Edtv (1999)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

We live in really interesting times. What only few years ago looked like the plot worthy of futuristic satire is now prosaic reality. And, to make things even more interesting, some aspects of today’s prosaic reality were indeed subject of Hollywood movies which now look prophetic. Being prophetic and being good, however, are two different things, which could be seen in EDTV, 1999 comedy directed by Ron Howard.

The plot of the film begins with True TV, cable station which is in deep financial trouble and whose director Whitaker (played by Rob Reiner) will accept any idea in order to push ratings back up. One such idea comes from scruples producer Cynthia Tapping (played by Ellen De Generes). She proposes that a station picks an ordinary man and sets up camera team that would record his every move for 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Whitaker agrees and Ed Pekurny (played by Matthew McConaguhey), humble but charming video store clerk from Texas, is picked among many candidates. At first, the show is utterly boring, but everything changes when Ed visits his brother Ray (played by Woody Harelson) and wins heart of Ray’s girlfriend Shari (played by Jenna Elfman). The show suddenly becomes big hit and Ed turns into media superstar. Yet, after a while, constant presence of cameras and lack of privacy causes the break of his relationship with Shari. Ed wants to end the show, but the greedy studio executives aren’t willing to give up their cash cow.

When it premiered, EDTV was compared with THE TRUMAN SHOW, another film trying to explore what insatiable appetite of voyeuristic public combined with modern technology could do to individual’s privacy and dignity. The comparisons were usually in favour of THE TRUMAN SHOW – that film had much more intelligent and original script, better basic idea and plenty of room to mix some serious philosophy with comedy. EDTV, based on 1994 Canadian film LOUIS 19, LE ROI DES ONDES, has somewhat simpler concept – person who, unlike protagonist of THE TRUMAN SHOW, knows that he is being subject of reality show – but it nevertheless had plenty of satirical potential.

Unfortunately, scriptwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel weren’t exactly sure whether they are making satire or nothing more than simple “high concept” romantic comedy. EDTV is best in the very beginning, when protagonist still haven’t met his love interest and the film looks like it could be the former. When love interest appears, movie quickly starts to deteriorate despite all the charm and talent of Jenna Elfman. The ending is especially disappointing when one of characters suddenly gets a unexplainable change of heart and provides unsatisfying and unconvincing deus ex machine plot resolution. Fact that most jokes in the film aren’t particularly funny doesn’t help either and only the talented and diverse cast – with many respectable actors in small roles – prevents EDTV from becoming complete failure.

But the worst problem for EDTV is in its satirical content becoming obsolete due to real life. Only few months after this film’s premiere Dutch TV station aired very first instalment of BIG BROTHER, reality show combining concepts of THE TRUMAN SHOW and EDTV. This was followed by flood of diverse reality shows that forever changed not only television, but the entire concepts of entertainment industry and media in today’s world. And it turned out that the creators of those shows were more imaginative than their fictional counterparts in EDTV.

RATING: 4/10 (+)

Wing Commander (1999)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

Hollywood in 1990s provided many arguments to those claiming that movies based on video games were bad idea. On the other hand, there was MORTAL KOMBAT to prove those critics wrong, and, even more importantly, WING COMMANDER, extremely popular space combat simulation which, in its latter instalments, successfully merged interactive videogame with live movie-like action. Because of that, it seemed like WING COMMANDER is videogame most suitable to become successful feature film. Chris Roberts, who had created the game, became director of feature film version in 1999.

The plot begins in 25^th Century when humanity, after five centuries of spreading through galaxy, stumbles into hostile alien race known as Kilrathi. This leads to war during which Kilrathi manage to get hold of NAVCOM, super-secret space navigation device of Terran Confederation Navy and thus become able to attack Earth before main forces of TCN could do anything about it. The only thing standing between Earth and Kilrathi is “Tiger’s Claw”, TCN ship commanded by Paul Gerald (played by Jürgen Prochnow). He receives his orders together with two fresh pilots – Todd “Maniac” Marshall (played by Matthew Lillard) and Christopher “Maverick” Blair (played by Freddie Prinze Jr.). Before the actual combat, Blair, whose mother was Pilgrim – human genetically altered in order to travel through space, must fight racial prejudice and hostility of Jeanette “Angel” Deveraux (played by Saffron Burrows), fighter wing commander who happens to be attractive woman.

Like many films based on video games, WING COMMANDER turned into disaster – original fan base was too limited for commercial sucess, while critics universally dropped vitriol on it. Main problem of WING COMMANDER is the one shared by many films based on video games – lack of interaction. Video games are popular because they allow players to create their own adventures and be heroes themselves. Without that interaction all those adventures are reduced to poor script, one-dimensional characters and abysmal dialogue. Presence of young and not particularly inspired actors like Prinze and Lillard doesn’t help either, especially when they get compared with their over-qualified colleagues like Prochnow, Burrows, David Warner, David Suchet and Tcheky Karyo. All fine acting talents try very hard, but they still can’t put some life into their characters. On the other hand, special effects are passable and film’s relatively short running time makes WING COMMANDER slightly better than its atrocious reputation. That, however, isn’t enough to rescue WING COMMANDER from sinking into well-deserved oblivion.

