Hello, and welcome to the latest issue--finished just before a badly-needed vacation to the Western United States (the first time I've been West of Ohio in several years). As always, feel free to give me any feedback, movie suggestions, rude denigrations, or the like. There are two guest writers this time around--David Lichtenstein (DL) took a look at The Corruptor, and David Zuckman (DAZ) gave his take on the recent Kevin Costner vehicle, The Postman. Please note (especially if you are Kevin Costner) that the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the editor...

AFTERLIFE (TDP): Japanese director Hirukazu Koreeda's vision of the afterlife is one that is rather different from most others' notions of it. As a result, many in the audience thought that his film was perplexing; I, on the other hand, found it downright refreshing. In Koreeda's version, which is a sort of purgatory, the recently-deceased have one week to decide on the best and most beautiful memory of their lives. Then, a crew of scriptwriters and filmmakers (one hesitates to call them angels) re-create the memories with B-movie techniques and special effects that magically work, lifting the dead souls to their final, blissful nirvanas. Although it looks amateurish and almost slackerish at first, Koreeda's direction actually compliments this strange premise well. The hostel-type institution where the crew and the intendant souls stay has the look of an old school or office building, aged but with some character, and it suggests the insulation of this world-between-worlds quite well. There is almost nothing that tells us explicitly that this is "the afterlife," as there would be in any Western movie on the same subject (except for a bright and rather abstract entryway into the institution, seen only at the beginning of the movie). This is clever, because it allows the cinematography to tell us about it implicitly. When plot elements begin to occur, they seem almost intrusive to this sereneness--it doesn't help that they're not very believable. Overall, however, the idea for this movie is much more interesting than the plot, and that alone makes it worth seeing. RATING: 8

THREE SEASONS (TDP): A young peasant woman starts working at a lotus plantation in the countryside, eventually becoming curious about the establishment's enigmatic owner. A cynical and stoic Vietnam veteran spends day after day at a downtown hotel, searching for his Amerasian daughter. A young, homeless boy is forced to sell trinkets on the street. A sensitive rickshaw driver gives a ride to a beautiful but worldly young prostitute--and, of course, falls in love with her. These characters' various destinies do not intertwine in anything more than a casual way, but they still seem to belong together in young Vietnamese director Tony Bui's ode to the street life of Saigon (also known as Ho Chi Minh City). Cheesiness and tritenesses abound--the ugly person with the beautiful soul, the whore and the good man who loves her--but I didn't care about any of that, because I was too busy caring about these wonderfully human people. This was made possible mainly by believable acting; Harvey Keitel, playing the Vietnam vet, actually makes one of the weaker impressions (the script does not give him quite enough to do). The squalor and occasional paradoxical beauty of Saigon is also well-portrayed by Bui; in fact, the city sometimes seems like another character in the movie, the way that New York is always a character in Woody Allen movies. I hate calling a movie "magical," but this one simply won't let me call it anything else. RATING: 9

THE CORRUPTOR (DL): With a title like this, it is tempting to get philosophical and wonder who or what is meant by the word "Corruptor." It could be the criminal boss, with his claws pulling the strings of crooked cops. It could also be the vast amounts of money and influence to be gleaned by dealing in the illegal. It could also be civilization itself which, in forbidding certain goods and services by law, encourages lawbreaking and "black markets". But if you get too philosophical about this topic, you'll miss the movie.

The Corruptor has a touch of the philosophical in it, as well as having bits of drama, police-procedure, John Woo, and several other styles. In fact, it varies so widely in style and quality that I found it hard to believe that there was only one director. It probably is the director who is to blame for the problems of this film, because the special effects and editing are both of fairly high quality. (Parenthetically, there are several marvelous aerial views of New York City which have little to do with the film, but are to be admired anyway.)

The story (as if that's important): Chow Yun Fat and Mark Wahlberg are the cops in charge of New York City's Chinatown organized crime task force. They are trying to sort out a raging gang war between two very militant "families" of Chinese thugs. This contact with the criminal underground taints them and their loved ones, but it all works out after a vicious gun battle which reminded me of Mortal Kombat with firearms.

