ON SCREEN:
DOWN WITH LOVE: is intended as an homage to the screwball, double-entendre
romantic comedies of the early 60's, and while it's no substitute for those
movies (as many other critics have pointed out), it does have its own charm.
A major reason for this is that the two stars, Renee Zellweger and Ewan
McGregor, end up surprisingly good together, even if they aren't Doris
Day and Rock Hudson (as many critics have also pointed out). She is the
bestselling author of a Feminine Mystique-style tract (which gives
the movie its title), and he is a roguish reporter determined to seduce
her and prove that she is, in fact, just another woman who needs a man
(which gives the movie what little tension it has). There's a lot not to
like; the plot doesn't stand up to close scrutiny (or any scrutiny, actually),
and the cocktail-jazz soundtrack and humor both get really stale about
halfway through the proceedings. Also, David Hyde Pierce, playing the reporter's
editor and best buddy, plays the exact same character he plays on Frasier,
down to the last tic, making you wonder if it wouldn't be more entertaining
to just watch a rerun of that show. All that said, the stars are good enough
together, and the plot is charming enough to make me, a romantic comedy
fan, overlook its flaws for an hour-and-a-half or so. The best aspect of
the film is the incredible job that the production designers and set-people
did recreating the look of the early 60's, down to the (terrific) animated
credits at the beginning and the tab collars (keep an eye out and you'll
spot them!) By the way, the gorgeous Jeri Ryan, who is one of the best
of the many good things about Fox's TV show Boston Public, ends
up mostly as eye-candy here as a stewardess and conquest of the reporter.
More importantly, the casting people got one actual 60's star, who I didn't
even think was alive anymore, to play a small-but-important role. Anyone
familiar with New York City geography will get a good laugh out of the
first five minutes. RATING: A very generous 7.
BOOK OF SHADOWS: BLAIR WITCH 2: As I have mentioned before, I usually
don't like sequels; most of them are just cheap money-makers. The Star
Wars, Star Trek, and Terminator franchises are among the few exceptions.
So why did I see this movie? I liked the first Blair Witch project, and
I figured that if I liked the first and second Star Trek movies and the
first and second Star Wars movies, I would end up liking the first and
second Blair Witch movies. Boy, was I stupid. This so-called movie does
everything it can to eliminate every last likable thing about the first
film, while coasting on that film's success. The suspense and tension are
gone, replaced by a predictable (and slow) plot. The eerie silences are
gone, replaced by a tiresome, please-as-many-teenagers-as-possible grunge-rock
soundtrack. The primal, dark-woods scariness is gone, with much of the
movie taking place in a slacker's old warehouse. Even the local characters
and their ominous warnings are gone, replaced with tiresome redneck cliches.
Meanwhile, everything that was merely tolerable (or downright annoying)
about the first BWP is back, this time about ten times worse. Instead of
three over-actors playing somewhat grating characters, we have five of
them, and with (maybe) one exception, they're all twice as irritating as
anyone in the first movie. Even the plot is more minimal in the sequel
than in the first movie; it all revolves around a local slacker/bad boy
(Jeff Patterson) who takes curious fans of the first movie (yes, you guessed
it--all the other characters) out for excursions to the mysterious sights
in rural Maryland associated with the first movie. Maybe that's the whole
problem; there was just too much hip, postmodern reference-to-pop-culture
pablum here, and not enough thought as to what would make a decent movie,
let alone a decent sequel. Even the movie's few good ideas, like a twist
that is (or would have been) a genuine surprise, are so buried in the murk
that is the script that they end up totally unenjoyable. I have one word
that sums up this movie, or rather, one acronym: MST3K. It is the worst
movie I've seen in recent years, except for The Matrix. (As a postscript,
I remember reading after the first BWP came out that some followers
of the Wiccan religion were offended by that movie. That surprised me,
since the whole Blair Witch thing has nothing to do with real witches beyond
its title, but of course they have a right to think about the movie whatever
they want. These people need to think carefully before seeing this sequel,
because its cast of characters includes a tiresome self-proclaimed "witch,"
played by the normally attractive Erica Leehrson, who will offend them
far more than anything in the first movie did. If you fall into this category,
consider yourself warned.) RATING: 1.
CITIZEN RUTH: Ruth (Laura Dern) is a young woman from rural Kansas who
spends much of her time indulging her addiction to inhaled enamel paint
fumes. (As addictions go, this must be one of the more pathetic, although
I guess you could argue that all addictions are that way.) Her first two
kids have been (big surprise) taken away from her years ago. We meet her
just as she gets pregnant by another loser; when a judge all but orders
her to have an abortion, a strident pro-life activist (Kurtwood Smith,
who is the dad on That 70's Show) takes her in with his family.
A while later, we meet pro-choice activists who are just as strident! Interestingly,
both sides of the abortion debate are represented by hollow stereotypes
(with a few noteworthy exceptions); if you're offended by the cliched pro-lifers,
don't worry, because the cliched pro-choicers are right around the corner!
The apparent purpose of all this is to find sympathy with our heroine,
the poor woman at the center of it all. The trouble is that she's just
not a very sympathetic or compelling character--she's rude, self-absorbed,
and most of her problems are her fault. A better actress than Dean, or
perhaps a better script, could have nevertheless made us sympathetic to
this character. Dern simply isn't up to the task. Now that I think about
it, she's always seemed overrated to me. (Incidentally, the main reason
I saw this movie was because of the small role played by Caveh Zahedi,
the independent filmmaker best known for his romantic comedy A Little
Stiff, which I greatly admire. Unfortunately, he plays a rather one-dimensional
figure here and is only on screen briefly, neither of which should have
surprised me. I'll keep the other special appearances a surprise, since
anyone who sits through this film deserves SOME reward.) RATING: 4.
ZERO FOR CONDUCT (OR ZERO IN CONDUCT): This early French talkie tells
the story of various forms of misbehavior at a French boarding school in
the 1930's. You can think of it as the Fast Times at Ridgemont High
of its time. In any event, it's proof positive that disciplinary problems
in school did not suddenly spring into existence in 1962, when the US Supreme
Court banned organized and teacher-led school prayer (as some conservatives
insist). Fortunately, it's also entertaining, and is a showcase for Jean
Daste, a sort of undiscovered Charlie Chaplin who plays the kids' favorite
teacher. The plot isn't much, but Daste's performance, some of the child
acting, and some skillfully surreal camera work (even including some animation!)
make this worth watching. RATING: 8.
---
Thanks for reading, and I hope you get to see lots of
movies in 2004!
Tony