RATING: 3/10 (+)

Go (1999)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

In second half of 1990s many filmmakers tried to repeat the success of Tarantino’s PULP FICTION by taking inspiration from its plot, characters or narrative structure. Few did so with less originality than Doug Liman in his 1999 black comedy GO and few were as successful as him.

Just like in PULP FICTION, plot of GO is non-linear and it is made out of three connected and crime-related stories taking place in Los Angeles in a span of 24 hours. Ronna (played by Sarah Polley) is a supermarket clerk who must quickly find few hundred dollars to pay the rent or spend Christmas Eve on the street. Because of that she is more than willing to fill in for Simon (played by Donald Askew), her colleague and part-time drug dealer who decided to spend Christmas in Las Vegas. It looks like a very good idea when two men – Adam (played by Scott Wolf) and Zack (played by Jay Mohr) – come to her store in order to buy twenty ecstasy pills. She makes a deal, but first she must get the stuff from Simon’s supplier Todd Gaines (played by Timothy Olyphant). Gaines doesn’t trust Ronna, so she tries to use her friend Claire Montgomery (played by Katie Holmes) as collateral.

Apart from non-linear structure, Liman also took other parts of Tarantino formula – black humour, pop culture references, explicit bloodletting and unapologetic drug abuse. Unfortunately, Liman couldn’t take other, more important elements of PULP FICTION like, for example, Tarantino’s talent to connect seemingly separate stories into coherent whole. John August’s script, which originally dealt only with Ronna, was broadened with two additional stories lacking humour and interesting characters.

However, all that didn’t matter much to movie’s target audience – Tarantino-worshipping youths who appreciated cynical, hedonistic and nihilistic worldview promoted in GO. They were also won over by a running time more suited to their average attention span, as well as MTV style of direction and “cool” soundtrack. But the greatest asset of the film were members of young cast, many, like Katie Holmes, a familiar faces to fans of teen-themed television dramas. They acted very well. This especially so in the case of Sarah Polley, which isn’t surprising, because her character is the protagonist of the film’s best segment. Unfortunately, good acting can’t transcend the derivative nature of this film and GO, despite being relatively popular in its time, is unlikely to match status of its ultimate inspiration.

RATING: 4/10 (+)

Cruel Intentions (1999)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

Although faced with long-term creative crisis, Hollywood very reluctantly takes literary classics as the basis for its commercial movies. The reason for that is in its dependence on predominantly teenager audience, which has little understanding for any kind of literature, especially literature written centuries ago. However, in late 1990s some of Hollywood producers found a way to solve this problem – they would simply borrow plots and put them in the modern setting, while the characters would be transformed in modern-day teenagers. LES LIAISONS DANGEROUS, classic 1782 novel by French author Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, has already served as a basis for highly-regarded 1988 Hollywood adaptation DANGEROUS LIASIONS, directed by Stephen Frears. Eleven years later, same novel served as a basis for 1999 version CRUEL INTENTIONS, written and directed by Roger Kumble.

The plot is set in modern-day New York and the protagonists are people with lifestyle not that different from aristocracy of pre-revolutionary France – teenage children of American upper class who were born with the silver spoon in their mouths and whose life revolves around alcohol, sex, drugs, fast cars and any luxury imaginable. Two such specimens are half-siblings Sebastian Valmont (played by Ryan Philippe) and Kathryn Merteuill (played by Sarah Michelle Gellar). While the former deflowers debutantes for sport, the latter uses sex to rule her prep school as supreme manipulator. Good-looking Sebastian, who got bored with easy conquests, decides to make a bet with Kathryn– he must have sex with Annette Hargrove (played by Reese Witherspoon), daughter of their prep school principal and self-declared proponent of virtue. If he succeeds, Kathryn will fulfil his perverse and incestuous fantasies; if he loses, he will have to give up his vintage 1956 Jaguar. Sebastian gets to work, but Annette proves to be much harder conquest that he has imagined and things don’t get better when he begins having some genuine romantic feelings for her.

CRUEL INTENTIONS isn’t the first attempt to make a modern film version of LES LIAISONS DANGEROUS. In 1959 Roger Vadim had his own, not particular successful, attempt. CRUEL INTENTIONS should have been much better, and for two reasons – it was made with “R” rating in mind and, therefore, with less content limitations that plagued other teen movies. So, the audiences in 1999 had rare opportunities to watch teenagers use profanities, abuse drugs and engage in all kinds of unorthodox sexual practices. With almost every character being utterly amoral or stupid, CRUEL INTENTIONS also had potential of being great “guilty pleasure”. To a certain degree, film fulfils that promise. Sarah Michelle Gellar, although far from the standards set by Glenn Close in 1988 version, is incredibly effective as evil, manipulative character so different from the hero of BUFFY, THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. Ryan Phillippe is also good in his role of high-school heartthrob. Unfortunately, Reese Witherspoon fails to have chemistry with Philippe, despite being romantically linked with him in real life. Some supporting players are, however, very good, especially Selma Blair in the role of naïve Cecile.

