Shakespeare in Love - * * * 1/2*

Posted on December 11, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Shakespeare in Love is a delightful romantic comedy with a literary twist. A fictionalized account of a few months of Shakespeare’s life, the film manages to humanize the greatest English writer of all time, and delivers a splendid time while doing it.

The film is set in 1593, when William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) was just a struggling playwright with a bad case of writer’s block. The debt-ridden owner of The Rose theater (Geoffrey Rush) has commissioned his latest play, a romantic comedy entitled Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter…but Shakespeare is at a loss where to start.

Enter the dazzlingly beautiful and rich Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), a young lady who would much prefer the life of a player to her life as the future wife of a pompous aristocrat, Lord Wessex (Colin Firth). To these ends, she disguises herself as a man (since women are forbidden to take to the stage), and auditions for the part of Romeo in her favorite poet Shakespeare’s latest play.

Meanwhile, a chance encounter with the undisguised Viola sets Shakespeare’s heart all aflutter. His infatuation gives him renewed inspiration for writing his play, but it also may turn deadly, as Lord Wessex wants no rivals for his wife-to-be…particularly not a low-born playwright.

The screenplay of Shakespeare in Love, written by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard, is both literate and accessible. The wordplay is absolutely frantic, and even something the Shakespeare-illiterate will enjoy. From Shakespearean allusions, to pure physical comedy, the film incorporates the same mixture of high-and-low humor as many of Shakespeare’s plays. There’s something for everyone in this ingenious script.

Sure, there are a few anachronistic twists thrown in here and there, but they only enhance the playful mood of the film. The film is obviously not striving to be mistaken for bland history. But there are enough historical details here and there to satisfy the amateur historian.

Joseph Fiennes is simply mesmerizing as Shakepeare, particularly when delivering the tongue-twisting dialogue at a frenetic pace. However, the true marvel of the film is Gwyneth Paltrow, who radiantly shines as Viola. Here, she has a role which allows her a fiery mixture of strength and passion. She makes it perfectly believable that a character like hers could inspire one of the most inspired poets.

Not merely a period piece, Shakespeare in Love is the rival of many a modern-day romantic comedy. The solid acting and delightful screenplay raise this one above the crowd to be the best romantic comedy of the season.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shakespeare in Love

Rushmore - * * *

Posted on December 11, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Rushmore

No, this is not a film about the famous South Dakota presidential monument. Rather, Rushmore is a unique comedy about two somewhat obnoxious, but endearing, characters and their quest for happiness.

Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) is one of the most outgoing students at Rushmore Academy. He is involved in every club and group that the school offers, and has single-handedly established many more. However, despite his astounding extra-curricular efforts, academically he is also one of the worst students in Rushmore’s history.

Max’s latest project involves a new first grade teacher at Rushmore Academy, Miss Cross (Olivia Williams). Max is instantly smitten with her and, ignoring the age difference, sets out to woo her with all his resources.

To help out, Max enlists the aid of both his young protege (Mason Gamble) and a kindred spirit, the tycoon Herman Blume (Bill Murray). Herman, despite having amassed a great fortune, is surrounded by unhappiness. He has an unloving relationship with his wife, and he detests his two obnoxious sons (who happen to be classmate of Max). Max’s unbridled enthusiasm and determination makes Herman feel alive again. And the presence of Miss Cross stirs up other, long-dormant, emotions within him…emotions which may run contrary to Max’s plans.

It is rare for a film to create a character as unique and unexpected as Max Fischer. A lesser movie would have simply pegged Max as a misunderstood genius or a goofball loser. However, screenwriters Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson never let us forget Max’s central incompetence, yet all the while endowing him with a degree of chutzpah rarely glimpsed before.

Jason Schwartzman is a welcome new face, and tackles the role of Max Fischer with gusto. He’s able to go toe to toe with any of the more established actors in the film, and always comes away the winner.

In a more familiar role, Bill Murray is right at home as the unusual millionaire. He never devolves into all-out wackiness, but rather delivers a much more focused performance than he has in years.

As the woman who comes between these two, Olivia Williams has a much more passive role. She simply doesn’t have much to do, other than be the object of desire. However, it is a role which she plays well, limited as it is.

With its unique characters and unusual plot, Rushmore is a truly distinctive comedy. It never becomes the sort of film that will have you convulsing with laughter, but it certainly will keep you smiling the whole way through.

