#1999Films

[leewsnm]

Tyler Durden.

[adamwatchesmovies]

Bicentennial Man (1999)

Bicentennial Man is science fiction for people that don’t like science fiction, don’t understand what robots are, and don’t want to be challenged. It teases many thought-provoking topics and then barely scratches the surface on any of them. Why dig deep when it can instead rely on clichés and cheap tricks?

In 2005, the Martin family home is introduced to their new robot helper, "Andrew" (played by Robin Williams). Somehow, a defect in Andrew’s programming allows him to innovate, learn, and evolve. As the years pass, Andrew becomes much more than a household appliance and embarks on a journey to become human.

You'd assume the film would ask questions like “What makes a human human?”, that to spark deep questions, it would take something decidedly not human and give it the ability to feel. That sounds hard, so what if - instead of a robot - Andrew was a silver man, complete with eyebrows and facial expressions? You instantly know he's going to gain sentience and will develop a Pinocchio complex. Whew. Can you imagine if Andrew was wholly inhuman, like a grey box on wheels claiming it wanted to be considered our equal? That might've been hard.

The film fails from the beginning by introducing two stories, neither of which it commits to. The first is the love story between Andrew and the Martin family. The second is the robot's quest for humanity. Does that first element add anything to this 200-year-plus tale? No, but how else will the dummies in the audience understand that he's human if he can't have sex with a woman? The android can enjoy music, make friends, create art, and eventually becomes indistinguishable from a human due to extensive upgrades. It’s just a cheap trick.

This picture forces its conflicts. You listen to the arguments used by the World Congress for why Andrew can't attain "man" status and it holds no water. Bicentennial Man doesn't even try to expose the prejudices of human beings towards different classes or races. No one could leave the film upset or wondering how they'd react in this scenario because Bicentennial Man never actually explores the real difference between man and machine. The reason I don’t consider my computer to be a human being isn’t that it’s made of plastic and metal, or that it doesn’t need to eat or go to the bathroom. It’s not about it being built instead of born, it’s about the fact that my computer can’t think or create original ideas. It can’t relate to human emotions because it’s a machine. The people in this movie would disagree with me. It’s not an injustice, it’s just bad writing.

That's all sci-fi stuff. These sort of questions probably won't occur to most viewers. Even so, this movie isn't great. Bicentennial Man is a drama-comedy, but the drama is manufactured and crumbles under scrutiny. The comedy? it’s lame. Andrew is shocked when he hears about how humans reproduce - like that's never been done before. Predictably, we also get the usual jokes about him not understanding humor, turns of phrases, or human emotions. We've seen that a thousand times.

The love story is banal. Not only because there's no chemistry between the leads but also because you can see every development coming from a mile away. The social stigmas they must "overcome" are shallow, the physical differences non-existent. We never see what this case does to the world, or how other robots react to it there are hardly any robots in this movie.

The worst thing about Bicentennial Man is that it's not immediately bad. It sucks you in with obvious injustices, what appears to be a torn romance, and a man's quest to be declared human. There's even a poor lonely dog that wants to be adopted. It's so cheesy and earnest most will think it deep. Give Bicentennial Man a long hard look and you’ll recognize it for what it is: countless missed opportunities. (On DVD, March 25, 2016)

[felicereviews]

Titus (1999)

To celebrate 1999 and its contribution to film (I know that sounds weird but hear me out) I re-watched - or watched for the first time - a collection of films released in that year.  I don’t know how to present them other than alphabetically.  My brain works best when there is some order.

Happy New Year everybody!  This is my final installment in the 1999 series.  There were a lot (and I mean A LOT) of movies that I did not cover.  American Pie, Austin Powers, Fight Club, Payback, Ravenous, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, and Toy Story 2 just to name a few!

But Titus is a great way to end the year.  This may be my favourite film adaptation of a Shakespeare play.  The director, Julie Taymor, had directed the play for the stage but the only cross-over cast member she had for the film was the Moor.  All the rest of the cast had to learn the Shakespeare dialog and the dark nature of Titus.  Taymor had them meet for a number of months for rehearsals and they were all grateful for that.

Anthony Hopkins plays the lead role, as a powerful man coming home from war who gratefully cedes the rule of Rome to Alan Cumming.  You can tell by looking at him that is not going to go well.  The queen of the Goths, played by the captivating Jessica Lange, is up to no good, with her immediate goal being pleasure and her ultimate goal, the demise of all things Titus.

You’ve got Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Matthew Rhys playing the Goth princes.  And Harry Lennix gracefully playing the despicable Moor.

Taymor combines old and new elements in the film.  With cars in the colosseum and pinball machines in the palace.  It suits the feeling of the Titus, which is wild and untamed.

The story is dark - and that’s just the way of it.  Taymor makes no effort to soften the blows this story strikes.  When I watched this back in 1999 I was left with an indelible memory of the film as a whole, which doesn’t happen very often.  Watching this again in 2019 and then watching the special features about the making of the film, I like it even more than I did 20 years ago.