At the very end of the film, CRUEL INTENTIONS betrays its concept by having something that WILD THINGS – film very similar in tone – didn’t have. Instead of showing the world of New York youth aristocracy as corrupt and beyond hope in its decadence – just like pre-revolutionary France – Kumble bows to 1990s Hollywood conventions and injects combination of syrupy sentimentality, “politically correct” pseudo-feminism, tragically inadequate score and poor direction. The film which was supposed to be “guilty pleasure” ends guilty of not living to its potential.

RATING: 4/10 (+)

Smilla's Sense of Snow (1997) [CORRECTED]

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

Compared with the rest of Europe, Denmark looks like small country. But this perception changes if Danish self-governed territory of Greenland, which happens to be the world’s biggest island, is taken into account. Few people are, however, aware of that because Greenland – with 81% of its surface being covered by ice - is also one of the least hospitable and least populated places on Earth. And, like many of those utterly inhospitable places, Greenland is incredibly beautiful, which might be seen in the very opening of SMILLA’S SENSE OF SNOW, 1997 Danish suspense thriller directed by Bille August.

The film, based on the best-selling novel by Peter Hoeg, begins in 1859 when a huge meteorite suddenly hits Greenland. This catastrophic event, witnessed by its only victim – a lonely Inuit fishermen - remains out of history books until present day when the protagonist, tough-minded mathematician Smilla Jaspersen (played by Julia Ormond), would have to deal with some of its long-term consequences. Smilla, daughter of physician Moritz Jaspersen (played by Robert Loggia) and Inuit mother, was born in Greenland and spent first six years of life there. Despite being brought to Copenhagen after mother’s death, she never really adapted to urban way of life and now lives as a moody recluse, dedicated to mathematics and study of snow and ice. The only person with whom she connects is Isaiah Christensen (played by Clipper Miano), deaf Inuit child. When child dies falling from the roof of the building, Smilla sees some suspicious details and tries to warn authorities of a possible foul play. Her efforts are greeted by “friendly” suggestions that she should forget about whole affair. Smilla nevertheless continues with her investigation and discovers that boy’s father – who had been working for Greenland Mining Company - also died in mysterious circumstances. The only person willing to help Smilla in her quest of justice is a mysterious neighbour (played by Gabriel Byrne) who wants to have sex with her.

SMILLA’S SENSE OF SNOW is visually stunning film. Jörgen Persson’s cinematography has captured beauty of Greenland’s icy landscapes and made sharp contrast with dark, depressive and claustrophobic surroundings of Copenhagen. Beauty of landscapes is well-matched with the beauty of film’s heroine. Julia Ormond, British actress whose career choices weren’t always fortunate, probably never played such a strong and impressive character. Unfortunately, Danish director Bille August, who had been forced to use British cast and have English dialogues for commercial reasons, wasn’t that lucky with the rest of the cast. Gabriel Byrne is very bland in his role and has little chemistry with protagonist. However, that doesn’t prevent August from maintaining high level of suspense and convincing audience that they are watching something extraordinary.

Unfortunately, in last thirty minutes of the film it becomes evident that SMILLA’S SENSE OF SNOW is triumph of style over substance. What began as atmospheric and engrossing thriller with some political overtones thrown for good measure, suddenly begins to drown in cheap B-movie clichés, transforming into unconvincing combination of science fiction and action genre.

However, despite the disappointing ending, SMILLA’S SENSE OF SNOW is a satisfying movie experience. Good cinematography, very good acting, unusual settings and characters are reasons why should unoriginality of the plot should be forgiven. And, despite all of its shortcomings, this film was also very influential, at least judging by better known and vastly inferior movie version of THE X-FILES, inspired by its atmosphere and imagery. s triumph of style over substance. What began as moody, atmospheric undings of Copenhagen. Beauty of landscapes

RATING: 6/10 (++)

Arlington Road (1999)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

Some Hollywood films, while not good in depicting the world in which they were made, are good in presenting the mindset of their makers. One of those films is ARLINGTON ROAD, 1999 thriller directed by Mark Pellington.

Protagonist of the film is Michael Faraday (played by Jeff Bridges), history professor who lives in quiet Washington suburb with his young son Grant (played by Spencer Treat Clark). One day, while driving on the street, he sees young boy named Brady Lang (played by Mason Gamble) being injured and rushes him to hospital. There he finds that boy’s parents – structural engineer Oliver (played by Tim Robbins) and his wife Cheryl (played by Joan Cusack) – just happen to be his next door neighbours. Since they also happen to be nice and friendly people, he becomes a regular guest in their house, just as Grant becomes Brady’s best friend. But gradually Michael begins to spot certain details about Langs – the inconsistencies in their biographies, strange-looking blueprints and great interest in explosives. Michael, who teaches terrorism course at university and whose wife, an FBI agent, had been killed in botched raid on right-wing extremists, doesn’t take that lightly. As time goes by, he becomes convinced that Langs are pair of dangerous right-wing extremists who are about to blow up government buildings. However, when he expresses those fears to his girlfriend Brooke Wolfe (played by Hope Davis) and FBI, they all treat them as the product of paranoid mind.