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

Star Trek: Insurrection - * 1/2*

Posted on December 11, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Star Trek: Insurrection

The odd-numbered Star Trek film curse strikes again. For those of you unfamiliar with Star Trek lore, it has been maintained that the only good Star Trek films are those with even numbers. Perhaps in response to this, Paramount stopped numbering their Star Trek films after #6. The latest outing of the Star Trek franchise, Star Trek: Insurrection, is the ninth film in the series…and like many of its odd-numbered brethren, it proves to be an awkward misstep.

Once again, it is the Star Trek: The Next Generation crew which takes center stage. This time, they’re embroiled in a plot that feels like a leftover tv episode. The peaceful Ba’ku people are in trouble, but they don’t know it. Their idyllic paradise planet is being lusted after by the evil Son’a race, who crave its fountain-of-youth properties. Certainly the Federation wouldn’t allow this warlike race to totally eliminate another society, would they? Well, therein lies the problem, the evil Son’a are allies with the Federation, and the Federation is willingly assisting the Son’a in their efforts.

Enter Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) and crew. Brought in to disable malfunctioning android Data (Brent Spiner), the crew learn of the plot, and quickly take sides against their own beloved Federation in order to save the 600 Ba’ku people.

The dialogue of Star Trek: Insurrection is easily the worst quality yet seen in a Star Trek film. Virtually every other line is either a quip or a catchphrase. The rest of the script is meaningless technobabble. There are several good acting talents among the cast, and they all deserve better than this.

The special effects are above average, though most of them are pointless effects for effects sake. The starship combat scenes are visually impressive, but confusing and lacking urgency. Apparently more time was spent determining what would look cool, rather than worrying about things such as pacing, or even common sense.

There’s precious little, if any, character development here. In fact, several of the characters have seemingly regressed from the events of the last several movies (for example, Data’s emotion chip is nary to be seen). There are a few romantic subplots: Riker (Jonathan Frakes) and Troi (Marina Sirtis) rekindle a relationship, and Picard gets together with Anij (Donna Murphy), a Ba’ku woman.

The villains are also rather bland. The most interesting thing about the Son’a is their obsession with obtaining eternal life through technology (rather than the Ba’ku’s “natural” methods). However, their leader, Ru’afo (F. Murray Abraham) is all bark and little bite.

Star Trek: Insurrection isn’t painful to sit through, but it adds nothing to the Star Trek mythos, and overall is a complete waste of time.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Star Trek: Insurrection

Jack Frost - *

Posted on December 11, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Jack Frost

It’s hard to imagine the idea even looked good on paper. Mixing a live action Frosty-the-snowman adventure with a tragic father and son bonding story, Jack Frost is even more unappealing on screen.

Michael Keaton plays a blues musician by the unlikely name of Jack Frost. Jack selfishly places his career ahead of his wife, Gabby (Kelly Preston), and child, Charlie (Joseph Cross). But before this neglectful father has a chance to repent, he dies in a tragic Christmas Eve car crash.

One year later, young Charlie still hasn’t recovered from the loss of his dad. His fervent Christmas wish is to spend one more Christmas with his father. And, strangely enough, Charlie’s wish is granted.

But Jack doesn’t return to earth in the same form in which he left it. Instead, due to some cosmic comic streak, he returns as a walking, talking, magical snowman. But, any second chance is better than none, right?

The living snowman effects are handled with a mixture of puppets and computer animation. The result is much less than satisfactory. Too often, the snowman appears to be made of felt and styrofoam rather than snow. But even when the snowman is semi-realistic the result is an unintentionally creepy character, much more disturbing than lovable.

Michael Keaton, whose role is mainly devoted to voice-over work, at least tries to give the snowman as much life as possible. But, even Keaton can’t give life to Jack Frost’s frozen dialogue.

The plot somehow manages to include just about every snow-and-ice bound activity imaginable (excepting the luge). There are more snowball fights, snow forts, snow skiing, hockey games, ice skating, snowboarding, etc., than you’d likely see at the Winter Olympics. The trouble is, very little of these activities add anything of import to the plot.

One thing the film never quite gets around to explaining is why Jack is forced to return as a snowman. Is it some sort of karmic punishment for being a poor father? A cruel twist of nature? A bad joke? It was probably just a lazy screenwriter.

It’s difficult to comprehend the intended target audience for Jack Frost. Those old enough not to be terrified by its title creature are likely already too sophisticated for a movie of this caliber.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Jack Frost

Psycho - * *

Posted on December 4, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Psycho

I’ll admit it up front. I’ve never considered the original Psycho to be one of Hitchcock’s best films. Although a good film, it should be celebrated more for its groundbreaking elements than for its quality. That leads us to what has to be 1998’s most unusual filmmaking attempt: director Gus Van Sant’s effort to create an exact shot-for-shot remake of the original Psycho, but in color, and using an all new cast.