Happy 20th Birthday Titus!

[msfilmdiary]

Ultra Femininity: The Virgin Suicides

TW: suicide, mental health, sexualization and sexual behavior

The Virgin Suicides, Jeffrey Eugenides’ 1993 debut fiction novel. Set in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, in the 1970s, the story follows the lives of the Lisbon sisters; five beautiful, mysterious, trapped, and ultimately cursed sisters: Cecilia (13), Lux (14), Bonnie (15), Mary (16), and Therese (17). The story is told through the perspective of an anonymous group of adult men, who are reflecting on their eye-opening adolescence and the girl’s suicides. The novel has a 1999 film adaptation of the same name directed by Sofia Coppola.

The Virgin Suicides is a tale of young teenage girls living through the examination of the male gaze, and their perspective to what the American teenage girl should be. In The Virgin Suicides, and in American culture, girlhood and beauty are dictated by the male perspective which  has no room for anything that cannot be sexualized.

Spoilers for The Virgin Suicides film and novel ahead.

THE EMBODIMENT OF AMERICAN CULTURE AND AMERICAN BEAUTY

The Virgin Suicides takes place in a small town in Michigan, the picture of the post-war American suburban dream. The Lisbon girls are keepsakes, and sex symbols, but also figures of the boy’s imagination. They’re the embodiment of what American beauty should be–young, thin, blonde, alluring, and sexy, but not in a “used way.” Cecilia is dubbed “the first to go” with her odd aura. Bonnie’s description is none other than an opportunity to point out her mismatched and crooked teeth, and her “nun-like” features. Mary is known for her widow’s peak, and the small hair above her upper lip. Therese was said to be clumsy, with her “heavier face” and her “cheeks and eyes of a cow.” Lux was the only sister out of the five to meet the boy’s expectations and gaze, and she “radiated health and mischief” and was teasingly playful and capturing. The perfect American girl should be fresh and pure, but also somewhat sexually experienced, but virginal. Lux was the light of the Lisbon sisters, and the true embodiment of what an American teenage girl should be.

Grosse Pointe, Michigan in the 1970s is the picture of the American dream. A child-friendly religious neighbourhood, a beautiful yet mundane home, and simple, alluring teenage girls that would never dream of losing their virginities until marriage. This is interrupted when thirteen-year-old Cecilia attempts suicide in the bathtub. She is found in time to save her short life, but her suicide in both the novel and film adaptation is portrayed as beautiful, with words describing how her naked and “budding” body looked while she bled, and how the scene is portrayed on screen as enchanting and magnetic, rather than disturbing. This is a perfect example of how the Lisbon girls are portrayed; through their beauty and girlhood. Girlhood in The Virgin Suicides is beguiling and alluring and seductive, with brazzers dangling on top of headboards, and half-used lipsticks next to childhood tiaras. Here, girlhood is not messy, or dark, ordreary, nor is it filled with depressive thoughts, because these things do not appeal to the male gaze the girls are watched through.

Girlhood is not always beautiful, and it is not something to be picked apart by those who do not understand it.

SOCIETY’S OBSESSION WITH TEENAGE GIRLS: WHAT A TEENAGE GIRL SHOULD BE

“On the morning that the last Lisbon daughter took her turn at suicide–it was Mary this time–the two paramedics arrived at the house knowing exactly where the knife drawer was, and the gas oven, and the beam in the basement from which it was possible to tie a rope.”

The story of the Lisbon sisters is not their own–as it is told from the perspective of the boys across the street, narrating the story as adults. The girls are portrayed almost as creatures; laughing, dancing, teasing, mysterious, and curious about the world. As described in the novel, and portrayed on screen, the girls live in a beautiful mess; canopies over their beds, blankets draped over their floors, brazzers hung from crosses on the walls, and half-used lipstick tubes perfectly placed. The boy’s perspective sexualizes and glorifies these young girls–as they don’t know them, and with their fate, they never will.

The girls are figments of the boy’s imagination. Yes, the girls are very much real, but through the boy’s eyes, they’re pure, yet sexualized creatures that are a mystery to them. The girls are something that the boys can desire and yearn for in their small, white suburban town.

The Lisbon girls represent what society and the male perspective think the girls should be–beautiful, yet simple, mysterious, but not off-putting, desired, but not out of reach. The boys do not really want to know the girls–they want to fix their pain, and save them from their overbearing, religious mother, and their good for nothing father all without realizing that the girls’ lives are not for them to fix, and not for them to save.

THE SEXUALIZATION OF THE TEENAGE GIRL

“He came back to us with stories of bedrooms filled with crumpled panties, or stuffed animals hugged to death by the passion of the girls, of a crucifix draped with a brassier, of gauzy chambers of canopied beds, and the effluvia of so many young girls becoming women together in the same cramped space.”

What else is a girl supposed to do, besides apply layers of crimson lipstick, not for herself, but for the males around her? What else is a girl supposed to cry about, besides losing her music and her touch to teenage culture? What else is a teenage girl supposed to want, besides going to a dance, and to ultimately lose her virginity?