In its time, ARLINGTON ROAD was hailed as one of the better thrillers to come from Hollywood. The main reason was in the script by Ehren Kruger. It used the formula of countless 1990s Hollywood thrillers – seemingly nice man who just turns out to be dangerous evildoer – and updated it to what many Americans saw as reality after the traumatic bombing of Oklahoma City federal building. In Kruger’s script dangerous psychopath was replaced by legions of right-wing extremists who hide in the mainstream of society and wait for the proper moment when they would unleash the mayhem on unsuspecting American democracy. This concept fitted perfectly with the dominant ideological mindset of 1990s Hollywood. For most of American filmmakers the real danger to the semi-utopian world of prosperous, progressive and all-powerful Clinton’s America came not from the outside, but from the inside. The real threat came Christian fundamentalism and all the political Right – forces that were, in Hollywood’s view at the time, on decline and tried to compensate the inevitable decrease of their influence with increased extremism. Those views were portrayed convincingly in ARLINGTON ROAD, at least to a point. It could be attributed to Pellington’s skilful direction and great acting by Robbins and Cusack. Kruger, to a certain point, maintains the level of suspense by allowing viewers to think that the grand terrorist conspiracy can be nothing more product of protagonist’s paranoia.

Unfortunately, in the last thirty minutes, ARLINGTON ROAD begins to fall apart. Once the answer to the viewers’ most important question has been given, all what is left for Kruger and Pellington is to bring the film to its conclusion. However, they try do it with unconventional “surprise” ending, which isn’t that surprising to those who happened to watch PARALLAX VIEW, 1970s film dealing with similar kind of subjects. And even those who haven’t watch that film are likely to realise that the final plot resolution was achieved at the expense of logic and credibility, thus undermining the very realism which was at the basis of the film.

And events that occurred few years showed how ARLINGTON ROAD, just like so many Hollywood thrillers, was far away from reality. One of greatest ironies of this film was in being discredited and validated by history at the same time. They showed that American security is much shakier than most people would like to believe and they also showed that the evil manifests itself in the forms that are both simpler and deadlier than anything Hollywood screenwriters’ imagination could produce.

RATING: 5/10 (++)

Rushmore (1998)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

In late 1990s most of Hollywood films were - just as they are now - “safe”, predictable, formulaic and utterly forgettable. This was especially so when the plots were set in or around high schools or adolescents. So, whenever a Hollywood film set in high school would dare to break such constraints, it was bound to be treated by everyone, especially critics, as something very special. RUSHMORE, 1998 comedy directed by Wes Anderson, is one of those films.

The protagonist of the film is Max Fischer (played by Jason Schwartzmann), 15-year old pupil of the elite Rushmore prep school. By all standards, Max is extraordinarily gifted and charming young man who excels in all kinds of activities – fencing, debating clubs and theatre, where he wrote and staged couple of ambitious plays. Unfortunately, his impressive record at extracurricular activities was achieved at the expense of his academic life – he is about to be expelled because of abysmal grades. However, Max has one important asset in the form of Herman Blume (played by Bill Murray), local tycoon and former Rushmore pupil who sees Max Fischer as the complete opposite of his own obnoxious sons. However, Max would soon realise that there limits to what he can do when he falls in love with Rosemary Cross (played by Olivia Williams), teacher whom he would try to impress by building a luxury aquarium at the school premises. Max is finally being expelled and Rosemary not only rejects his advances, but adds insult to injury by starting relationship with Herman. Hurt and humiliated, Max would use his talents in the increasingly brutal conflict with his former friend.

Anderson based his script, co-written by Owen Wilson, on the elements of his own biography, but the film itself looks almost surreal. The world of Rushmore is populated with quirky characters that are hard to find in real world. It is nevertheless very personal film, and that sets it apart from most of Hollywood films with similar themes and settings.

Very personal approach could be seen in the way Anderson broke certain Hollywood conventions. For example, the protagonist is not protagonist in the strict meaning of the word – his actions and motivations put him far away from the conventional moral alignment. He is selfish, megalomaniacal, scruples and his personality is closer to the psychopath than “normal” human being. Perhaps this is the reason why the audience would prefer to root for the more “normal” and humane character of Herman, brilliantly played by Bill Murray in one of the best and most underrated roles of his career.

Anderson, just as he did with characterisation, experimented with style and atmosphere. Although set in present-day, RUSHMORE looks very much like late 1960s film and the soundtrack featuring songs of that period is one of the reasons for that. However, editing left something to be desired, especially in the middle of the film, which looks too “artsy” and overlong. It seems that Anderson, at least at that point, preferred the style to film’s substance.