Unfortunately, this movie cannot simply be dismissed as a low-end action flick because there are (albeit rare) moments of beauty. Aside from the aerial shots, there is the theme of Chow Yun Fat trying to protect a partner who doesn't want to be protected, and there is the closing scene, which is not what I expected at all. There are also many negative aspects to the film, probably more than there are positive. Fortunately, my rating system has a spot for such films. RATING: 5

HOMICIDE, THE MOVIE (TDP): I have often wondered exactly what it was that made the recently-canceled NBC TV series Homicide so f'ing great. Maybe it was the realism--the true-to-life dialogue, the documentary-style camera work, the scripts that asked tough questions and did not accept easy answers. Maybe it was the well-hewn characters. Maybe it was the almost unerring acting (especially that of Shakespearean actor Andre Braugher and burly Yaphet Kotto). It may even have been the right-down-the-street location (good, old Baltimore, seen both in grittiness and in splendor). I am now convinced that it was all of those things, and that they come to mind because they set the show apart from the legions of cop shows that have been on TV ever since the technology was invented. In light of this, I started out being a bit disappointed by this TV reunion movie, but I am pleased to say that it comes around in the end.

The plot is set a few years after the last episodes of the series. The old chief Giardello (Kotto) has become a politician, and is on the verge of winning the Baltimore mayor's race when a would-be assassin seriously wounds him at a rally in Harborplace. Immediately, the old crew--Braugher, Ned Beatty, Kyle Secor, Melissa Leo, Richard Belzer (who has too little to do) and all the others assemble to catch the assassin. I was most disappointed with the first half or so of the movie (dealing with this investigation), because it seemed like the script seemed to neglect the things that made the series so unique. An easy target (the press) was trotted out, and Giancarlo Esposito (playing Giardello's son, a patrolman) got away with a little too much, which undermined the believability that was one of the best things about the original series. Near the end, things got better. The conclusion (which I dare not describe in any concrete detail) was classic Homicide, with a powerful denouement that made me lament the end of such a proud moment for a medium that, in my opinion, really hasn't had very many proud moments. RATING: 8

THE POSTMAN (DAZ): First of all, let me start off by saying that I am no fan of Kevin Costner. I think Kevin Costner graduated at the bottom of his acting class at the William Shatner school of acting, just below Keanu Reeves. How is it that he seemed to be getting all these choice roles and multi-million-dollar salaries for all these movies he's been in? He's horrible. Isn't this clear to everyone? When I think of Costner's acting ability, I think of that Gary Larson Far Side cartoon. It's called something like "how to read the emotions of your dog" and it has 9 nearly identical drawing of a goofy-faced dog with his tongue hanging out and a vacant expression in his eyes, and each one is labeled with a different emotion: Happy, sad, anguish, pain, fear, depression, etc. And also I wasn't on a big Kevin Costner "high" before accidentally falling into the trap of sitting through this 3-hour sleeper, and by "sleeper" I don't mean "fantastic, critically-acclaimed film that for some some reason wasn't a big box office hit." I mean "sleeper" as in "will put you to sleep with the same force as the ether they give you at the hospital before your Big Operation."

It didn't help that for some reason, the night before I made myself sit through Dances with Wolves. Although this one wasn't so bad. I liked the Indians. And it had horses in it. So it was OK.

Anyway, the first big laugh of the film is that Costner's character is... guess what? An actor! A Shakespearean actor! A BAD Shakespearean actor! So I had a belly laugh here. I was filling in lines with MST3K-like alacrity. Like: After Costner delivers a horrible bit of Shakespeare where he actually has a sword-fight with his donkey, an (inexplicably) adoring mother comes up and says, "Wow, my children have never seen Shakespeare before!" and of course the right response is, "Yes, and they still haven't." I guess we're supposed to have a knowing grin here, "Ha ha! It must be a stretch for Costner to attempt to play a BAD actor!"

