Summer Movies 2000 (Part 1)

(06/08/00)

 

At last it's June, and everyone's favorite movie season--summer--has finally rolled around. It looks like we're in line for another bumper crop of blockbuster thrills, chills, and spills, and I'm here to offer my own humble opinions on this summer's harvest. The first fruits of Hollywood's labors have already appeared, in the form of three sure-to-be-hits: "Dinosaur," "Mission: Impossible 2," and "Gladiator." All three have kick-started the summer with grosses in the neighborhood of $100 million, and "M:I2" has already broken opening-weekend records. This is shaping up to be one tasty summer for studios and moviegoers alike.

My first movie of this season was "Dinosaur." I only saw it was because I heard there was going to be a new Kate Bush song on the soundtrack. (Also, I saw an extended "Dinosaur" preview before "Toy Story 2" and the amazing CGI caused me to forget what I was seeing in the first place!) It being a Disney movie, I went in with low expectations--and, believe it or not, I was disappointed.

First of all, let me say the CGI is truly astonishing (particularly the lemurs, whose fur in particular is astonishingly realistic) and is without question some of the best I've seen. Perhaps I wouldn't feel ripped off if that was the focus instead of the dinosaurs' predictable dialogue and a plot ripped off from, of all things, "The Land Before Time." Instead, it's a typical crappy Disney flick with expensive eye candy that most kids won't appreciate anyway. Why spend all the money on cutting-edge computer effects if you're only going to put a cheap hand-drawn story with it? And why couldn't the whole movie have been as silent (and as utterly cool) as the first 10 minutes, which are the only reason anyone over the age of 10 might bother with this drivel?

Finally, I sat through this movie and the credits--and no Kate Bush song anywhere. Insult to injury, Disney. You owe me $6.50 and that new tune! The Verdict: There's a reason why real dinosaurs didn't talk. 2 out of 5.

I had somewhat higher expectations for John Woo's "Mission: Impossible 2." After all, those previews with Tom Cruise hanging off a cliff or doing death-defying motorcycle stunts or doing nifty kung fu moves made it look great. And look great it does, the action sequences in particular (no big surprise there), especially the aforementioned motorcycle chase. But sadly, it's yet another summer blockbuster that's gorgeous to look at and almost totally plotless.

I guess I shouldn't say "plotless"--"M:I2" has a plot, it's just so tired. Go through the script, replace "Nyah Nordoff-Hall" with a suggestive name like "Pussy Galore" and make her a sexy scientist instead of a sexy thief, replace "Ethan Hunt" with "Agent 007," and without making any other changes you'd have a James Bond movie! (Side note: Thandie Newton is alluring and intriguing in the sexy-thief role, and I hope we see more of her than we do of the average Bond girl after her day in the sun!) This could be construed as an improvement on the original (whose plot was about as clear as goulash until you saw it about 5 times--which I did!), but I wish they could come up with a tighter plot while keeping it as original as the first one.

Consider "M:I2" independently and it's a decent enough movie. But I can't separate it from the original, which was a great movie with equally cool stunts--and no one would ever confuse it with that other popular series of secret agent movies. After all, we've already got a James Bond franchise. Who needs another? The Verdict: His name is Hunt. Ethan Hunt. Yawn. 3 out of 5.

Which brings me to the subject of guy movies. Everyone's heard of chick flicks, those three-hankie romances like "Sleepless In Seattle." And then there's guy movies--with blood and gore, plenty of explosions, and little else--like James Bond, kung fu movies, and anything with Jean-Claude Van Damme or Sylvester Stallone. And "Gladiator."

"Gladiator" is basically "Braveheart" in ancient Rome. You know, courageous, hunky guy sets out to kill a bunch of people in the name of vengeance. And because it's a guy movie, it has a moronic plot, minimal characterization, glaring historical inaccuracies, and the stupidest villain I have ever encountered. It exists only so we can see some German barbarian's head get chopped off or some reject gladiator get a mace to the face--all depicted in spatters of blood you're never going to mistake for ketchup.

It is also the most fun I have had in a movie theatre since I was a little kid.

Ridley Scott (of "Alien" and "Thelma & Louise" fame) has taken a script that would stink like the crap it is in lesser hands and made it into a veritable epic. I dare anyone else to come up with a more thrilling scene this summer than the battle in which Maximus takes on four man-eating tigers and one huge guy in a wacky iron mask. Kudos to Scott, and to Russell Crowe, who portrays our hero Maximus with the perfect mix of machismo and sensitivity (and looks really hot in that leather gladiator skirt/armor/whatever-you-call-it). Where has he been all my life?

So "Gladiator" is good, exciting, high-energy summer fun, with battle scenes so great that in between them I found myself glancing at my watch and thinking, "Stupid dialogue...come on, gimme some carnage!" The testosterone is pumping right now... The Verdict: We who are about to die salute...Russell Crowe. Yummy. 4 out of 5.

 

Copyright (c) 2000 by Beth Kinderman. This is my original work, so please respect it.

 

Email me about this column

Back to "The Seventh Row Movie Geek"

Back to the main page

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1