CAPSULE FILM REVIEWS BY TONY PORCO (SUMMER 1999 BLOCKBUSTER ISSUE)
(...and it might help you forgive that ridiculously hype-ridden title if I tell you that this issue contains four reviews, all of which are new movies--a first for this newsletter. The first two are my work, and the last two are by David Lichtenstein. Look for my own review of the South Park movie in the next issue, by the way...)
WILD WILD WEST: Here we are in the late 90's (my, how time flies!), and Hollywood seems to be in an incredible and intractable trough. Starved for original ideas, and afraid to risk anything genuinely new, the big studios endlessly recycle pop-culture artifacts from the 1960's and ‘70's, some of which (like The Flintstones and The Brady Bunch) weren’t really all that good to begin with. These tired stimulation-fests get hyped to no end, most overwhelmingly in fast-food restaurants, where a plastic miniature of nearly every character in the movie is available for the price of a Happy Meal. Wild Wild West epitomizes most of these trends without actually being all that bad a movie. The spirit of the old 1960's TV show--especially the interplay between macho man James West (played here by Will Smith, who is well cast--as himself!) and disguise expert/fantastical inventor Artemus Gordon (Kevin Kline, in a brilliant stroke)-- is actually captured fairly well. The action also catches and holds, and the cliffhangers (one literal!) are genuine edge-of the seaters. All that said, there is a lot to put up with for these pleasures: Salma Hayek is totally wasted in an infuriating eye-candy role (come to think of it, all the women in this movie, even the extras, are eye candy--the sexism of this film borders on the pathological). Furthermore, the script desperately wants to be hip and funny, and is funny in places, but gets rather tiresome in others. The beginning, as you might expect, tries to simulate the unmistakable multiple-frame-screen opening credits that distinguished the 1960's series, and it basically succeeds. The ending, on the other hand, is a bit lame (Jill put her finger on the reason for that better than I did).
EYES WIDE SHUT: The late Stanley Kubrick is one of my favorite film directors, mainly because whoever directed 2001: A Space Odyssey was bound to be one of my favorite directors in any event. This is only the third Kubrick movie I have seen (the second was Barry Lyndon) and, as with those earlier productions, the movie is an enviable visual feast, down to the last prop on the last table on the last set. One wonders, however, why so much detail was lavished on this unfathomable and somewhat narcissistic story of what happens when a successful young New York doctor (played, of course, by Tom Cruise) learns that his wife of nine years (Nicole Kidman) once had unfaithful thoughts--not deeds, mind you, thoughts--during their romantic getaway a year before. The first problem is that Cruise simply isn’t up to this kind of heady material (to be honest, I thought that Jerry McGuire stretched him to his limits!). The second is that the normally-subtle Kubrick keeps cutting back to shots of Kidman putting her thoughts into action as Cruise broods, as though we were really wondering what he was thinking about--only one example of the film’s frankly excessive nudity. Still, Kidman, who can act rings around her husband, handles a challenging assignment with some skill. Kubrick fans (like me, of course) and those who like seeing the work of a perfectionist, will appreciate the sheer depth of work that this Picasso of the cinema puts into every brush stroke. That said, they still might wonder why he chose this particular piece of fruit for his still-life.
SOUTH PARK: BIGGER, LONGER AND UNCUT: The in-your-face crudity of South Park can be excused on television because it is so cutting-edge. But in the cinema, it is only a
poorly produced Punch & Judy show. Its purpose is still to shock the audience into laughter, but the laughs are only of the "I can't believe they just did that" variety.
If you really need to know about the plot, here it is: The four South Park kids sneak in to see an R-rated flick starring their even-cruder heroes, Terrence & Phillip, called Asses of Fire (which features a rousing musical number, "Uncle F***er"). The kids emerge from the film a little more educated in coarse language than their parents would like. The parents blame the film's stars and their country of origin, Canada. War ensues; crudity, lowbrow parodies, and vulgar tastelessness shadow every step.
Would I see this film again myself? No. Would I recommend that others go to see this film? Not outside of a dollar theater. The quality is no better than the cable TV show, and also no worse. There are a few clever lines and parodies, but the idea that this kind of vulgarity is a
good thing is galling to my hardening arteries. (South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut, 81 min. ** (out of 5)
THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT: There have been very few films other than documentaries which have used the extreme cinema verite style. The only other one that leaps to mind is a French film from almost a decade ago called Man Bites Dog (*** 1/2). The Blair Witch Project uses cinema verite even better and evokes greater feeling than the French movie did.
It is only through their own recording devices that we meet and get to follow the three stars of this film. They are setting out into the woodlands of Maryland to make a documentary about the legendary Blair Witch, said to still haunt the wilderness. They take with them a small
High-8 video camera and a larger 16mm camera with better quality black and white film. Through their own pictures, we hear (and sometimes see) them gather interviews and woodland film footage... and then they get lost...and stalked.
There are so few movies to which this one can be compared, because its style is so individual. We never see or hear anything that the three stars don't see or hear. Even more, they are well aware of the film (or tape) being made, and at one point two of them fight over control of a camera. This is, to my knowledge, unprecedented. There is also no soundtrack, which adds to the feeling of peering into another life rather than a prepared story.
This is also a film that evokes terror and a bit of horror. To get the most out of that aspect of the movie, I can only suggest that you pay close attention to the stories that the locals in the film tell about the legend of the Blair Witch. There are echoes and echoes of echoes. I heartily recommend this movie to those who don't need a soundtrack to tell them how to feel. (The Blair Witch Project, 88 min. **** (out of 5)
See you at the movies! (Hopefully avoiding the overpriced popcorn)
TONY