effects artists need to return to creating innovative designs.

Director Robert Rodriguez, who has successfully created tense and suspenseful scenes in the past, has lost his touch here. A few of the scenes hint at his prior potential, but they’re all hobbled in one way or another. There’s rarely an feeling of true danger, and when there is…you simply don’t care.

Still, compared with the string of recent horror films, The Faculty is one of the better entries in this struggling genre. In may even be worth a look when it arrives at your local rental store. But, particularly at this time of year, you can do much better than The Faculty when at your local theater.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Faculty

The Thin Red Line - *

Posted on December 23, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

The Thin Red Line

A study in pretension, The Thin Red Line marks the infamously reclusive director Terrence Malick’s anticlimactic return to the cinema. On the surface, the film is a war movie, based on the James Jones novel of the same name. But, this film has no real interest in telling a war story at all. Instead, the film embarks on an artsy philosophical journey to discover the soul, a journey so long and painful that one might prefer the war itself.

The closest thing the film has to a central character is one Private Witt (Jim Caviezel). At the opening of the film, he and another soldier have gone AWOL to live in a virtual Eden with some islanders. However, Witt is soon captured and sent into the Battle of Guadalcanal.

A few other stories intertwine throughout the film’s wanderings. Private Bell (Ben Chaplin) pines for his wife back home. Lt. Colonel Tall (Nick Nolte) is eager for a battle. Captain Staros (Elias Koteas) doesn’t share his commanding officer’s bloodlust, and searches for a better way to use his men.

But, intermingled with the war (and sometimes overlaid on top of it), the soldiers (turned poet-philosophers) contemplate eternal questions of life. Is mankind apart from nature or a part of it? Where does evil come from? Is war a natural phenomenon? What is the nature of the soul? And other, similarly pretentious, unanswerable questions are posed with regularity throughout the film.

The Thin Red Line is actually composed of two separate films that try, but are never able, to merge into a complete whole. There’s the traditional war story on one hand, delivering the overly familiar scenes of nervous soldiers heading to battle and plunged into the hellish thicket of combat. The other film is a puffed-up philosophical National Geographic piece. Lingering shots of wildlife, the local flora and fauna, and the idyllic lives of the Melanesian islanders intertwine with portentous philosophical ramblings. Though the two films are thoroughly intercut and overlaid, there’s never a sense that one relates to the other. Would these soldiers be thinking these thoughts? No…it sounds much more like the self-important words a screenwriter might dream up than an epiphany discovered on the field of battle.

As was likely intended, most of the characters in the film blend together (in an attempt to show the face of the every-soldier). A few faces are distinctive, but aside from the wildly out of place (and thankfully brief) cameos by stars such as John Travolta, George Clooney and Woody Harrelson, only a few are memorable. And those memorable ones are poorly used. Sean Penn’s Sergeant Welsh, for example, is played with intensity, but with no purpose. Though the characters are constantly in jeopardy, you don’t really care. In fact, the film is orchestrated in such a way to distance the audience from even knowing or caring about them at all.

On the bright side, The Thin Red Line boasts some very gorgeous imagery. Shots of nature and shots of war are all examine for their inner beauty. Unfortunately, by the umpteenth time we are shown a shot of the sunlight filtering down through the trees, you simply wish the film would hurry up and get over with.

Neither half of The Thin Red Line is overly bad by itself. However, the convergence of the two creates a nightmare. Too self-important and vague for war film lovers, and too grounded and mundane for art film devotees, The Thin Red Line will fail to please nearly everyone.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Thin Red Line

Mighty Joe Young - * *

Posted on December 20, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

They’ve remade King Kong, they’ve remade Godzilla, now Hollywood has set their sights on another giant animal from years past: Mighty Joe Young. But this updated remake is more of an example of modern special effects technology than of good storytelling. If you’re just going to see the ape, Mighty Joe Young will suffice…but don’t expect more than that.

The Joe of the title is a giant gorilla. Not quite King Kong sized, he’s still large enough to ignite fear in the hearts of the superstitious, and greed in the hearts of evil poachers. But Joe isn’t a monster, he’s just a misunderstood animal. His protector is the beautiful Jill Young (Charlize Theron), who was orphaned at the same time as Joe when her mother, renknowned primatologist Dr. Ruth Young (Linda Purl), ran afoul of the poacher Strasser (Rade Serbedzija).

