Review: DEAD MAN ON CAMPUS

‘DEAD MAN’ STINKS

(reviewed on ppv Wednesday night, April 28th, 1999)

    It seems only MTV could be behind a film like “Dead Man on Campus”, which infuses college and suicide in a hi-jinks filled comedy.
    The kid who played Zak in the sitcom "Saved By the Bell" and one of the kids from Tom Hank’s beat-generation film “That Thing You Do” star as college roommates freshman year at a fictional university. Both are opposites. The one has a full scholarship which he earned through studying hard in High School. The other roommate’s thoughts are summed up in a line he says about twenty minutes into the film, “Man, you actually studied in High School? I had a few friends who did that.”
    Eventually the studying nerd gives in to his once-in-a-lifetime college needs after he has sex with a beautiful blonde without even trying. Then it’s onto a life of booze, women, partying, and weed.
    If you’ve seen any previews for this film or even know the premise than I won’t be ruining it by saying the two roommates are going to fail the semester and get kicked out of school.
    They learn about an urban legend involving a roommate’s suicide. If your roommate commits suicide you automatically receive straight A’s. Of course they aren’t going to kill themselves, so they go around campus looking for someone suicidal who they can quickly move in before final exams.
    The plot is probably the best thing going for this film. The script however, doesn’t know what to do with the material. In the opening credits two guys were credited with the story and two were credited with the script. Somehow, both sets of ideas didn’t mesh. The film starts out stupid but entertaining and pretty funny for a bad film, but about halfway into it the director seemed to have given up on the film. Maybe he realized once the two guy’s figure out the suicidal roommate scheme, there really isn’t much left. Granted, the jokes about the three suicidal roommates’ they choose mostly all fall flat.
    The first guy they pick is a crazy frat boy who nobody likes. He’s into high speed chases with cops and throwing water balloons off of the frat house balcony. The next guy is a computer nerd who believes a conspiracy is hatching all around him that involves Bill Gates trying to kill him. The last roommate is a depressed rock singer.
    The basic thing about this film is that it probably shouldn’t have been made. The plot is pretty clever, but I doubt it could have ever worked as a feature film. It’s more a short story or short film product.
    The beginning is promising and there are some hearty laughs, but the stupidity factor overwhelms everything and the film goes nowhere fast. *1/2

Review: URBAN LEGEND

EVER HEAR THE ‘URBAN LEGEND’ ABOUT THE BAD MOVIE?

 (reviewed on ppv, Friday, April 23rd, 1999)

    I was watching a ‘featurette’ on the slasher flick, “Urban Legend”. It was a five minute commercial for the film with clips and interviews of the primary cast and director. The main actress played by some nobody redhead was talking about the director and she made this suck up comment: “He knows what works and what doesn’t.” Maybe the director, Jamie Blanks, does know what he’s doing on the set, but my question is this: if he knows what works and what doesn’t, why the fuck did he film THIS script? Because, to put it bluntly, it doesn’t work. At all.
    “Scream” revolutionized the teen horror/slasher genre. We all know that. And we all know that a ton of crappy wannabe’s have come out ever since. “Urban Legend” could be the worst (I still haven’t seen “I Still Know What You Did Last Summer”).
    The somewhat clever premise involves an urban legend serial killer. He does the guy in the backseat of the car, he does the hanging boyfriend on the roof of the car, he does the dog in the microwave, etc.
    The only real reason I can gather as to why they even used the urban legend element was because they had to be different. You really can’t come out with a new slasher film if it doesn’t at least try to be different. “Urban Legend” probably tried to be clever with the first draft of the script, but what I witnessed on screen was absolute horror. Meaning I was shocked, terrified, apalled…that this film was green lit.
    The film starts with a group of college chums hearing about a fellow student who was beheaded in her car after the killer hid in the backseat with an ax. Eventually more murders occur, each one closer to the group of pals.
    Then of course the big climax when the killer is revealed to be…oh shut up I’m not going to spoil this bad film.
    All in all the film is watchable…but it really has no redeeming value whatsoever. After “Scream” hit, all of these wannabes showed up and failed…miserably. It’s because they all sucked. The only difference between “Urban Legend” and the crappy Friday the 13th sequels is a bigger budget and glossier 90’s feel.
    Even though the first film used every urban legend I’ve heard of, they green lit a sequel, “Urban Legend 2”. Let’s hope it’s something the first film wasn’t: a good movie. *1/2 (out of ****)

Review: RONIN

‘RONIN’ IS JAPANESE FOR “THIS SUCKS”

(reviewed on ppv Tuesday, April 20th, colorado carnage, 1999)