The Lisbon girls are portrayed as innocent–yet ironic in the most teenage girl way, secretly, like they won’t give themselves up if not for a price. They are a part of the boy’s imagination; their sexual imagination, but the girls do not have a perspective to their own body, and their own sexual nature. It is instead in the perspective of the teenage boys, erasing any want, desire, or need the girls may or may not have.

Lux is perhaps the most sexualized out of all the Lisbon girls–as she’s described as beautiful in her tube top that her mother always asks her to cover up, yet rebellious in her habit of chain smoking in her bathroom since the age of twelve. In the novel, Lux has a habit of writing boy’s names on her underwear in place of lacey, girl-like lingerie. In the film, we see Trip’s name written on Lux’s underwear–as if it’s giving a hint to Lux’s budding sexuality, and foreshadowing what’s to come in the football field. Lux is the ultimate girl–pure, yet sexually experienced, soft, but rough around the edges, teasing, yet arousing, and playful.

The Lisbon’s girls' suicides are told from the boy’s perspective, narrated adult years later. Instead of the suicides being a defining moment in the girls’ lives, it's a defining moment in the boys’. They’re recreating the girls’ lives through Cecilia’s stolen diary, girlhood memorabilia, and word of the mouth remembrance from the girl’s lives. They never understand that the girls are their own entity outside of their perspective, and that they do not solely exist for their viewing and sexualization.

The readers and viewers never get to know the girls from their perspective. Like the adolescent boys, the readers are oblivious observers to their girls’ real pain and suffering. The readers receive a vague explanation of this agony, which was dubbed “the first to go.”

‘“What are you doing here, honey? You’re not even old enough to know how bad life gets... “Obviously doctor, you’ve never been a thirteen-year-old girl.”’ Cecilia doesn’t explain the suffrage of being a thirteen-year-old girl, as the experience cannot be understood by the boys and their tendency to put the Lisbon girls on a beautiful and out of reach pedestal of teenagehood and girlhood. Girlhood, to the boys, is alluring and dazzling, but to the Lisbon girls, the readers never know.

“It didn’t matter in the end how old they had been, or that they were girls. But that we had loved them, and that they hadn’t heard us calling, still do not hear us calling them out of those rooms. Where they went to be alone for all of time.”

The boys, in the end, are calling to themselves. For the Lisbon girls, Cecilia, Lux, Bonnie, Mary, and Therese could not hear them in death or in living.

[summerchabbab]

‘Being John Malkovich’ is a 1999 American fantasy comedy-drama film directed by Spike Jonze and written by Charlie Kaufman. John Cusack plays as Craig Schwartz, an unemployed puppeteer in New York City who finds work as a file clerk for Dr Lester in the Mertin-Flemmer building. The ceiling is very low on the floor between the 7th and 8th. While filing, Craig discovers a small hidden door which he crawls through it into the portal, in the form of a tunnel, and that leads him to find himself inside the mind of the actor, John Malkovich. Throughout the film, the characters manipulated John Malkovich by entering his mind, which is fascinating as these are different people entering his mind rather than him having different personas. This film is very relevant to ‘Who Am I’ as you have Craig who, even though he discovered the portal when he started working for Dr Lester, he then becomes manipulative due to his puppeteering skills which made it easy for him to control John Malkovich. You also have Lotte, Craig’s pet-obsessed wife, who enters the mind of John Malkovich and explores her gender and sexuality which she then identifies herself as a transgender male. #beingjohnmalkovich #1999film #americanfilm #fantasy #comedy #drama #film #spikejonze #charliekaufman #johncusack #puppeteer #portal #mind #johnmalkovich #manipulation #manipulations #manipulative #differentpeople #differentpersonas #whoami #identity #uob_masquerade #uob_students #uob_whoami_2020 (at Harrow, United Kingdom) https://www.instagram.com/p/CJv5YabnWDL/?igshid=1vyincxvrc2mj

[sonic-cinema]

Roger Kumble’s “Cruel Intentions” has been on my mind for a while, for a few different reasons, and I finally got around to a rewatch last night. (A review I wrote for it will be on Sonic Cinema in a couple of weeks.) The 1999 teen adaptation of “Dangerous Liaisons” is soapy melodrama with a wickedly funny edge as Sarah Michelle Gellar’s Kathryn and Ryan Phillippe’s Sebastian make a bet on whether the latter can bed the chaste Annabelle, played by Reese Witherspoon. A lot still holds up really well in this movie, especially the central dynamics of the main characters, while a couple of things either date it a bit (the soundtrack, though still good) or just feel uncomfortable (its homophobic attitude). We never got the TV series that promised to bring back Kathryn (and Gellar in the wonderfully nasty role), but there’s enough sexy, funny material here to relive that this movie remains one of my favorites from a pretty terrific year to revisit. #cinema #movies #1999films #cruelintentionsmovie #sarahmichellegellar #ryanphillippe #reesewitherspoon #selmablair https://www.instagram.com/p/BoC6zmSAG-e/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1vogqtoskzijr

[adamwatchesmovies]

She’s All That (1999)

What makes a movie good isn’t merely convincing performances, a story that generates an emotional response, meeting the audience’s expectations, and proper filmmaking techniques. A good movie does those things, and more. If you're happy with "adequate", watch She’s All That. It’s a no-bells, no-whistles version of My Fair Lady minus all the personality.