But, despite her best efforts, Jill can’t keep Joe a secret from the world. People like Gregg O’Hara (Bill Paxton) keep popping up. Gregg works at an animal preserve outside of Los Angeles, and has come to the wilds of Africa in search of a legend: Joe. Gregg offers to give the big monkey a home in L.A.. But what is the best thing for Joe? To stay home, and be hunted…or to live in a cage (a safe cage, but a cage nonetheless).

But, wherever Joe goes, there will be danger. Strasser is still around (now running an animal preserve of his own, where he secretly butchers endangered species), and still bears a personal grudge against the giant ape. He makes it his mission to find and kill Joe (and, of course, to sell his remains for a huge profit), wherever he is.

Mighty Joe Young himself is the film’s greatest achievement. As a special effect, he is truly a marvel. He is so realistic, in fact, that he’s often more believable than the human actors in the film. That said, his character is far from perfect…in fact, it is quite variable. At times, he’s merely a brute animal, little more than a monster. But, when the screenplay requires it, his IQ shoots up a hundredfold, and he becomes a hairy Einstein, amused at the foolish antics of the puny humans around him.

Bill Paxton and Charlize Theron are forced to play second banana to the great ape, and neither of them show top form here. They have both shown much more skill in prior roles. Here, their characters are flat and uninteresting, and they don’t seem to put much effort into making them unique. They’re both aware that this is the gorilla’s movie, and they’re just along for the ride.

The film, though advertised as the traditional Disney animal flick, is slightly more violent than one might expect. The film is, after all, about a monstrously giant ape. Still, though a few scenes might be a bit intense for younger children, older kids should get a kick out of Joe, and probably won’t care that the rest of the film is threadbare.

You can’t expect the world from a gorilla movie. But, usually you can expect more than just the gorilla. Luckily, Mighty Joe’s special effects wizardry will be appreciated just as well on the small screen as the big.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , | Comments Off on Mighty Joe Young

You’ve Got Mail - * * *

Posted on December 18, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

You've Got Mail

One of the oldest adages in Hollywood is: find a good formula and stick with it. So, hoping for another Sleepless in Seattle, writer/director Nora Ephron has once again teamed up with stars Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan for a cutely sentimental romantic comedy, You’ve Got Mail.

Kathleen Kelly (Meg Ryan) runs The Shop Around the Corner, an independent children’s book store in New York. Her store specializes in personal attention and service…but it is being threatened by the new Fox Books superstore which is opening down the street.

Kathleen seeks comfort from an online friend she met in a chat room on the internet. She anonymously falls in love with this charming, complete stranger. But, unbeknownst to her, her online love is none other than her arch-rival, Joe Fox, of Fox Books fame. And neither does Joe Fox know that his online paramour is the troublesome Kathleen Kelly, chief crusader against the presence of his chain bookstore.

Both Joe and Kathleen are currently involved in relationships. Kathleen is attached to a self-obsessed columnist (Greg Kinnear), and Joe is living with a hyperactive publisher (Parker Posey). But they are relationships without passion…unlike what Joe and Kathleen find with each other online.

Nora Ephron deftly takes the formula from Sleepless in Seattle, and makes a few minor substitutions (such as, instead of An Affair to Remember and The Dirty Dozen, You’ve Got Mail uses Pride and Prejudice and The Godfather to illustrate the dichotomy between the sexes). The end result is familiar, yet pleasant.

The reason the film uses that formula is simple: it works. Both Ryan and Hanks cutely emit waves of niceness wherever they go. It’s hard not to like their characters, and you instinctively want them to be together.

The film’s overall plotline is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things…it’s merely there to provide enough obstacles so Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks don’t hook up too soon. But for an inconsequential plotline, it is handled well. The film smartly avoids painting either Ryan or Hanks as the villain in the bookstore battle (though the film does seem to favor the “independent” side). And there are plenty of interesting little subplots that keep the whole thing from becoming tedious.

In addition to good performances by Hanks and Ryan, the film boasts a plenitude of above-par supporting turns. Kinnear and Posey are likable as the alternative romantic interests…even though they’re not perfectly matched with Ryan and Hanks, we can understand why they start the movie together. Steve Zahn makes a good impression as an unusual employee at The Shop Around the Corner. Dabney Coleman and Jean Stapleton aren’t overwhelmed with things to do in their minor roles, but are a welcome, recognizable presence.