    “Ronin” hit theaters with a thud last September. The public held a lukewarm reaction to the film, so in turn it didn’t make a lot of money. While it wasn’t earning it’s potential at the box office the critics mostly loved it. Why? Well, for starters, it plays out like a smart action picture, along the lines of the supposed classic 70’s flicks a la “The French Connection”.
    For my money, “Ronin” is about as smart as Howie Long’s classic fireman epic, “Firestorm”. “Ronin” disguises itself as an intriguing, suspensful action picture. To prove this point even further the setting is overseas and a few snippets of dialogue are in subtitles. The studio purposefully made the picture to be a smart caper. Now tell me this? How smart of a climax can you get? A famous German ice skater is performing for a packed audience while a gunman has his sights on her. I thought I had inadvertantly changed the channel to USA where Van Damme’s “Sudden Death” was on.
    Robert Deniro plays…Robert Deniro. I mean Sam, a tough-as-nails bullshitter who carries with him a very mysterious past (which we never learn about so it’s about as mysterious as you want it to be). Sam and a crew of semi-mercenaries have been hired by the chick from “The Truman Show” (the one who moved to Fiji) who boasts a ridiculous Irish accent. This crew assemble in France and are paid to complete a job. The job? To get a briefcase. What’s in the briefcase? Go rent “Pulp Fiction”.
    While “Ronin” does feature a few good action sequences, including the mother of all car chases, there just isn’t enough meat in the plot. All of the characters are lifeless, especially Deniro who has played himself in every movie he’s every made (even when he was a fat ass in “Raging Bull” he was playing himself). If you’ve seen the movie “Heat” than there’s really no reason to see “Ronin”. Take out Val Kilmer and add Jean Reno, take out L.A. and add Paris, take out an awesome shootout and add an awesome car chase and you’ve got “Ronin”.
    The problem with “Ronin” is that it’s trying way too hard to be something it isn’t. It’s not a suspensful masterpiece. Oh wow, we don’t know what’s in the briefcase, ****-star masterpiece! Fuck that shit, the climax of this film is about on par with any given Steven Segal film. The script is loose at best, only creating an uneven plot so they can have more car chases. And there’s a scene where an older man is telling Deniro, I mean Sam, about Ronin, the masterless samurai. He says that all of the Ronin committed suicide by disembolwing themselves with their swords instead of some sort of bad circumstance that awaited them. I proclaimed that if the ending had Deniro disemboweling himself instead of getting caught I would give the film 4 stars. **

Review: ROUNDERS

JOHN DAHL DEALS A LOSING HAND

(reviewed on ppv Sunday, April 11th, 1999)

    Remember “Red Rock West”? That movie truly rocked. It went straight to cable no less, but starred Nicholas Cage, Dennis Hopper, J.T. Walsh, and Lara Flynn Boyle. It was co-written and directed by John Dahl. It was the best of the so-called modern film noir flicks, even besting that lousy “Chinatown” in my humbly sober oppinion.
    Dahl went on to make the critic fave “The Last Seduction” which just didn’t do much for me except for a great appreciation for the female form in action. Then Dahl lost his entire reputation with the terribly awful “Unforgettable” with Ray Liotta. It was so bad Dahl seemed to have jumped off a bridge.
    Years later he would return after striking a lucrative deal with indi giant Miramax. Dahl gets to direct his new film he also co-wrote for Miramax. The catch? He has to direct a little card movie starring Matt Damon and Edward Norton. Since this is Miramax we’re talking about, let’s throw in John Turturro, Famke Jansen and Martin Landau for no good reason. And Gretchen Mol is beautiful so they pump her up as a star and she’s in the movie for maybe FIVE SECONDS.
    I didn’t hate the film. The script is very smart and it’s a very watchable film, unfortunately Miramax didn’t nurture it like they probably nurtured some of their better films. “Rounders” had potential. Towards the end it falls apart so hard that you realize you don’t give a shit about anyone in the film and all the characters you thought were decent turn out to be made of cardboard.
    Damon is a regular college guy who knows about the underworld of cards. He doesn’t play by luck, he plays by skill. Once upon a time he showed up with a boat load of confidence to this Russian dude’s (John Malkovich) lair and lost 31 grand. The film picks up a few years  later after he quit playing cards. His card playing pal from before (Edward Norton, the best thing about the flick) is out of prison and needs to pay a few old debts so he enlists Damon’s help to get him into some swank card playing hangouts.
    Eventually Damon turns to the dark side and they start playing for a hefty debt or they’ll probably be killed.
    The two clowns who wrote this script had a lot of great ideas. They apparently were card players themselves, and it shows. The movie is really cool dealing with the “smarts” of poker. Apparently Dahl made a lot of hoopla in his style of shooting the film without ever showing anyone else’s hands. I honestly watched the whole film and didn’t notice.
    “Rounders” is light fluff, with a ton of ideas and good actors totally wasted. It starts off good but falls apart like a bad hand. I guess Dahl was full throttle into his “real” feature. Let’s hope that’s much better. **
           