Zackary “Zack” Siler (Freddie Prinze Jr.) is a shoo-in for prom king in six weeks. When his equally popular and attractive girlfriend Taylor Vaughan (Jodi Lyn O’Keefe), dumps him, Zack says he can find another future prom queen no problem. His friend Dean Sampson, Jr. (Paul Walker) challenges him to turn dorky, unpopular art student Laney Boggs (Rachael Leigh Cook) into a hottie.

Haven’t we seen this movie already? It feels like it. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Most romantic comedies, fairy tales, etc. follow a general formula. What makes you prefer one over the other are the details, the little quirks that make the characters unique, memorable lines you quote to your friends, favorite moments, instances where the formula is turned on its head, or even the imperfections everyone acknowledges then moves past. She’s All That has none of those and isn’t self-aware enough to make this work in its favor.

It's the cinematic equivalent of a hotdog with ketchup… and nothing else on it. You can’t help compare this 1999 film to My Fair Lady. Its equivalent of Zack had personality. This guy? He’s amiable and bland. You won’t have any reservations about him and Laney getting together. Actually, there’s no reason for them not to. On their first date, he clearly shows genuine interest in her, so much that when the inevitable shocking reveal about the bet comes around, you expect her to listen to his apology and accept it no problem. Particularly after he befriends her brother, Simon (Kieran Culkin), and then defends him from school bullies. He turns against him too eventually, which is even less convincing.

As expected, Laney Boggs isn’t really a dork, and she isn’t unpopular for any convincing reason. She’s merely a pair of contacts and a new hairdo away from being a showstopper. If anything more drastic were required, there’s no way the film’s timeline of six weeks would work. I realize that’s the premise but once Laney’s glasses come off, they never come back on and it doesn’t feel like Zack’s done anything to get her to open up and make new friends either. Once done-over, she fits in perfectly with the upper-class high-school clique, which makes you question some of the "earth-shattering" truths she encounters on the road from ugly duckling to swan. So what if Zack’s ex is mean to her? Why does she take it out on him?

The picture is consistently short of what it could be. The leads are appealing enough, there are some occasionally funny moments, the premise has a certain timeless appeal. It’s just missing that something something. My favorite scene - a long dance sequence set at the prom - serves no purpose. Matthew Lillard’s character - as entertaining as he is - could've been removed entirely. You won’t be sorry if you sit down and watch She’s All That but you won’t remember it down the line either. (August 6, 2021)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Candyman 3: Day of the Dead (1999)

There are only two good things about Candyman: Day of the Dead. First, it follows my long-running adage that if you can’t be good, at least be sleazy. Do you like blood? Do you like boobs? Do you like blood on boobs? This movie’s got you covered. The second is the horrible decision to cast Donna D’Errico in the lead role. Why is that good? Read on…

Set 25 years after the previous movie (so it was set in the then-future of 2020), on the eve of the Day of the Dead in Los Angeles, artist Caroline McKeever (Donna D’Errico) is trying to clear the name of her great-great-grandfather Daniel Robitaille (Tony Todd) by asking the public to focus on the artist rather than the urban legend. When the Candyman manifests once more and begins slaughtering those around her, the police think she or her friend David de la Paz (Nick Corri) is responsible.

Sometimes it’s easy to see when someone got a role they shouldn’t have. Other times, things might not be so black-and-white and you might wonder if people are just getting too sensitive. Finally, there are cases where you just don’t know and you feel timid expressing any kind of opinion. If you ever need proof that there's a bias towards certain ethnicities in Hollywood, watch Candyman 3. Look at D’Errico. Look at Tony Todd. These two are supposed to be related? Give me a break. Yes, her parents were paper-white in the previous movie but there, I could "give it a pass" because the family ties were a twist. She doesn't look the part and she can't act it either. Everyone comes off as amateurish, including Tony Todd, who is clearly thinking “why did I sign up for this”? Let me take that back. Alexia Robinson as Tamara, Caroline’s roommate deserves an Academy Award for listening to her speech about how she’s related to Robitaille and keeping a straight face.

The rest of the movie is poorly written and forgettable. Nothing we learn about Candyman gives us a deeper appreciation for the character, every character is disposable, and aside from many scenes of interracial love - if you see a female actor in this film, there’s an 80% chance you’ll see her take her clothes - it’s lightyears away from any progressive/provocative ideas. The special effects are… ok for a skinny $3 million budget. There’s plenty of gore and hooks getting plunged into people’s backs and out through their chest, and some neat insect performances.