But, this is not the reason why film shouldn’t be remembered. There are some marvellous images in the film, especially in the scenes in which the protagonist recreates some of film classics – like Lumet’s SERPICO and Coppola’s APOCALYPSE NOW – on stage. RUSHMORE might not be the funniest or even the best film of its time, but it is nevertheless refreshing experience for any viewer demanding something unconventional on screen.

RATING: 7/10 (+++)

The Notebook (2004)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

John Cassavetes became one of the most respected American filmmakers by defying conventions of mainstream Hollywood. His son Nick, on the other hand, embraces those very conventions in his 2004 melodrama THE NOTEBOOK.

The plot of the film, based on the novel by Nicholas Sparks, begins in a nursing home where the old gentleman named Duke (played by James Garner) comes to visit Allie (played by Gena Rowlands), an old lady suffering from Alzheimer Disease. He begins to read the story about two lovers that met in small Southern town during Summer 1940. Noah Calhoun (played by Ryan Gossling) in charming but impoverished labourer while Allie (played by Rachel McAdams) is a daughter of wealthy aristocratic family. Two of them fall madly in love, but Allie’s parents are disapproving and they make sure that a summer fling remains a summer fling by preventing Allie from receiving Noah’s letters. Heart-broken Noah, after serving in WW2, builds his dream home. Allie, who in the meantime got engaged to rich and charming Lon Hammond (played by James Marsden), accidentally hears about it and decides to see her beloved Noah once more.

THE NOTEBOOK is one of those films Hollywood used to make in its golden days – unashamedly manipulative melodrama accompanied with beautiful cinematography, impressive sights, likeable sounds and impressive amount of period details. Technically speaking, THE NOTEBOOK is a successful film. The acting is more than passable although Gossling and McAdams, simply because they are younger and less experienced, have less chemistry than veterans Garner and Rowlands. On the other hand, script by Jeremy Leven and Jan Sardi leaves much to be desired. It is too simplistic, all the plot twists are predictable and the amount of clichés almost turn THE NOTEBOOK into self-parody. Whether someone can enjoy THE NOTEBOOK or not depends much of the mood in which the viewers find themselves. While some might enjoy it as a flawed but nevertheless stylish tear-jerker, others, especially those afflicted with cynicism, are likely to view it as nothing more than just another piece of Hollywood mediocrity.

RATING: 5/10 (++)

Levity (2003)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

There are some films that, for some almost unfathomable reason, seem to justify their existence despite lacking any sort of originality or special quality. LEVITY, 2003 drama written and directed by Ed Solomon, is one of those films.

Protagonist of the film is Manuel Jordan (played by Billy Bob Thornton), man who was imprisoned for life after killing 17-year old convenience store clerk during robbery. Two decades later and against his expectations, he receives parole. During all those years Manuel has thought hard about his crime and once he gets out, he is determined to redeem himself. He returns to his home town and finds temporary job as a caretaker in inner city youth centre, run by colourful street preacher Miles Evans (played by Morgan Freeman). He also befriends the sister of his victim and notices that her young son, who hangs out with the wrong crowd, might very well make the same mistakes Manuel had once made.

According to Ed Solomon, the script for LEVITY was in development for almost two decades, but it is hard to see that in the film. The story is simplistic, the plot and its resolution are predictable while characters are one-dimensional. Solomon adds to it with heavy-handed symbolism and scenes during which protagonist is accompanied with the ghost of murdered youth. Thankfully, the acting in the film is very good. Billy Bob Thornton’s minimalistic approach might not be the most spectacular moment of his career, but it is quite suitable for the role of Manuel. Other notable names also contribute to film’s watchability, regardless whether their characters are one-dimensional (like the one played by Holly Hunter) or completely unnecessary to the plot (like the troubled girl played by always dependable Kirsten Dunst). Another of film’s assets is Roger Deakins’ cinematography which captures cold and bleak atmosphere of city during winter. This little touch of style is enough to compensate for the lack of substance in LEVITY. This film might not be the most profound or memorable viewing experience, but it is far from being a waste of time either.

RATING: 5/10 (++)

Review written on March 17^th 2005

Novocaine (2001)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

Steve Martin gave one of the most memorable performances of his career in the role of dentist in 1986 version of LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS. Fifteen years later Martin again played member of that profession in NOVOCAINE, 2001 black comedy written and directed by David Atkins.

Martin plays the film’s protagonist, Dr. Frank Sangster, dentist who lives in Chicago suburb and has everything he can dream of – successful practice, plenty of money and beautiful assistant Jean Noble (played by Laura Dern) with whom he is about to marry. His perfect life starts to unravel with the surprise visit of his drug abusing brother Harlan (played by Elias Koteas), but the real problems come with the new and attractive patient Susan Ivey (played by Helena Bonham Carter). Although experienced enough to realise that the dental problems aren’t her primary motive for her arrival, he nevertheless decides to help her with painkillers and later has opportunity to realise some of his sex favourite fantasies with her. But his brief moment of bliss is followed with the escalating series of problems – mysterious disappearance of his drug supply, DEA investigation and murder.