You’ve Got Mail distills the essence of Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks. It’s a cute, funny, nice and ever-so-appealing romantic comedy.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on You’ve Got Mail

Prince of Egypt - * * *

Posted on December 18, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Prince of Egypt

When Dreamworks first set up an animation division to rival Disney, it was a lofty goal. And their first traditionally animated film, The Prince of Egypt, makes some bold steps. Telling the tale of Moses, the film eschews Disney’s traditionally comedic kid-friendly approach to animation, in favor of a more serious, more adult style of animation. Their experiment is a success. While not a perfect film, its rich visuals join with a strong storyline to create a true animated epic.

Fearing a population explosion, the Egyptian Pharaoh Seti (Patrick Stewart) orders the murder of all Hebrew babies. One Hebrew mother (Ofra Haza) places her baby in a reed basket, and floats him down the Nile to avoid his fate. Miraculously, the child ends up in the royal palace, where the queen (Helen Mirren) adopts him and raises the baby Moses as her own son.

Flash forward several years. Prince Moses (Val Kilmer) and his elder brother Prince Rameses (Ralph Fiennes) are a pair of royal troublecausers. They’re particularly annoying to the royal priests, Hotep and Huy (Steve Martin and Martin Short). However, Rameses, the future Pharaoh, is also constantly worried about living up to the high expectations set by his father. Moses, on the other hand, is unaware of his true identity, until a chance encounter with his real brother and sister (Jeff Goldblum and Sandra Bullock), that is.

The brotherly conflict continues through adulthood, when each prince takes a different path. Rameses takes the throne and tries to expand and surpass his father’s empire. Moses abandons his adopted family, and instead opts for the life of a simple shepherd, and marriage to the fiesty Tzipporah (Michelle Pfieffer). But God has another destiny in mind for Moses…one which will put him at odds with his former brother, but which may finally grant freedom to the suffering Hebrew slaves.

With it’s star studded cast, The Prince of Egypt suffers from the same spot-the-star syndrome of Dreamworks’ previous animated film, Antz. Rather than blending seamlessly into the characters, the celebrity voices leap to the forefront of your consciousness every time someone speaks. (It’s particularly distracting when The Voice Of God issues forth, and, rather than being awe-struck, you’re thinking, “Hey, isn’t that Val Kilmer…”.)

The animation of The Prince of Egypt is nothing short of spectacular. The special effects are appropriately awe-inspiring, but the film excels at character detail as well. If you’re an animation enthusiast, the quality here alone makes this film a must-see.

However, good animation aside, The Prince of Egypt can never quite shake the mediciney feeling that this is animation which is supposed to be “good-for-you”…both spiritually and visually. The film flows best when it simply relaxes and lets the story unfold. However, there is a stiff formality that hangs over several scenes of the movie. It feels like everyone involved tensed up at the same moment when they realized they were doing something “important”, and that translated on screen.

The Prince of Egypt has a big story to tell, and only 100 minutes in which to tell it. As a result, the story feels awfully rushed. Some events are glossed over in montages, others (particularly the events after the Red Sea) are mostly ignored.

Young children might get confused or frightened during some of the film’s more intense scenes (the plagues, for example). But, for the most part, the film is structured simply enough that kids should be able to follow the story. And though comic relief isn’t stressed nearly as highly as the standard Disney fare, there are some good humorous bits here and there.

The flaws of The Prince of Egypt could be summed up by saying Dreamworks was trying too hard. The result is thoroughly watchable, and, at times, technically brilliant, but a little stiff, awkward and rushed in places.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Prince of Egypt

Patch Adams - * * 1/2*

Posted on December 11, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Patch Adams

In Patch Adams, Robin Williams portrays a real-life doctor struggling to reform the impersonal medical system with a human touch. It’s a good premise, and Williams seems to be perfect for the role…perhaps a bit too perfect. The film is nothing if not emotionally manipulative, and at times it gets downright irritating to be pushed around so much.

Hunter Adams (Robin Williams) has been suicidally depressed. The pointlessness of his life has driven him to the brink, and he finally checks himself into a mental hospital. While there, he observes the detached soulessness of the medical staff, and discovers a purpose for his own life.