Review: GO

LOOKING FOR THE RIDE OF YOUR LIFE? HERE YOU ‘GO’

(reviewed at marple 10)

    It’s truly rare to go to the movies and have a great time. To just sit back, relax, and feel the energy come right off of the screen and make you smile. ‘Go’, Doug Liman’s new Tarantino-esque comedy has that pure cinema gold energy.
    I had this revelation about halfway through the film. Three L.A. hoods are in a Vegas hotel parking garage. The catch? They’re being chased by guys for reasons that’d spoil the film. The chasers are right on their ass. The one hood driving the car happens to be a bozo Brit who doesn’t exactly know how to drive. The Brit floors the car up a ramp and out of the garage. The car lunges into the air and out onto The Strip. As soon as the car lands and pulls off a screeching hair pin turn the song ‘Magic Carpet Ride’ pumps in through the speakers. I haven’t felt this thrillingly alive in cinema since ‘Pulp Fiction’.
    Sarah Polley is a supermarket 9-5er cashier who needs mucho dough for her rent. After pulling a 14 hour (has to be non-union) shift she’s asked by the same Brit I wrote about above to take his shift. See the Brit has connections, drug connections. Two dudes show up (Jay Mohr and Scott Wolf) that want, no, need drugs that only the Brit can hook up. The dudes ask the cashier if she can get them the 20 hits of ecstasy they need. That’s more or less how the movie starts.
    To add even more It’s-A-Pulp-Fiction-Rip-Off insult to injury, the film is divided into three stories chronicling characters and their stories during one long and action packed night. The cashier’s night spins the first tale, the second story involves the Brit and his adventure in Vegas, and the somewhat faltering third tale involves the dudes who were looking for ecstasy.
    Add two horny bridesmaids, a tough ass bouncer, a wild Christmas rave party, and plenty of drugs, sex, and violence, and you’re starting to understand what ‘Go’ exactly is.
    Doug Liman shot and directed ‘Go’, with a great script by some dude named John August. Liman had previously made the hilarious 4-star affair, ‘Swingers’, but for my money that was more John Favreau’s film that Liman’s. While John August should get the credit for the way-cool labyrinthine plot, the humor, and the numerous story twists, Liman deserves all the credit in the world for bringing this script alive, and brilliantly alive at that. Without his fast camera work, insane drug-induced visuals, and break-neck “rave”-style editing, the film just wouldn’t be the movie it is.
    It’s alive with attitude, and hilarious and cool at that. This is one of the best rides in years, one of the films that you kick back and have a blast with. And even though the third story arc falters a bit, the middle section is filmmaking at it’s greatest, and ‘Go’ as a whole will most definitely put your faith back into the art. ***1/2

Review: FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 2: TEXAS BLOOD MONEY

DEFINITION OF STRAIGHT-TO-VIDEO

(reviewed on video, Thurday, April 8th)

   In 1996, two of the best directors working today formed a one-time alliance and created a full blown, balls to the wall, horror/action film about Mexican vampires. It was everything and more. Blood and guts and vulgarity and sex and a strip club called The Titty Twister. Quentin Tarantino produced, wrote, and starred, and Robert Rodiguez directed and edited. It was such a phenomenon and cult fave that Miramax’s horror subsidary Dimension Films decided to not just make sequel, but a sequel and a prequel. In my mind, the Weinstein’s either loved From Dusk Till Dawn or wanted to squeeze every possible cent out of it by creating a franchise.
    Unfortunately their plan failed miserable. Not only did From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money arrive on video without a sound, but the prequel, Hangman’s Daughter, a supposedly better movie, may stay in limbo forever waiting for studio honchos to decide to release it theatrically or on video. 
    FDTD 2 has nothing to do with Tarantino or Rodriguez. Scott Spiegel, a director of photography, was asked to helm this sequel. He co-wrote and directed it. So I suppose if you blame anyone, it’s him.
    The premise deals with Robert Patrick getting a call from his friend who just escaped from jail. His friend knows of this bank down in Mexico that’ll be a snap to rob. So Patrick assembles a sorted crew of thugs and morons each with their own “thing” (one’s a tough guy, one’s an idiot, etc.) to go rob this bank. The friend from jail goes to meet Patrick at a motel in Mexico. Problem is he hits a bat with his car. It doesn’t exactly look like a bat, though. His car is fucked so he goes walking through the Mexican desert only to find the infamous Titty Twister. Fast forward and Patrick’s friend is now a vampire. Eventually he starts to turn the bank robbery gang into vampires one by one. The horrible ending has an OK-Corral shootout between the vamps and cops after the bank robbery turns into a Reservoir Dogs.
    For what’s it worth, there are a few good parts in FDTD 2. Maybe I should specify: a very few. Before the bank robbery the film is actually watchable, albeit on a straight to video scale. The scenes in the motel are decent, and it was nice seeing Danny Trejo back (he’s the only one from the original).
    Spiegel himself uses the camera in some pretty fresh ways. Unfortunately it gets tiresome after awhile since every damn shot he’s trying to outdo himself. By the end of this mess even the actors have realized they shouldn’t have signed up for this, no matter what the paycheck.
    Let’s just hope the actors didn’t take a percentage over big bucks. *