For those cave-dwelling hermits who are somehow unfamiliar with the original film, here’s a brief rundown. Marion Crane (Anne Heche) is a secretary at a small Phoenix real estate office. One day, she’s presented with an opportunity too great to pass up. She steals $400,000 in cash, and begins a desperate drive to meet her boyfriend, Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen), who works outside of San Francisco.

However, she makes a wrong turn off the highway, and ends up at the Bates Motel, run by the insecure Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn), and his domineering invalid mother.

Meanwhile, the search is on for the missing Marion. Her sister (Julianne Moore) wants to make sure she’s all right, and a private investigator (William H. Macy) is out to recover the stolen money. How will it all end? Well, if you don’t already know, I’m not going to spoil it here.

This remake is not an exact shot-for-shot remake of the original. A few of the shots (such as the opening pan) have been made seamless, using technology that wasn’t around in 1960. An additional shot which Hitchcock originally wanted for the shower scene (but was forced to abandon due to the censors) has been included. Most of the other additions are semi-subliminal. There are occasional flashes of unrelated imagery, as well as echoes and other “subliminal” sounds placed on the soundtrack. Unfortunately, the additions don’t work. For the most part, they’re distracting…and certainly not an improvement.

But, on the whole, the film remains extremely similar to the original. The sexuality and violence in the film has been peripherally heightened (something which neither adds nor detracts from the film), and a few lines of dialogue have been updated. However, the film still seems to be mired in the past. Little things, like speech patterns or one particular use of a telephone, which seemed appropriate in the original now seem wildly dated.

But the good stuff has translated as well. Many of the shocks and surprises of the original are still shocking and surprising, provided that you haven’t been let in on the secrets. And that is perhaps the film’s biggest problem. Knowing the secrets tremendously diminishes the impact of the original Psycho, and the same certainly holds true here.

The quality of acting varies widely in the remake. Some of the actors (such as Rance Howard and Anne Heche) seem confined by the film’s rigid structure. Others (such as Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore) manage to deliver different interpretations of the familiar characters, even without additional dialogue or scenes.

On the whole, the remake is just about, but not quite as good as the original Psycho. However, with the original still out there, it is very difficult to recommend seeing the remake instead. In fact, it is difficult to recommend the remake to anyone but perhaps a film student or a devoted fan of all things Psycho.

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

Very Bad Things - * 1/2*

Posted on November 25, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Peter Berg directs this messy (in more ways than one) black comedy. But while it certainly is dark and morbid…someone forgot the laughs in this dreary film.

Very Bad Things tells the tale of a bachelor party that goes horribly wrong. Kyle Fisher (Jon Favreau) is preparing to marry the controlling Laura Garrety (Cameron Diaz). For his final fling, his pal Robert Boyd (Christian Slater) has planned a fun-filled party in Vegas.

Along for the adventure are Kyle’s quiet mechanic buddy, Charles (Leland Orser), and two of his co-workers, Adam (Daniel Stern) and Michael Berkow (Jeremy Piven).

Things begin to go bad when the stripper (Carla Scott) hired by Boyd meets an unfortunate, accidental demise. Rather than report the death, the five men decide to cover it up…but their problems start to rapidly escalate from there.

If you couldn’t tell, this is a rather bleak comedy, and the situations just keep getting bleaker. Unfortunately, the comedy doesn’t keep pace. The film is obviously attempting to reach for some morbid laughs, but it just doesn’t get them.

Take the characters, for example. They’re all given little idiosyncracies, but rather than being comic, most of them are merely annoying. These aren’t people you’d really care to spend any time with, in or out of the theater.

The situation (normal guys in an abnormal situation) is familiar, yet something just never clicks here. Even the usually watchable Cameron Diaz becomes mildly repulsive in this film.

Filmmakers should learn never to use words like “Very Bad” in the title of their films. It’s too convenient a place for such an apt description of the film.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Very Bad Things

Ringmaster - [No Tickets]

Posted on November 25, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

At the turn of the millenium, the name Jerry Springer has become synonomous with “trash tv” and everything that has gone wrong with our culture. It’s only fitting, then, that Jerry gets his own movie. But Ringmaster, a half-hearted attempt to translate the “ideal” Jerry Springer show free-for-all to the screen, ends up an even worse movie than the concept sounds!

Jerry Springer stars as Jerry Farrelly, talk show host. His show, Jerry!, lets its guests air their dirty laundry in front of a national television audience, and also (occassionally) engage in brutal fistcuffs.