Originality of NOVOCAINE isn’t in the plot, which is borrowed from the hundreds of film noir classics, but in the attitude with which Atkins treats his story. Characters and actions that could have been revolting in a serious film are here acceptable due to the ironic distance of Atkins’ script. As a comedy, NOVOCAINE isn’t particularly funny, but it is entertaining enough to arouse imagination of post-Tarantino audience. Atkins keeps the film interesting by throwing some unusual characters in the plot – one example is television actor (played by Kevin Bacon) who follows police investigation in order to prepare for the role. This quirkiness, however, doesn’t always work. Just after the ingenious plot resolution, Atkins presents audience with the epilogue which is both artificial and predictable. But in the end viewers are nevertheless going to be satisfied. NOVOCAINE features some fine acting, especially in the case of Martin, and Atkins’ direction is more than adequate for this sort of film. And because of that NOVOCAINE deserves recommendation.

RATING: 6/10 (++)

Review written on March 17^th 2005

Ned Kelly (2003)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

Australia appears to have relatively short and uneventful history compared with other parts of the world. Yet Australians share one trait with all other nations – tendency to transform certain historical figures – deservedly or undeservedly – into mythical large-than-life figures. One of those men is a subject of NED KELLY, 2004 Australian historic drama directed by Gregor Jordan.

The plot of the film, based on the novel OUR SUNSHINE by Robert Drewe, begins in 1870s Victoria, British colony where many Irish immigrants tried to find the new life and escape the poverty of their old country. But, just as their countrymen Ireland, they were subjected to the brutal British rule, embodied in thuggish police force. Ned Kelly (played by Heath Ledger) is son of one such family. Years of feud with police erupt during the incident that would lead to his mother being arrested and Kelly himself being falsely accused for shooting at police officer. Kelly and couple of his friends escape to the bush and become outlaws, kill policemen sent after them and later start impressive career of bank robbers. Their exploits, which include burning of bank mortgage documents, capture imagination of the impoverished masses and Kelly becomes a folk hero. With British rule in Australia threatened, authorities send experienced police official Francis Hare (played by Geoffrey Rush) to lead massive manhunt.

Life of Ned Kelly was short, violent and, despite some historians trying to describe his life of crime as some sort of anti-British revolution, it didn’t affect Australian history much. But Ned Kelly’s impact to the culture of young nation turned out to be enormous. More than a century later, Ned Kelly continues to be one of Australia’s most recognisable icons. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that life of Ned Kelly used to be popular subject among Australian filmmakers from the very beginnings of Australian film industry. 2003 film by Gregor Jordan is most likely not to be the last one made about that larger-than-life figure.

The reasons why another generation of Australian filmmakers will try to make their own version are in the more than apparent flaws of Jordan’s film. While John M. McDonagh’s script should be forgiven for taking the one-sided and simplistic portrayal of Ned Kelly, director Jordan fails to deliver a film worthy of such mythical figure. Despite relatively high budget (for Australian standards) NED KELLY looks like glorified TV movie. The cast, despite being impressive on paper, leaves much to be desired. While Heath Ledger is passable as Kelly, presence of Orlando Bloom in the role of Kelly’s friend Joe Byrne is annoying – an obvious attempt to increase film’s box office chances by attracting Bloom’s female fans. Talents of Naomi Watts in the standard and completely unnecessary role of Kelly’s romantic interest are wasted – the actress fails to produce any on-screen chemistry with Ledger, despite two of them being a real-life couple. Rachel Griffiths is also wasted in the small but embarrassing role of sex-starved English middle-class wife. Even more disappointing is Geoffrey Rush in the role of the film’s nominal chief villain.

Although, NED KELLY is a film that definitely won’t share the immortality with its protagonist.

RATING: 3/10 (+)

Election (1999)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

State of Croatian cinema theatre business is so bad that anything other than major Hollywood blockbuster and “Oscar” nominees have very little chance of appearing in cinema distribution. One of the victims of this phenomenon was ELECTION, 1999 comedy by Alexander Payne. It was not deemed successful enough by Croatian distributors, so they decided not to put in theatres. Few months later, their decision proved to be blessing in disguise. When the film appeared in video stores in the beginning of 2000, it received extra publicity due to Croatian public being obsessed with the events corresponding with its subject matter. Few months later, thanks to ELECTION, Croatian public was also prepared for its real-life remake in USA.

Based on the novel by Tom Perotta, the plot of ELECTION is set in Carver High School in Omaha, Nebraska. Tracy Enid Flick (played by Reese Witherspoon) might not be the best student in the school, but her zeal and immense energy invested in various extra-curricular activities made her absolute favourite in the upcoming race for the president of students’ governing body. While everyone else sees the election as mere formality, history teacher Jim McAllister (played by Matthew Broderick) is less enthusiastic, mostly because he considers Tracy to be responsible for the downfall of his colleague and best friend with whom she had brief affair. Using the ideals he preaches in his classroom as an excuse, he talks Paul Metzler (played by Chris Klein), not very bright but popular jock, into running against Tracy. His plan is threatened when Paul’s lesbian sister Tammy (played by Jessica Campbell), angry over him stealing her girlfriend Lisa (played by Frankie Ingrassia), decides to join the race as protest candidate. As election approaches, everyone begins losing scruples in attempts to defeat their rivals.