Review: WILD AT HEART

DAVID LYNCH IS WILD AT ART

(reviewed on HBO)

    There are very few directors that have a list of films that couldn’t possibly have been made by someone else. Look at half of Steven Spielberg’s films and you know that any director walking the streets could have made pretty much the same damn movie. Most directors don’t actually make films with their stamp of approval. Robert Rodriguez has a style and editing flair, but try telling a cave dweller that "El Mariachi" and "The Faculty" were made by the same guy and he’d look at you two-faced.
    But there are two directors that come to mind that have a list of films that almost have their names printed on every frame subliminally. After watching a film like “A Clockwork Orange” you can review it simply by stating, “It was Kubrickian.” You can’t  really explain the meaning of ‘Kubrickian’, but just the word makes so much sense. The same can be said for a David Lynch film. Did I like “Wild at Heart”? “It was Lynchian.”
    Nicolas Cage is Sailor and Laura Dern is Lula. They’re in love. Without giving away the pretty decent and mysterious plot, these lovebirds hit the road west and Lula’s mother ends up sending a few people to kill Sailor. The film itself follows their travel from New Orleans to Texas on the open road, and of course the other cast of characters which include some pure David Lynch weirdos, the majority of them played by Twin Peaks supporting players (the film itself was made while Twin Peaks was still airing).
     Did I like “Wild at Heart”? It’s your basic David Lynch film. It’s not great, but it’s interesting and wild enough to at least keep your attention and wait—with baited breath—to see what’s coming up next. Even though Lynch is famous for his what-the-fuck? plotlines, the film actually makes a load of sense this time around. Sure there’s a lot of unexplainables in this, but go watch “Lost Highway” without knowing what it’s supposed to be about.
    I love to watch David Lynch’s films because after watching the same old shit it’s great to enter his Lynchian world where nothing is as it seems and anything can happen at any time. “Wild at Heart” is definitely out there, mostly because it’s an extremely grotesque and sexual R-rated film while the underlying theme is the kids favorite “The Wizard of Oz”.  **

Review: THE MATRIX

WANT A MIND BENDING SCI-FI CLASSIC? LOOK ELSEWHERE

(reviewed at AMC Marple 10 with jack)

    I’ve always hated films that critics love because of their ‘smartness’. “The Matrix” defines this and more. The film is too smart for it’s own good. If it had only been dumbed down two notches and had much more hardcore action it would have been a good film. I’m not saying I prefer pure Hollywood films, but critics and audience members who enjoy “The Matrix” only say that because it’s different. Why do you think bad independent films garner rave reviews. Just because something is different from the pack doesn’t mean you have to reward it.
    I will not give the plot away. It’s better to know absolutely nothing. I’m glad the previews for this film gave no hint as to what the hell the film is about. Warner Brothers knows that the plot isn’t going to bring in any more money. Just show some killer special f/x and Keanu Reeves in dark glasses and we’ve got you hook line and sinker.
    I’ll brief you on some of it, though. No reason to tell you I didn’t like the film but can’t explain why.
    Reeves plays a computer hacker by night, 9-5 computer programer by day. One day someone writes a mysterious message on his computer to him. How did it get there? Who sent it? Why is what was written coming true? Mysteries lead to answers pretty fast, about a half in hour into the movie, and for a solid hour I was in Awkwardville.    
    The beginning is awesome. I really thought it was a great opening and a cool way to show us a preview of what was to come. Unfortunately, there’s not that much cool stuff to come. There’s action but it’s condensed in the last twenty minutes. I thought the film was an action film. It’s not. It’s a sci-fi film with bits of action, bits of 1941ism, bits of silliness, and a chunk of stupidity.
    “The Matrix” is the sort of film that would be a killer comic book, and be the kind of comic book that fans would rant about making it into a feature. Unfortunately, the movie ain’t that great. It has a killer chick in tight leather, some halfway decent special f/x, a good climactic battle scene, but nothing else.
    “The Matrix” has a few great scenes here and there, unfortunately the final product just doesn’t add up to anything special. **