Home    Views    June 2002

		Points of View Joe Kirkish Posted June 4, 2002 Guest Column © 2002 Joe Kirkish Reprinted with Permission

More movie reviews

Editor's Note: Following are some reviews Joe Kirkish wrote in May 2002. While we regret the delay in publishing these, most of these films are still showing locally at the time of this posting.

Movies reviewed May 28, 2002:

SPIRIT: STALLION OF THE CIMARRON (Rated G): In my estimation -- and despite the fact that Dreamworks obviously slanted it to a child's enjoyment -- this is the prize film of the week.

Coupled with Matt Damon's voice-over as the thoughts of the horse is amazing animation that communicates all the animals' musings, messages and emotions -- what a beautifully simplified way to allow the audience to comprehend their actions and motivations. Spirit is a rebellious mustang who wants to survive freely in what might be called John Ford territory. He resents the intrusion of the military, of the "iron horse," and anything else that seeks to control him and his environment. Though he will not permit an Indian boy to tame him, he does go so far as to seek harmony in their living together.

The film is full of exciting episodes in which Spirit goes through conflicts, capture and an ongoing fight for freedom. The brutal action is sanitized, the conflicts are easily recognized and resolved, and everyone -- animals and humans alike -- are stereotypically created so as to be comprehended by the youngest member of the audience to whom the film has been aimed.

Despite some singing in a Western vein -- vacuous stuff the film could well do without -- the movie has a charm that could appeal to everyone. The gorgeous animation is breathtaking, taking full advantage of the wide screen in its desert and mountain depictions. And while we older people might find the simple characterizations too child-oriented, we can still marvel at the rapidly paced action, beautifully depicted -- the dangers of falling into a rapidly roiling river, braving a forest fire, going over cliffs, etc. It's 80-minutes well spent. (Grade: B+)

ENOUGH (R for graphic violence, sexual situations and profanity): The women in the audience actually cheered when the "worm" of an abused wife and mother turned over, and with glee they followed her cleverly devised plan for escape and revenge. Her proposed victim: a wealthy, indolent husband with plenty of pull in high offices to get what he wants, any time he wants it, with a penchant for violent physical abuse when the gratification is not immediate.

After a whirlwind courtship, marriage and the raising of a little girl, Slim (Jennifer Lopez) finds herself trapped by a man (Billy Campbell) she never really knew. She flees from him around the country, even to Michigan's UP, but every avenue of escape is blocked by him and his accomplices, until with the aid of a few good friends of her own and some pretty smart tactics she devises her ultimate, satisfying revenge. Heightening the pleasure from the husband's ultimate demise are earlier statements of his like, "I'm a man and men have different needs" and, "I made the money, so I set the rules." He's the kind of guy every feminist would relish castrating with the slice of a knife.

There's nothing really new about this movie; you've seen variations on it in the past and likely will see more in the future. It is adequately performed to create a trapped feeling at the start and jubilation at the end, but it lacks the tension of, say, Panic Room to raise it to greater emotional heights; as a result, nothing here, in my estimation, merits dropping everything and rushing to the nearest theatre to see it. (Grade: C+)

ABOUT A BOY (PG-13 for sexual situations and profanity): So help me, while this movie ran for just 100 minutes, it felt more like hours. (That could also be said about ENOUGH since both films feel "padded" to extend a simple plot to full feature length.) 

It takes a while to get used to this new, older, slightly wiser Hugh Grant; but once accustomed to his scowls, mouth twists and gangly mannish demeanor, the persona wears thin. He's an uncommonly lazy fellow with only a motivation to play around with women to keep him occupied, but lives mainly to simply exist, to do nothing. It takes him half the movie to realize that doing nothing isn't very satisfying; by that time, he has faked being a single parent (just to meet other single parents, to improve his playing around).

Meanwhile, there's this kid, the son of a single parent, who feels the need for something in his life beyond being bullied by kids at school and being over-pressured by his self-pitying, domineering mother at home. So guess what happens?

Sure, after a series of oblique situations, Grant and the kid go through a "boy-meets-man" involvement, with the usual "boy-and-man-separate" and then -- well, you know what's coming: "boy-man-woman" wind up very happily together, but only after one of those golly, gee whiz, wow type of climaxes where lazy geek and loser win out -- in this case, of all things -- as they perform in a kid/rock contest.

The film smacks of the techniques of its co-directors, Chris and Paul Weitz, though they make a departure from their American Pie fame to try for something completely different. But not really; the feel of the film, the easily recognizable character types, the meandering plot with neat wrap-up and the barely complicated conflicts are all too familiar. It's a competent job with a barely adequate script that elicits moments of charm and originality (with sometimes unintelligible Brit street accents to give it local color), but not much more. 