Candyman’s motivations are vague when they’re not inconsistent. She’s his descendant but maybe also the reincarnation of his daughter? Doesn’t explain why they kiss towards the end (Eww). Mostly, you’re waiting for Caroline to find Robitaille's missing paintings so they can destroy them while dodging the two racist cops on her tail. Even for a movie featuring Robitaille's gruesome lynching, these racist cops are over-the-top. Worse, they're not even fun to hate.

Candyman 3: Day of the Dead is a generic sequel that feels like some repurposed Nightmare on Elm Street knockoff. It’s uninspired and dull. The bad performances, lack of energy, confusing mythology, and other problems can’t counterbalance the gore, nudity, and few unintentional laughs it has to offer. (August 29, 2021)

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Boondock Saints (1999)

Following a troubled release, The Boondock Saints became a cult classic. I don't get it. This is an ugly, sloppy, poorly written film with a dubious message. It’s a blatant knock-off of Quentin Tarantino that misses the mark on everything that makes his films good.

Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) MacManus are devout Christian, Irish-American fraternal twins who have an epiphany after a brutal fight. They believe God has sent them on a mission to kill every wrongdoer in Boston. Accompanied by their friend, a mob henchman named David “The Funny Man” Della Rocco (David Della Rocco), they embark on their crusade.

Even if you're sold on the premise that due process, imprisonment, police procedure, and trials merely get in the way of true justice, this film is still an airplane made of concrete. The only difference between the two thinly written protagonists is Connor's obsession with action movies, with Murphy being the more hot-headed, slightly more intelligent of the two. Those distinguishing traits pay off in exactly one scene, right at the beginning. Otherwise, they look the same, act the same, and use the same weapons.

Your leads are boring and the side characters fare no better. Willem Dafoe plays a gay FBI agent who struggles with his desire to see the MacManus brothers' criminal victims dead and his duty as a lawman. The film ruins any potential he would've had by having the man chew scenery like he’s going to die if he doesn’t eat all of it, culminating in a scene that's so embarrassing to watch it makes you want to put a gun barrel to your temple. Everybody else is either uninteresting or so forgettable you can hardly tell the difference between their live and dead selves.

Several scenes are ripped right out of 1994's Pulp Fiction, but minus anything that made them interesting. There’s an accidental gun discharge that isn't the least bit funny (it's actually unsettling when you think about it), there’s plenty of dialogue that wishes it was profound. The way scenes transition from one to another, even the fonts used are ugly.

The worst thing about Boondock Saints is that it doesn’t anger or bore you. It makes you depressed. This film is about two serial killers who believe their rampage is justified because they are murdering criminals. They’ll wait until your kids leave the house and they won’t kill your wife, but you, they’ll torture, terrorize, and execute without mercy. Justice isn’t looking at someone in a porno theatre and saying “that guy is a pervert, he deserves to die”. It’s not running into a room and gunning down everyone in it because they're associated with a bad person. There isn’t a moment in the brothers' heads where they wonder “If we kill every murderer in the city, will that really clean it up? What does it say about us that if we go on like this, we’ll have killed more people than anyone else in Boston?”

That's no reason to be sad. Merely to discredit the film as "good". “Written and Directed by Troy Duffy”. That's a reason to be sad. This man has only directed two films, this one, and its sequel. He admits the film was born out of outrage and that the middle was just "cool shit", with the intent to give everyone a way to experience his "sick fantasy". I’m all about using art to express yourself and exorcise your inner demons, but when you create a film that’s this obsessed with violence and you never produce anything else, it gives you reason to worry.

With big plot holes, ridiculous developments, flat characters, questionable morals, and a plot that feels like it was written by a 13-year-old, The Boondock Saints is a dreadful watch. I'd like to think this is the kind of movie whose fans REMEMBER enjoying it and then discard upon a rewatch. (On Blu-ray, February 26, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1999)

Whenever a play is successfully adapted to film, it's hard to tell who is responsible. It isn't like much content has been removed or altered for 1999's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Is it just the subject matter working its magic? Partially for sure but consider whether this retelling captures the original prose and structure. How does the movie look? Does it have re-watch value? Are the actors good in their roles?

Hermia (Anna Friel) is in love with Lysander (Dominic West). They want to marry but her father Egeus (Bernard Bill) wants to pair her with Demetrius (Christian Bale). Meanwhile, Helena (Calista Flockhart) is desperately in love with Demetrius but they broke up and he has no interest in trying again; he's after Hermia. She and Lysander decide to make a run for it, pursued by Demetrius, and Helena (who hopes to win him back in the process). Meanwhile, the king of the fairies, Lord Oberon (Rupert Everett), and his queen Titania (Michelle Pfeiffer) are in the middle of a lover’s quarrel. It's up to trickster Puck (Stanley Tucci) to mend their relationship. Finally, we also follow a group of would-be playwrights putting together a comedic/dramatic presentation of Pyramus and Thisbe. The stories are interwoven as the fairies’ magic interferes with the lovers and the actors.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is an excellent play, even if you don’t understand Olde English completely. There are plenty of clever rhymes, and the comedic scenarios are timeless. The three stories are fairly simple, making them easy to follow. On DVD, you've got the option to turn on the subtitles, which makes it even easier. The camera's ability for closeups gives us a better look at the actors than you could ever get in an auditorium, which facilitates your understanding as well.

