Summer Movies 2001 (Part 4)
(08/17/01)
Let’s
face it: Despite all the hand-wringing that goes on in the film industry about
falling box-office revenues or some such thing, movies (especially summer
movies) still make a whole lot of money, even the ones that get labeled flops
by Hollywood’s standards. It seems like
every weekend some new box office record gets broken, no matter how
insignificant, and it’s movie geeks like us who are largely responsible for
that. But if every time you buy a movie
ticket you cast a vote, how do you weed out the worthy cinematic candidates
from the crap in what has so far been a pretty uninspiring summer? Today, I’ll talk you through three of
summer’s biggest moneymakers (they went 1-2-3 at the box office a few weekends
ago) and let you know if they’re worth your time or your hard-earned cash.
First
there’s “Jurassic Park 3,” a movie whose trailers admittedly spurred a
fit of giggles in me just about every time I saw them. (Excuse me if, even after seeing and
enjoying this movie, I still find it just the slightest bit hard to believe
that anyone, no matter how dinosaur-crazed, would go back to the
freaking island after nearly being killed by the beasties in two previous
movies.) This time, the excuse is
provided by a divorced couple (William H. Macy and Tea Leoni) whose son crashes
on the dinosaur-infested island from “The Lost World” in a freak parasailing
accident. (Really, you can’t make this
stuff up.) Claiming to be wealthy
adventurers, they practically kidnap paleontologist and survivor of the
original “Jurassic Park” Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) and land there to search for the
kid. Chaos, and carnage, ensue.
“Jurassic
Park 3” should come off as a pretty lame excuse for a movie. Yet somehow, it doesn’t. It’s true that the character development is
minimal, the dialogue even more so, and the plot practically nonexistent. And some of the developments (such as the
velociraptors becoming smart enough to set traps and talk to Dr. Grant) are
nothing short of absurd. In fact, the
entire story is little more than an excuse to watch a bunch of people get
munched on by giant lizards—but really, what’s wrong with that? If nothing else, the lack of plot also means
a complete and utter absence of the thing I liked least about the original: the
pretentious, man-should-not-play-God pop philosophy spouted off by most of the
characters. If you’re like me, and you
spent a good portion of the first movie glancing at your watch and thinking
“Come on, come on...we want less yappin’ and more necks snappin’,” then you are
almost guaranteed to like this movie.
The dinosaurs are just as mind-blowing as they were in the first two
movies, if not more so (I particularly liked the pterodactyls and the
spinosaurus), and the action sequences are always enjoyable and occasionally
spectacular (see the aforementioned pterodactyl sequence). And, as suggested before, one of the
greatest strengths of “Jurassic Park 3” is that never once does it take itself
too seriously. There was one running
joke involving a ringing cell phone that I thought was hilarious;
unfortunately, I was the only person in the crowded theatre who thought this...
Anyway,
I can’t say I liked “Jurassic Park 3” as much as “The Lost World,” which I
adored for how over-the-top and bizarre it was. (“JP3” also suffers from the shameful absence of Jeff Goldblum’s
Ian Malcolm character, who was one of the best reasons I can think of for
watching either of the first two movies at all.) But in some ways, I’ll even admit that I liked it more than the
original. So give it a go if you’re in
the mood for something short (well less than 90 minutes long!), mindless, and
altogether fun. The Verdict: “T. rex
pee? How did you get that?” “You don’t want to know.” 3 out of 5.
If
blood and guts really aren’t your speed, I suppose you could always go to this
summer’s obligatory Julia Roberts romantic comedy, “America’s
Sweethearts.” This is the kind of
thing that most critics would call “a great date movie,” but I beg you, please
keep anyone for whom you feel any shred of affection at least 100 feet away
from this putrid, heartless mess at all costs. The plot of “America’s Sweethearts” sounds a lot better on
paper than it comes off on screen. A
famous, Tom-Cruise-and-Nicole-Kidman-esque Hollywood couple (John Cusack and
Catherine Zeta-Jones) have broken up and find their respective movie careers
suffering as a result. She’s a diva who
throws tantrums to her personal assistant and sister, Kiki (Julia Roberts), if
her bottled water has too many electrolytes, he’s sort of a latter-day Woody
Allen, and they hate each other’s guts.
The last movie they made together is about to be released (though its
wacky director seems to be holding it hostage, forcing the studio to stall like
mad—this has to be one of the least successful subplots in cinematic history),
and their publicist (Billy Crystal) cons them into attending the press junket
at a secluded Nevada hotel “like the one in ‘The Shining.’” But while trying to ensure the hit that he
so desperately needs, Cusack’s character is also trying to decide if he should
continue pursuing his mostly unwilling ex or to go for the newly thin and
charming Kiki. And it doesn’t take a
rocket scientist to figure out who he chooses in the end.
Maybe
if the actors had the energy and quick timing needed to pull this kind of
screwball comedy off, it would’ve worked.