Sporting the new nickname, “Patch”, he enrolls in med school. He desires nothing more than to connect with people in need, and to help them out as best as he can. To this end, he enlists the aid of fellow students, Carin (Monica Potter) and Truman (Daniel London) to bring humor and enjoyment into the lives of patients at the local hospital.

But, Patch’s unique methods have their detractors. Patch’s study-minded roommate Mitch (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is frustrated with his anti-studious attitudes. But the biggest obstacle in Patch’s way is Dean Walcott (Bob Gunton), who sees his actions as a challenge to the medical establishment, and is willing to prevent Patch from graduating in order to protect that establishment.

The movie, Patch Adams, is shamelessly manipulative. It trots out not just one, but a whole hospital full of sick kids and adults to elicit sympathy and tears from the audience, while Robin Williams’ antic schtick counterbalances it with laughter. The ploy partially works: the film is slightly moving, and slightly amusing. But it might have been more so it the manipulation weren’t so blatant as to be distracting. By the time the film reaches its final “clown salute”, you’re half-ready to strangle Robin Williams just to wrap it up!

The role of Patch Adams seems custom tailored for Robin Williams. First of all, he’s given several moments for “improv” comedy (most of which are too awkwardly staged to be more than mildly amusing). Then, the role has some dramatic heft, as Patch Adams is coping with his own depression (as well as the depression of others). Plus, the role is brimming with plenty of touchy-feely “warm-and-fuzzies” (which Williams has lately specialized in delivering). And for the most part, Williams plays it well. However, “Patch Adams” is never fully realized as a character… it’s always Robin Williams playing a doctor. He never disappears into the role.

The supporting cast is colorful, and mostly enjoyable to watch. The thorn in the works is Bob Gunton, whose Dean Walcott is so irrationally mean and dour that he seems like a movie device, rather than a real person.

All of this is not to say Patch Adams is a bad film. It is merely one that not only wears its heart on its sleeve, but has a prominent exoskeleton too. If you can overlook the obvious machinery churning away to produce the next emotion filled “moment”, the film can be moving. It just requires a lot of concentration to ignore all of that grinding machinery.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Patch Adams

A Simple Plan - * * * *

Posted on December 11, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Crime doesn’t pay. Particularly in a world where the rule of Murphy’s Law is absolute. That’s the lesson learned by the characters in the well-acted, brilliantly written and intensely gripping drama, A Simple Plan.

Hank Mitchell (Bill Paxton) has a good, if not perfect, life. He has a decent job, a loving wife (Bridget Fonda), and a baby on the way. But all of that is about to change.

One day Hank, his dimwitted brother, Jacob (Billy Bob Thornton), and Jacob’s dimwitted drinking buddy, Lou (Brent Briscoe), make an interesting discovery in the woods: a crashed plane containing over $4 million in presumably dirty money.

After some minor deliberation, the three men tentatively decide to keep the money. And, wouldn’t you know it, things invariably start to go wrong. As the walls start to close in, the men must not only struggle to keep their stories straight, but also face the pressures of greed and doubt which tempt them to turn against one another.

Director Sam Raimi, best known for his Evil Dead films, at first seems an unlikely choice to direct this much more traditional, character oriented thriller. However, here he shows a mastery of the subtle touch. He is able to create a tangible atmosphere of unease as what seemed to be a simple plan grows more and more convoluted over time.

The story of A Simple Plan, adapted from Scott B. Smith’s novel, is well constructed. The many twists and turns throughout the film are reasonable, yet unexpected. The characters are strongly written as well. You get the sense that all of the characters here are constantly thinking (even though it’s an activity that not all of them do well).

Billy Bob Thornton turns in yet another brilliant performance as the pathetic Jacob. Though there are some similarities between this role and his performance of Karl in Slingblade, he manages to make Jacob a unique creation that stands on his own. At first, Jacob is seemingly just a dim bulb…but there’s much more to this character than what first appears.

Billy Bob Thornton isn’t the only one here who can act…and this picture is full of examples. Bridget Fonda deserves kudos for her sharp portrayal of perhaps the craftiest character in the film. Bill Paxton does an excellent job as the desperate everyman. And Gary Cole delivers a good turn as Baxter, an FBI agent who is hunting down the lost plane.

With a fascinating screenplay, masterful direction, and excellent performances, A Simple Plan is a truly suspenseful drama, and one of the year’s best films.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on A Simple Plan