Rather than setting the story in ancient Greece, director Michael Hoffman has selected 19th Century Italy. While bicycles may be present and the only togas we see belong to the fairy-folk, it works. Any period with candlelight, lavish castles, old-timey attitudes, and green woods lovers could stroll through fits this material.

Performance-wise, everyone does well. The standouts are easily Kevin Kline as Bottom, one of the actors putting on the play-within-a-play, and Stanley Tucci as Puck. The performers have good chemistry, making this comedic romance unexpectedly sexy. The movie's got an infamous mud-wrestling scene and for me, it was one of the highlights. Throughout the film, everyone is fighting over who is going to get together with who and it gets even messier/funnier when Puck's enchantments get crossed. The ladies chase after the men and depending on what stage they're in, they run away from, run towards, or are completely bewildered by their affections. What better way to represent this messy sort of fun than by having them all get dirty for real? If that doesn't get you, some very selectively placed rose petals and bushes will.

If you’re looking at A Midsummer Night’s Dream and analyzing the feminist ideals within, or discussing how marriage and love relationships can make an individual's identity disappear, you’re looking too hard. It’s a movie that features a play within a play, some big laughs and magical enchantments being dropped left and right so that the audience can have a good time. It’s a light romantic comedy. It makes you laugh. It makes you happy to share it with someone. I’m not sure if I can pinpoint anything in it that “improves” the material, or would necessarily make it better than any other adaptations or live performances but that’s alright. The 1999 film version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream is exactly what it wants to be: fun. (On DVD, August 1, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

8 mm (1999)

I watch a lot of movies. Some might say obsessively, which means I connected with 8 mm appealed to me, a lot. It even frightened and disturbed me some. I understand why you might reject it. The ending is weak but the rest makes it worth seeing. Hear me out.

Tom Welles (Nicolas Cage) is a private eye asked by an elderly widow (Myra Carter) to investigate a disturbing 8 mm film. Found in the private vault of her wealthy late husband, it appears to show the murder of a young woman. As Tom attempts to disprove the picture’s validity, he finds himself delving deep into the seedy underbelly of snuff films.

8 mm treats the possibility of a murder captured on film seriously. Another director would show you what Tom sees but director Joel Schumacher chooses to imply instead. His reactions tell us he believes the footage could be legitimate. How to determine if it's false? by checking to see if it's being distributed on the black market. This means going to the kinds of places where the most depraved images are sold. The titles on the separators tell you all you need to know. No wonder Welles is visibly disturbed by what he's exposing himself to.

The mystery of the girl's identity, and who made the film are engaging mysteries. You get to see all kinds of (for the lack of a better word) villains throughout and writer Andrew Kevin Walker gives them enough dimension to make them feel real, to keep you wondering who you should pay attention to. You have to be some kind of a degenerate to make movies where BDSM is mixed with crossbows and buckets of blood, but even the people involved in them find ways to justify what they are doing. Whether it’s art or just apathy towards what everyone else tells them is right and wrong, interesting ideas are there.

I totally believed the characters and their actions. I was often disturbed and frightened. The movie is unsettling. It’s meant to be in the same way that someone investigating a child kidnapping would be thinking in the back of their head that when children are taken from their homes, they could very well be in the hands of a pedophile. You don’t want to think about that, but when your job is to locate a missing girl, you have to consider the worst possible outcome. There’s a powerful moment where the importance of the truth being told to people who are grieving is addressed (this is before we really find out what the deal with the movie is). It's another scene that makes you uncomfortable because you're not sure how you feel about it.

Then, we get to the conclusion, which dispenses with ambiguity, is too simple, and frankly, doesn't work. You'll have to imagine what the ending could've been like to enjoy 8 mm, which is a cheat but the rest is so good it's worth bending the rules for a bit. Draw inspiration from similar or similarly themed films like Sinister or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Maybe this is a picture just for me. Or perhaps there are others, who will find it appealing: avid fans of film, people who have wondered about how slimy that slimy underbelly of home video can get, or anyone who's worked in a video rental store and dealt with creepy customers. I enjoyed 8 mm a lot, and for multiple reasons. (Full-screen version on VHS, September 28, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Deep Blue Sea (1999)

There’s exactly one good thing about Deep Blue Sea, and I can’t even tell you what it is without spoiling the best scene. Lest you be tempted to check the film out for yourself, let me assure you that this monster movie has been done better previously, and since. With sated special effects, a ludicrous plot, non-science everywhere, it's amazing the film doesn’t even end up being “so bad it’s good”. It’s just dull.