Now I don't want people to go away with the impression that I think this film is worthless. Far from it. This is a great film to have on (if you already have cable, mind you, don't be renting it or getting via pay-per-view or something like that) if you have pressing business to attend to about the house while it's going on, and you've already seen the episode of The Simpsons it's going up against. It's a great film. A great film to have on while you're attending to things like brushing your cats, making dinner or perhaps talking on the phone. Don't worry--this film won't try to distract you from your household chores such as paying your taxes or dusting with any of that tedious "drama" or "action" that is oh-so-popular in films these days. The scenery is wonderful, plenty of panoramic views of the Midwest and horses, and the music is majestic, very John Williams-ish.

Which brings me to the subject of the music: The music is fantastic, and this is a major indicator of what a suckey film it is. The music has to be there to fill in that yawning void of the lack of emotion coming from the star of this cinematic black hole. When there is a moment where you're supposed to feel uplifted, don't be searching Costner's face for such an indication. No, the producers of the film (couldn't be the director, 'cause Costner himself directed it too) thoughtfully arranged to have to have uplifting music when you should feel uplifted. Listening to Costner's smoothness of dialog delivery that approaches a Lithuanian trying to speak English for the first time and wondering whether we should feel nervous perhaps? Or maybe it's a romantic scene? Or perhaps angry? Can't tell, can you? Relax, there will be either nervous or romantic or angry music to guide you. And guide every freaking frame of the film. Worse than the laugh track of a '70s sit-com. The music never ever ever stops, and if this film weren't three hours long, it might not have gotten on my nerves.

The supporting cast is good, and the scenery is good, and the music is good, but Costner is such a black hole that it's kind of like having a Christmas tree with a really bad side that you for some reason can't put against the wall, so you decorate it with tinsel and lights and popcorn and ornaments, and you have low lighting in the room and put on peppy music and load everyone up with booze and put out all kinds of snacks and everything else to distract from the huge flaw you have, and you can achieve some level of success by doing this, but in your living room you can't avoid the fact that you have that huge horrible terrible gaping flaw that is Kevin Costner.

And this snoozer goes on and on and on. Three freaking hours of leathery-faced Costner mugging it up and being the center of attention without any identifiable reason WHY he should be the center of attention. I can't think of a single scene (except for maybe a few minutes at the end after he's dead--YAAAAY!--but even then there's a STATUE of him, so there's no real closure here) where his mug isn't on screen. He spends the entire movie--down to the last fight scene--engaging in entirely self-serving activities and avoiding in getting involved with (much less trying to solve) other people's problems. Why should we like him? I certainly didn't. Why should he get the girl? Costner's character is whiny, weak and self-absorbed. Oh, wait, I need to correct myself here: The one reason given as to why the one girl throws herself at him is: He is about the correct height. There you go. And who says size doesn't matter? Apparently being the correct height makes up for every other flaw that any woman in her right mind--especially as strong and independent a woman as the one who does fall for Costner--would stop dating you for faster than you could say "halitosis." There is just unnecessary time-wasting filler after more unnecessary time-wasting filler. Do we REALLY need to see The Bad Guy once again Ride Into Town With His Posse and Wreak Havoc (thereby further establishing that he is indeed The Bad Guy)? Do we really need to see The Cute-Faced Ethnically Diverse Child once again Prove He Is A Man by Standing Up to The Evil that surrounds him? And what was Tom Petty in this film for? All I can guess is that he's the friend of one of the producers or he lost a bet or something. Thank God that I was watching this on cable at home. During the most dreadful parts of this stinker I was able to flip over to catch the score of the Jacksonville game or see what was going to be on 60 minutes.

Anyway, the bottom line is: This movie is a "sleeper" and a dog of a film. And you know what to do with sleeping dogs, right???  RATING:  Take a guess!

...And that's it for another issue. By the way, you probably noticed that I have started using a 1 to 10 rating system--I would be curious to know if anyone has any feedback or suggestions on this. Thanks, and see you at Hoyt's,
 
 
 
 

TONY