The first set of guests, for the show titled “You Did WHAT With Your Stepdaddy?”, are a pathetic bunch of trailer trash. Angel Zorzak (Jaime Pressly) is a sex-starved 19-year old having an affair with her stepfather (Michael Dudikoff). In retaliation, her 34-year old mother, Connie (Molly Hagen) strikes up a relationship with Angel’s fiancee, Willie (Ashley Holbrook).

The second Jerry! show is entitled “My Traitor Girlfriends”. Starletta (Wendy Raquel Robinson) is having problems with her boyfriend, Demond (Michael Jai White). He’ll sleep with anyone, including Starletta’s best friends, Vonda (Tangie Ambrose) and Leshawnette (Nicki Michneaux).

Now, obviously, these are the screenwriters’ attempts at setting up the “perfect” Jerry Springer show. But, where’s the fun in that? I mean, part of the lurid appeal of his TV show is that the guests are real. Real people with real problems and real bad attitudes. Here, it’s just a bunch of actors acting badly, and it shows.

I guess here you also get to see the enchanting lives the “typical” Jerry Springer guests live before their on-air appearances. And you also get to gawk at the “glamourous” life behind the scenes of Jerry’s show. In other words, nothing very appealing is here at all.

But nothing can compare to when the film starts preaching its “message”. You see, Jerry Springer is all about helping the poor. Anyone who dislikes the show is simply uncomfortable with watching poor folk talk about their problems. However, Ringmaster conveniently forgets to mention the fact that the show also happens to be exploiting those same “poor folk” it supposedly champions. Oh well, they never claimed it was a rational argument.

If you’re a die-hard Jerry Springer junkie, you ought to stick with the real thing. For those of you non-fans out there, Ringmaster certainly won’t convert you. If anything, it may make you despise Jerry Springer all the more.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Comments Off on Ringmaster

Home Fries - * * 1/2*

Posted on November 25, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Home Fries is an unusual romantic comedy where you never quite know what to expect. Just when you think you’ve figured it out, the film veers off in a different direction. The end result may leave you disoriented, but its ultimately pleasing.

Sally (Drew Barrymore) has been having an affair with a married man. Not only that, but she’s eight-months pregnant, and her lover still refuses to leave his wife. Oh well, at least Sally has her dependable Burger Mart job to count on.

However, one night, she picks up a radio communication on her drive-thru headset. She hears the chatter between Dorian (Luke Wilson) and Angus (Jake Busey), two brothers in the Air National Guard, who have “borrowed” a helicopter to use in an elaborate prank.

However, when the prank backfires, Dorian is sent to the Burger Mart to discover if anyone there knows what happened. Yet, instead of finding witnesses, Dorian finds love…with Sally.

So is this movie a spunky romantic comedy where Sally and Dorian overcome their obstacles to fall in love? Or is it a quaint small town slice-of-life story, where the glamourous jobs are all at the local cigarette factory? Maybe it’s a dysfunctional family portrait, or even a grim black comedy? The answer to all of those is yes.

As you might surmise, the movie becomes a bit cluttered here and there. However, though it may not always know what genre it wants to be, it always manages to be amusing, tackling all of its varied topics with a true sense of fun.

Drew Barrymore fits perfectly as the wholesome young woman who just happened to get pregnant while having an affair with a married man. Compared to her easygoing style, Luke Wilson comes off a bit stiff.

However, the supporting roles are all top notch. Jake Busey is a hoot as Dorian’s brother Angus…but he can’t compare to the masterfully wicked performance by Catherine O’Hara, as the boys’ mother. Shelly Duvall and Lanny Flaherty, as Sally’s white trash parents, deliver a couple of good scenes as well.

If you’re in the mood for an out of the ordinary romantic comedy (and like your humor a little warped), Home Fries fills the bill.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Home Fries

Babe: Pig in the City - * *

Posted on November 25, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

Babe: Pig in the City

I have to admit, I wasn’t Babe‘s biggest fan. The premise was cute, and the speaking-animal effects were well done, but I still maintain that the original film was well over-praised. Which brings us to Babe: Pig in the City, a sequel (of sorts) to Babe. It’s an unusual sequel in that it doesn’t merely try to tell the same story…but is actually markedly different. Unfortunately, different doesn’t always equate to better…

After an accident injures Farmer Hoggett (James Cromwell), the Hoggett farm is in serious trouble. Mrs. Hoggett (Magda Szubanski) gathers their famous sheep-pig, Babe (voiced by E.G. Daily), to make a guest appearance at a state fair (where a generous appearance fee will help to save the farm).