At a remote research facility in the middle of the ocean, scientists are experimenting on sharks in the hopes of finding a cure for Alzheimer’s disease. The three genetically enhanced predators turn on their creators and a group of researchers (including Saffron Burrows as the lead scientist, Thomas Jane as a shark whisperer, LL Cool J as a cook, and Samuel L. Jackson as their boss) are in the fight of their lives.

Anyone who’s seen Deep Blue Sea knows what the best scene is. It’s a big surprise and a bold move to have such an unexpected scene like that. It’s almost worth seeing the movie for it but don't forget about everything surrounding that shock before you go around praising the movie.

Some stories ask you to suspend your disbelief. Others don’t even try to be logical or plausible at all. If you know anything about sharks, this movie will make you furious. I’m not talking about the false narrative of them being eating machines that love munching on people. Traits that make sharks cool creatures, that would've enhanced the film are completely ignored… probably because no one behind the scenes did any research at all. We see sharks roaring. Impossible since they have no lungs but it's a movie. It's a dramatic moment. You let it go. Then we see people rubbing against them like they're a cat when their skin is covered in placoid scales that makes touching them feel like rubbing your hand against sandpaper. We're talking trivial stuff in the grand scheme of things. You would happily ignore this if the movie was good but we're just getting started.

I know the sharks in this film are super smart, but the idea is taken to a level of unbelievability that demands you scoops out spoonfuls of your brain to enjoy it. It’s one thing, for a shark to be capable of planning and strategizing. It’s another for it to recognize what human objects are when it has never seen them before and would have no idea of what they might do. The fish aren’t telepathic! There’s no way they should be able to do the things they do unless they read the script.

I’m probably being harsher than I should, but there’s nothing this movie does to validate its existence. They didn’t have a story that needed to be told, someone just realized we hadn’t seen a big-budget shark movie in a long time and decided to come up with a reason for sharks to eat lab technicians. You could assemble this film by splicing together a bunch of other “man plays God with nature, nature goes wild” movies and you wouldn’t have to look much further than Jurassic Park. Even this could be overlooked if the humor wasn't so lame. A parrot that spews obscenities is the comedic highlight of Deep Blue Sea. Maybe everyone who gets eaten isn't dumb; they're just looking for a way out.

I didn’t go into this movie wanting to hate it. In fact, I'm surprised I didn’t have a blast with Deep Blue Sea. I usually get a kick out of people getting eaten by obscenely large animals that inexplicably get hungrier the more they eat. I just couldn’t get behind the lazy story. It does have some moments of inspiration and more than a few thrilling action sequences, but you’re just going to wish you were watching something better if you catch “Deep Blue Sea”. (Full-screen version on VHS, September 29, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Ravenous (1999)

Ravenous is an uneven film. Many elements I would call not only good but brilliant. Some scenes are so atrocious they nearly ruin the whole experience. For what works, I would recommend it to aspiring horror filmmakers - the people who can steal from it. Before we get too much into that, what is it about?

Set in the US, 1849, Second Lieutenant Boyd (Guy Pearce) is a coward who became a war hero through dumb luck. While stationed in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, the camp’s skeleton crew encounter a strange man. Colqhoun (Robert Carlyle) begs them for help. His wagon train got lost months ago and the travellers were reduced to cannibalism to survive. Native American myths state that when a man consumes the flesh of another, he gains their strength but becomes a demon with an insatiable appetite. Is this simply wild superstition?

Ravenous begins with an ominous quote by Nietzsche which is followed by a lame joke. Is this a horror-comedy? Not really. I guess director Antonia Bird just couldn’t pass up on some pop culture slang to get us laughing in this story about people getting eaten.

Immediately after, we get some great material. The setting is primo stuff for a horror film. It’s a world where people have guns, but they’re not very good. You can get one shot easy. Reloading? Practically impossible when you're panicked. It creates natural tension. The period setting also helps. Nowadays a legend about a demonic craving for human flesh might be out of place. 200 years ago? It's right at home. The setting also means isolation. No phones, no easy way to call for help or to get reinforcements. After the initial misstep, it's encouraging.

As the story progresses, the Wendigo myth is given interesting twists. It plays with aspects of the traditional vampire. Some of the revelations and ideas brought towards the last third of the movie Ravenous displays a surprising amount of imagination in what seems initially like a fairly straight-forward slasher film.

Nearly derailing the picture completely are the forced attempts at humor and the soundtrack. I think Ravenous is supposed to be a horror-comedy, but it’s never funny. At least you can understand how everyone could've thought it was going to work. The soundtrack, no so much. It's so bad you'll be tempted to mute the film and turn on the subtitles. Each piece of music is so poorly selected it disintegrates all the suspense and dread by playing a goofy banjo track. It’s so horrible that it made me angry. Who set out to sabotage this picture, and how is it that no one caught them before going to print?

There is more good than bad in Ravenous, which allows me to recommend it while warning you that you're in for a heavily flawed picture. Someone needs to rip off what works here and make better use of it in a different movie. (On DVD, March 20, 2015)

[felicereviews]

Bicentennial Man, Bowfinger, But I’m A Cheerleader (1999)

To celebrate 1999 and its contribution to film (I know that sounds weird but hear me out) I re-watched - or watched for the first time - a collection of films released in that year.  I don’t know how to present them other than alphabetically.  My brain works best when there is some order.