CITIZEN RUTH, Alexander Payne’s previous film, wasn’t great piece of cinema but it was extraordinary achievement for one simple reason – it managed to tackle a controversial and emotionally charged subject with surprising amount of objectivity. Payne continues with this approach in ELECTION. This films lacks conventional division of characters into heroes and villains. The plot is told from the perspectives of four protagonists, which makes each of them not only complex and multi-dimensional, but also adds to the film’s satirical edge. Regardless of how pathetic and dislikeable each of those characters might be, at least someone in the audience will always be able to find few redeeming qualities in them. All this could be also attributed to very good cast. The most memorable of all the actors is Reese Witherspoon who perfectly conveys what amounts to be one the most impressive characters in 1990s Hollywood films. She easily overshadows Broderick, despite his character being more complex.

ELECTION is very good film, but it is not going to be viewed as undisputed classic. Some of McAllister character’s subplots aren’t handled very well. At first, it seemed that the same thing could be said about character of Tammy – her lesbianism was somewhat too “hip” and too convenient for this MTV-promoted film. She looked like unnecessary distraction from the film’s satirical essence. Then, after a year, her character and what she had stood for suddenly received real-life relevance when certain political contest began to unfold in a way not so dissimilar to the plot of this film. The drama that unfolded in 2000 gave ELECTION gave additional dimension and those who watch this film now are going to experience it as a more powerful socio-political commentary than the audiences in 1999.

ELECTION, even when looked outside contemporary political context, should be also be praised as one surprisingly funny and effective comedy.

RATING: 7/10 (+++)

Bulevar revolucije (1992)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

“May you live in interesting times” is a curse that can afflict filmmakers as well as ordinary people. Vladimir Blazevski, writer and director of 1992 Yugoslav drama BULEVAR REVOLUCIJE, lived in one of those times. The old system was crumbling but new order hasn’t been properly established. This explains why this film looked so outdated when it arrived in Croatian video stores in late 1990s. The old system was crumbling but new order haven' in Croatian video stores in late 1990s, but even the less choosy audience coul

Protagonist of the film is Biljana, 17-year old high school student from Belgrade who lives with her father, a policeman (played by Miralem Zupcevic), in a tiny dilapidated house in the poor section of the city. The family, already traumatised by the suicide of Biljana’s grandmother, is shaken again when Biljana becomes target of street thugs. Rescue comes in the form of Dragan (played by Branislav Lecic), one of the Belgrade underworld bosses. He falls madly in love with Biljana, just like she falls in love with her prince charming. Yet, Dragan, for some strange reason, wants to keep the liaison strictly platonic. All that means little to Biljana’s father who see it as personal humiliation.

At first sight, it looks like BULEVAR REVOLUCIJE captured the spirit of the times. Character of Biljana’s father represents the old Communist system which is crumbling and character of Dragan represents wild, unrestricted capitalism which is going to replace it. Blazevski even references unpleasantness that has erupted in Yugoslavia during the production – an unidentifiable war mentioned on the radio and later it serves as part of a corny and unconvincing subplot. But few viewers would care about those details. Blazevski has great problems with the script – simple story is burdened with unnecessary melodrama more suitable for Latin American soap operas. That affects film’s pacing. The dialogues are atrocious and even the talented cast, which includes future Serbian culture minister Branislav Lecic, can’t do anything other than make BULEVAR REVOLUCIJE merely watchable. The worst thing about BULEVAR REVOLUCIJE is a music which is constantly playing regardless of the events on the screen. Because of that, the “interesting” times covered in this film won’t be that interesting for the audience.

RATING: 3/10 (+)

Lost in the Bermuda Triangle (1998)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

By the end of 1990s THE X-FILES finished its transformation from cult science fiction drama into mainstream and immensely successful television product. This reflected on other television producers who tried to create equally successful shows based on the similar formula. Needless to say, few of them managed to repeat success of THE X-FILES. One of those failed attempts is LOST IN THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE, 1998 TV film directed by Norberto Barba, apparently a pilot for the show never made.

Just like Chris Carter, who built his X-FILES mythology on UFOs, scriptwriter Jeff King tried to use another popular fringe science phenomenon – Bermuda Triangle, section of ocean infamous for airplanes and ships disappearing in mysterious circumstances. One of people to experience this is Michael Sykes (played by Graham Beckel), workaholic Chicago yuppie who chose worst possible place and time to spend vacation with his pregnant and sick wife Mary (played by Charlotte d’Amboise). Their dream boat cruise in Bermuda ends tragically when Mary gets sucked by mysterious storm which has materialised in the middle of otherwise calm sea. Michael, suspected of murder and baffled with some unexplained things he saw during the incident, decides to locate his wife at any cost. Charly Simpson (played by Christina Haag), a scientist who took interest in his case, is convinced that Mary was transported to another dimension. She contacts Michael and volunteers to help him in his search with her experimental equipment.