As it is, most of the characters are likable and occasionally clever,
but only Cusack really made me want to laugh out loud. And apart from one nicely executed scene, a
rapidly escalating series of misfortunes triggered when he decides to spy on
his ex (the only place I can remember laughing out loud in this movie—that’s a
bad thing, because I laugh at just about anything), his performance isn’t
anything you couldn’t see him do better in, say, “High Fidelity.” Still, this movie didn’t truly go downhill
until the ending, an utterly preposterous twist that seemed to have most of the
audience scratching its head and was not even a little satisfying. And “America’s Sweethearts” also sends a
hell of a bad message about Kiki’s 60-pound weight loss. Roberts dons a fat suit and unfashionable
clothes for a few flashbacks, which makes her look like (horrors!) an average
American woman. If she’d stayed that
way for the whole movie, maybe I’d be applauding this piece of crap. But according to “America’s Sweethearts,”
you have to be bulimic to be truly happy.
So if you’re looking for a date movie this summer, take your significant
other to “Shrek”
instead. You’ll laugh a lot more, and
you’ll walk out feeling a lot better about yourself, too. The Verdict: If you’re looking for a
summer romance, this is not the place to go. 1.5 out of 5.
Which
brings me at last to the movie I’ve been looking forward to all summer long:
Tim Burton’s “re-imagining” of the 1968 sci-fi classic “Planet Of The Apes.” As people have been very fond of pointing
out, this isn’t a remake but rather an entirely new installment in the
series. This time around, the action
begins in the near future, when Captain Leo Davidson (Marky Mark, I mean Mark
Wahlberg) follows a genetically enhanced chimp test pilot through a singularity
(it all makes sense in the movie, honestly), and crash-lands in the middle of a
bizarre society where humans are slaves and intelligent, talking apes rule the
planet. Leo doesn’t have to spend very
long in captivity before enlisting the help of some fellow humans and Ari
(Helena Bonham Carter), a chimp and a bleeding-heart human rights
activist. Soon Leo finds himself forced
into leading a slave revolt, which fearsome ape villains General Thade (Tim
Roth) and Attar (Michael Clarke Duncan) will stop at nothing to put down.
Let
me start out telling you what’s good about “Planet Of The Apes.” For starters, the Rick-Baker-designed makeup
is nothing short of a triumph. I can
tell you right now that I’m putting my money right here for the makeup Oscar
come March. (Note to Eus: Yes, I’m
practically giving this one away, but don’t except too many more like it!) And the makeup isn’t the only thing making
the apes into some of the most believable creatures ever to waddle their way
across the silver screen. All of the
actors playing apes do an astonishing job of adapting to their roles, inventing
new walks, extra vocalizations, and animal-like mannerisms to go along with
their new faces. Just when I had almost
forgotten they were supposed to be animals, they’d do something to completely
convince me of their alien-ness. In
particular, Bonham Carter puts in an unbelievable performance as Ari that made
it very easy for me to forget there was a real human actress under all
that. I also liked Paul Giamatti as
Limbo, the avaricious human slave trader who has some of the best one-liners
and comic relief scenes in the movie.
Unfortunately,
I can’t say the same for the human characters or their respective actors. Most of the apes have personality (even if
they only have one note to hit repeatedly, like Thade, though he does the
furious-and-frenetic thing quite well), but the humans don’t even have
interesting quirks and give us no reason to root for them at all. Much of this can be blamed on the script,
which has some major flaws (for example, most of the humans never even state their
names!), but more of it can be blamed on blatantly stupid casting choices like
Marky Mark (the puffiest action hero ever—he’s like the Pillsbury Doughboy
playing G.I. Joe) and Estelle Warren (her acting style: pose, say a line
flatly, pout, follow Marky Mark around like a little lost supermodel puppy dog,
repeat). In the end, I spent most of
the movie hoping the apes would win just so I wouldn’t have to suffer through
another agonizing round of the humans trying to recite their lines. Oh, and call me sick and disgusting, but I
would’ve loved it if the screenwriters had gotten past the hinting stage about
a Leo-Ari relationship and let them commit (as my friend Missy puts it)
“evolutionary incest.” And as much as I
adore Tim Burton, I have to say that he was not the right director for this movie. Although I tend to like his smaller, more
personal films than I like his big action movies, this story doesn’t even have
the dark undertones that made his participation a necessity for “Sleepy Hollow” and
the “Batman” series and made me like them more than your average
blockbuster. And all the human
characters are...well...normal, which is something I never thought I’d see in
one of his films.
But
despite all this, “Planet Of The Apes” somehow works for me. The apes were so darn cool that I was
willing to put up with the humans and their crap. The aforementioned humor also softened the impact of the movie’s
major flaws; it tells us Burton isn’t taking things too seriously, so neither
should we. I especially liked Limbo’s
final line, the escape from the ape city (how ‘bout that scene that brings new
meaning to the phrase “hot monkey lovin’”), and the whole slew of visual jokes
in said city (especially one involving an organ grinder and his rather
surprising pet). And to weigh in on the
confusing, controversial twist ending: I, for one, liked it. Yeah, it makes your brain hurt if you think
about it too much, but it’s the good kind of brain hurt that comes from
a development you really weren’t expecting.
Burton says it wasn’t mean to make complete sense so much as it was
meant to make the viewers think, and judging by the amount of discussion I’ve
heard about this one, he’s succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. And if nothing else, I can’t wait to see how
they explain it in the sequel that is sure to follow this
mega-blockbuster. The Verdict: I
want a sequel. I also want opposable
thumbs on my feet. Stupid
evolution. 3.5 out of 5.
Copyright (c) 2001 by Beth Kinderman. This is my original work, so please respect it.