I had only seen But I’m A Cheerleader back in the day.  i am an O.G. Natasha Lyonne fan and I thought the premise was hilarious.  And while the Dr. Seussian sets still please me, in 2019, the story is dated and the movie is slow.

I watched Bicentennial Man because I read Robin (the biography of Robin Williams) earlier this year and wanted to try to see all of his movies, even the bad ones.  This is not a good movie and I hardly enjoyed it at all.  I found the story kind of stupid and if not for Robin and Oliver Platt would have chucked it.  But - it’s so interesting to see Robin work.  He had two movies released in 1999 - the other was Jakob the Liar which I am afraid I will not get to this round.  Just not enough time. Stupid work getting in the way of my free time.  Robin Williams is so good, I’ll even watch his bad movies.

Bowfinger was my favourite of the three.  How could it not be funny with Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy as the leads?  And yes - Eddie is hilarious.  I thought he played outside his box while Steve Martin sort of stayed inside his box.  I felt the movie wasn’t as good as it might have been if Martin had played it a little grander.  That’s just my opinion being a huge Steve Martin fan and if I ever meet him I hope he hasn’t read this.  But if he does read this, big smooch and the banjo is cool.

Which of these three have you seen?  Which is your favourite?  Your least faourite?  Would you rewatch any?

Happy 20th Birthday to Bicentennial Man, Bowfinger, and But I’m a Cheerleader!

[felicereviews]

Mystery Men (1999)

To celebrate 1999 and its contribution to film (I know that sounds weird but hear me out) I re-watched - or watched for the first time - a collection of films released in that year.  I don’t know how to present them other than alphabetically.  My brain works best when there is some order.

A delightful surprise in the year 2000 when my sons and I rented a cabin in Sugar Loaf and found this movie in the entertainment center.  It’s the story of second-rate super heroes in a world where one particular super hero gets all of the credit.

Ben Stiller stars as the ineffective, Furious.  William H. Macy is the Shoveler and Hank Azaria is the Blue Raja, who uses silverware as a weapon.

They go on a quest to find a bigger team of super heroes when a villain, Cassanova Frankenstein, played by Geoffrey Rush, gets paroled.

They find Janeane Garofalo, the Bowler.  Her father’s skull is in a bowling ball and she argues with it and fights the bad guys with it.

And don’t forget Paul Reubens as the Spleen.  Who has super farts.

It’s ridiculous but totally funny.  A must see!

Happy 20th Birthday Mystery Men!

[felicereviews]

Being John Malkovich (1999)

To celebrate 1999 and its contribution to film (I know that sounds weird but hear me out) I re-watched - or watched for the first time - a collection of films released in that year.  I don’t know how to present them other than alphabetically.  My brain works best when there is some order.

Voted Felice’s Most Unusual film of 1999, Being John Malkovich is excellent.  

Even before you get to the John Malkovich part there is a wild story.  You have an out-of-work puppeteer (John Cusack) and his animal-lover girlfriend (Cameron Diaz) who kisses her pet chimp on the mouth.  She bugs Cusack to get a job so he interviews on the 7-1/2 floor where everyone is crouched down.  There he meets Catherine Keener and he starts acting like an idiot so she tells him, “Here’s the thing - if you ever got me, you wouldn’t have a clue what to do with me.”  So he makes a puppet of her and acts out encounters with his puppet and her puppet.  Got it?  OK.  So then there’s more.

One day at work, Cusack drops a file behind the cabinet - moves the cabinet - and finds a door into … John Malkovich’s head.

Once you go through that chute you are reading the Wall Street Journal with Malkovich’s eyes and having toast with Malkovich’s mouth and after 10 or 12 minutes you get ejected on the side of the road near a freeway.

I love this story.  Written by Charlie Kaufman and directed by Spike Jonze - both were nominated for Oscars but lost to American Beauty.  For sure, Malkovich is too edgy of a film to win Oscars but it is such a fun movie and unlike anything that had been done before including making Cameron Diaz homely.

When I saw this movie 20 years ago, I did not know who John Malkovich was.  Sure I had heard his name.  I am a movie person and that name sticks out.  But I couldn’t have told you what movies he was in or what he looked like.  Then I saw this movie and thought, ‘him?’  But it works so well.  It works because I didn’t know what John Malkovich would be doing or eating or reading or who his friends would be.  So when I got to see it through the eyes of someone who slipped through the chute I thought, OK!  I am interested in this story what is going to happen!  And then I found out John Malkovich is a really respected actor who does quality work and this film is full of jabs at him and his celebrity which makes it fucking hilarious.  Animals everywhere, Cusack with an ugly ponytail, unrecognizable Cameron Diaz.  So good.  Watch this one.

Happy 20th Birthday Being John Malkovich!