Unfortunately, things don’t go quite as planned, and Mrs. Hoggett and Babe end up in the big city (an every-city, blending many world locales). There, the pair are taken in by a kind landlady (Mary Stein), who is kind to animals in a city that shuns them.

But the city is a tough place, and this animal-friendly hotel is no exception. There’s a floor devoted to a thieving clown (Mickey Rooney) and his group of clothes-wearing circus monkeys. There’s a floor for dogs, and a floor for cats. Poor Babe is stuck in the attic, a sheep-pig with no sheep to herd.

Fans of the first film may be pleased that both Ferdinand the Duck (Danny Mann), and the inexplicable singing mice are back for return appearances. However, this time around, James Cromwell’s Oscar-nominated role of Farmer Hoggett is relegated to a mere cameo (as are most of Babe’s friends from the first film).

The new film instead focuses on a new coterie of animals, but few as charming as the original. And while a gangster-like pit bull is entertaining (voiced by Stanley Ralph Ross), many of the new animals lack the strong personalities of the originals.

The special effects have improved since the first film. However, the gimmick of talking animals has long since lost its freshness (having been done to death in television commercials and other movies). Talking animals alone is no longer enough to sustain a movie.

The film’s tone is rather dark and murky at times…but then, if you recall, so was the original (in which the animals were constantly worried about being eaten). But gone is the sense of whimsy which lightened up the first Babe. Instead, this sequel just leaves an unpleasant aftertaste.

The film has its share of oddities, from the strange appearance of pig people (who have apparently escaped from the Island of Dr. Moreau) throughout the movie, to an unusual slapstick climax that doesn’t quite work. The sum of these make the movie unusual and distinctive, but at times the irregularities are borderline distracting.

Still, Babe: Pig in the City deserves some credit for at least trying something new, rather than sticking to the exact same formula as the original. But, in the end, the sequel never lives up to the original, and stands on very shaky ground on its own.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Comments Off on Babe: Pig in the City

A Bug’s Life - * * * 1/2*

Posted on November 20, 1998 by Madeleine Williams

A Bug's Life

The season’s second computer-animated ant tale (following Antz) has finally hit the theaters. It lacks some of the earlier film’s sophisticated humor, but more than makes up for it with its rich animation and endearing characters.

The ant colony on Ant Island has problems. Every year, the ants must toil to collect enough food to appease a gang of bad grasshoppers, led by the menacing Hopper (Kevin Spacey), in addition to enough food to support the colony. One inventive ant, Flik (Dave Foley), has a creative food-gathering idea…which unfortunately backfires, leaving the colony to face some rather angry grasshoppers.

Flik is sent away to find some help: warrior bugs the colony can hire to fight off the grasshoppers. Unfortunately for the colony, the error-prone Flik brings back a band of misfit circus bugs (who are under the impression they’ve been hired to put on a show).

Among the helpers are a trio of clowns: the a male ladybug Francis (Denis Leary), walking stick Slim (David Hyde Pierce), and corpulent German caterpillar Heimlich (Joe Ranft). There are a pair of Hungarian pillbug acrobats, Tuck and Roll (Michael McShane), the quick-spinning black widow Rosie (Bonnie Hunt), and her tame beetle Dim (Brad Garrett). Rounding out the troupe are the praying mantis magician Manny (Jonathan Harris), and his moth sidekick Gypsy (Madeline Kahn).

The animation quality of A Bug’s Life is simply spectacular. The animators at Pixar have broken new ground with the realism of the surroundings. The plants, twigs, and surrounding vegitation is impressively realistic. The bugs aren’t as impressive (most look like they’re made of cloth or vinyl), but are still expressively animated.

But, as good as the animation is, it’s the characters here that stand out once again. As with Pixar’s earlier film, Toy Story, the vocal talent have been perfectly matched with the characters they play. Unlike Antz, whose characters were overshadowed by the big name voice actors, the characters in A Bug’s Life come first.

The humor of A Bug’s Life is both subtle and simple. The in-jokes that peppered Antz aren’t to be found here…instead we’re assaulted with the humor present in a minutiae of details. There are lots of little things, such as the variety of bugs and buildings in the bug “city”, which require multiple viewings to catch them all. Not much of the humor here will sail over the heads of children…but adults will still find plenty to grin about.

A Bug’s Life may not be as groundbreaking as Toy Story, but it is nearly as entertaining. There’s a little something for everyone here, and the film is a blast to watch.

Posted in 1998, Movie Reviews | Tagged | Comments Off on A Bug’s Life