What looked like a promising idea – story that would intrigue audience with unanswered questions - is completely ruined by poor execution. Any sense of wonder and mystery is destroyed by Barba’s uninspired direction and apparent unwillingness to hide film’s low budget. Laughable special effects are matched by uninspired cast and King’s script relies on too much melodrama to create any suspension of disbelief. It isn’t surprising that the ultimate fate of LOST IN BERMUDA TRIANGLE matched its title.

RATING: 2/10 (-)

Taking Lives (2004)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

It is refreshing to see that Canada, which has served as a location for endless Hollywood thrillers, is finally the actual plot setting of one Hollywood thriller. But this is, more or less, the only good thing that can be said of TAKING LIVES, 2004 film directed by D.J. Caruso.

Actually, there is another good element of this film - the opening scene which introduces film’s villain. Runaway teenager Martin Asher (played by Paul Dano) discovers talent for killing people and stealing their identities. Two decades later Quebeq police is dealing with very dangerous and intelligent homicidal psychopath and receive expert help in the form of Illeana Scott (played by Angelina Jolie), FBI agent and top psychological profiler. She quickly determines killer’s modus operandi and motivations, but the real break in the case comes with James Costa (played by Ethan Hawke), Montreal gallery owner who witnessed the last murder. He apparently becomes killer’s next target, so Ileanna and her colleagues from Montreal decide to use him as bait.

Based on the novel by Michael Pye, TAKING LIVES is another sad proof that Hollywood can’t make a decent serial killer movie these days. What have looked very promising at the very beginning of the film starts to unravel in the moment when disastrously miscast Angelina Jolie enters the film and unsuccessfully tries to convince the audience that she is top FBI profiler. What follows is the series of clichés that drain any life out of TAKING LIVES. Even those who haven’t been watching many suspense thrillers these days won’t have any problems predicting not only major plot points, but even minor events in the film. For example, Jolie’s character drives around with Quebecois policemen who have great fun making sexist comments about her in French and think that she can’t understand them. It doesn’t take a great mind to predict that Jolie’s character will, sooner or later, answer those policemen in their native language.

This lame attempt to reconcile humour and political correctness is nothing compared with the plot which is both ridiculously unbelievable and utterly predictable. It doesn’t take much for the experienced viewer to determine the identity of the killer, obligatory romance between the characters and “surprise” twist at the very end. To make things worse, most characters in the film are utterly dislikeable and the romantic couple is played by actors who don’t have one iota of mutual chemistry. Even the explicit sex scene – something which rarely appears in Hollywood thrillers these days – is poorly directed and un-erotic. Philip Glass’ music soundtrack and likeable Montreal locations are poor excuse for audience to waste time on a thriller whose makers have problems with understanding meaning of the word “thrill”.

RATING: 2/10 (-)

Murder Without Motive: The Edmund Perry Storry (1992)

A Film Review

Copyright Dragan Antulov 2005

In June 1985 a New York undercover policeman, allegedly acting in self-defence, shot and killed Edmund Perry, 17-year old black man. At first, this looked like just another piece of depressing crime statistics, but soon the public learned some extraordinary facts about murdered youth and seemingly ordinary tragedy became national news. That biography is a subject of MURDER WITHOUT MOTIVE: THE EDMUND PERRY STORY, 1992 TV film directed by Kevin Hooks.

The film starts few weeks before the killing when Edmund Perry (played by Curtis L. McLarin) graduates from Phillips Exeter, one of the most prestigious prep schools in America – world completely different from the mean streets of Harlem where Perry grew up and where he would end his life. The plot than goes back and time shows how young Perry, a talented and hard-working student, was fortunate enough to win scholarship for Phillips Exeter and thus escape vicious circle of poverty, drugs and violence that swallowed most of his less fortunate friends. But in Phillips Exeter Perry finds that himself torn between the worlds – his privileged white schoolmates and establishment won’t completely accept him because of his skin, while he feels alienated from his old neighbourhood.

Based on the book by Robert Sam Anson, MURDER WITHOUT MOTIVE uses this extraordinary and tragic story to deal with issues of race, class and socio-cultural stereotypes in modern America. Unfortunately, director Kevin Hooks is unable to reconcile this ambitious agenda with limitations of TV movie format, so the film often looks too didactic, cold and sterile. Thankfully, the young and talented cast, which includes some names that would later become stars in their own right- Cuba Gooding Jr. and Carla Gugino – compensates script deficiencies with good acting. MURDER WITHOUT MOTIVE isn’t particularly memorable TV film, those who happen to watch it won’t have many reasons to complain over its quality.

RATING: 5/10 (++)