If you do go to see it, you can still appreciate the imaginative way in which it is nicely shot in available light. (Grade: B-)

More movies reviewed in May 2002:

STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES (Rated PG for FX violence): OK, so the critics loath it and the kids love it -- that's just what George Lucas hoped would happen. "I made my films for the 12-year-olds in the audience," he was supposed to have said, adding, "and if they like it, then I've succeeded."

 If he also includes those with the minds of 12-year-olds, he has more than succeeded. The film will go on to make its killing at the box office regardless what critics rightly have to say about this latest installment of the filmmaker's long-range plan, one that began a quarter of a century ago and will end -- who knows when or how?

The storyline? Simply a dazzling series of encounters divided by periods of dull discussions, expositions, romance and explanations. The dialog? About as rich as anything ever cloned before. Sample, at a death scene: "Why did she have to die? Why couldn't I save her?" But then, Lucas himself admitted he wasn't a very good dialog writer, preferring instead to concentrate on plot and the visuals.

Oh, the visuals! Sumptuous, sensational, stunning, all cleverly designed to suggest not figments of fantasy but futuristic extensions of what we have today.

There are dozens of sites on a variety of fascinating planets, some new, some old; there are stiflingly crowded cities overloaded with wall-to-wall skyscrapers that sport giant video commercials and are surrounded by elevated roads, while overhead and around them the air teems with transportation vehicles of all sorts in unending parade -- much like the ugly urban landscapes of a futuristic Los Angeles in Blade Runner -- and by contrast there are other planets with open vistas dotted with little white shelters isolated by sandy desert; and there are floating cities in regions where it never stops raining, urban areas pierced by needle-like structures, etc.

Nor is there any end to the variety of costumes, make-up, hair styles, beings or kinds of weaponry, forms of transportation or means of sustaining "life." The visuals are overwhelming, often taking foreground interest even when they ought not to be.

If it was Lucas' wish to astound us with all the above and by using the latest in digital filming, then he has well succeeded. The film may disappoint anyone hoping for the moralizing or philosophizing found in his earlier films, but he obviously has planned to leave that to other Sci Fi saga like "Star Trek," while capitalizing on what he really does best. As if in a return to the days of silent film making when the visuals were far more important than the printed silly words that accompanied them, he has turned out nearly three hours of eye candy. (Grade: B-)

SPIDER-MAN (rated PG-13 for minor sensuality and cartoon-type violence): This film is a happy mix of fun and happy remembrances.

Of course, it would be frivolous to condemn this tribute to the sticky Marvel Comics character and TV star for a lack of depth; there is none; there need not be. Beyond the usual comic book morality of good winning over evil it doesn't even pursue any profound moral ambiguities.

Right from its opening credits with spider webs zapping across the screen and Danny Elfman's wham-bang overture slamming hard, we know we are in for a high-spirited mix of Superman conflicts and Batman tongue-in-cheek hi-jinks. And without a waver or a slip that's exactly what we get.

Even with its comic book lugubriousness, its almost believable stereotypes and its far fetched -- even outlandish -- situations, it is acceptable because it doesn't take itself seriously -- so why should we? Best of all, this movie is intelligently created, with Sam Raimi assuredly directing a perfect cast: Tobey Maguire as the shy brunt of high school bullies who turns into a super being after being bitten by an unusual spider, Willem Dafoe as a desperate scientist cum evilly destructive Green Goblin --  arch rival to Spider Man, Kirsten Dunst as the sweet girl of Maguire's dreams and right on to Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris as the morally guiding aunt and uncle to the orphaned Maguire.

The first half of the film -- the carefully detailed evolvement of a kindly but awkward kid into the savior of the Big Apple with spider-like attributes -- is the best part; after that, it simply becomes a familiar plot driven carefully and evenly to its only possible conclusion. Even the necessary battle between the giants of Good and Evil -- which takes place in astounding fury atop New York's Queensborough Bridge -- is the expected, obligatory Battle of the Century; with all the special effects teams roaring into action; it's great fun to watch on its own level, to be appreciated with childish glee. David Koepp's script offers no great insights, no complex studies nor profound statements; his attempt, and it is consistently on track, is to bring an old favorite character to the screen as we think we remember it, and do it modestly but colorfully without insulting our intelligence. What more can be asked? (Look for X-MAN II, DAREDEVIL and THE HULK coming soon! (Grade: B)

Learn more about the author of this guest column, Joe Kirkish.

Visit the Keweenaw Now discussion forums to comment on this article.

Back to Joe's June 4 movie reviews

Note: Views expressed by our guest columnists are not necessarily the views of Keweenaw Now.