Central Michigan Life » Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer

Stallone ‘drives’ away audiences

Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer — Wed, 16 May 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Jerry Hoffman

If you hate the sport of car racing, then you’ll find little to like in the
new action film “Driven.” However, if you enjoy racing, then you’ll
definitely get a kick out of the movie. It is a thrilling, cheesy, action-packed,
poorly written piece of guilty pleasure entertainment.
The film focuses on the rivalry between Jimmy Blye (Kip Pardue) and Beau Brandenburg
(Til Schweiger). Beau is the quiet, focused German racing veteran who is involved
in a rocky relationship with blond bombshell Sophia (Estella Warren). Jimmy, on
the other hand, is the All-American fan favorite who is loosing control of “his
game.” To help Jimmy reclaim his fading glory, his car owner (played by Burt
Reynolds) recruits retired car drive Joe Tanto (Sylvester Stallone) to teach Jimmy
the meaning of racing, as well as the meaning of life.
Stallone also wrote the screenplay. That is amazing, considering there is barely
a screenplay present here. What we get is a lot of car crashes, a lot of love
triangles stolen from “Beverly Hills 90210,” and a lot of crummy dialogue.
The audience does not get to know a single character of the film. Instead of providing
a single ounce of back-story, the film just pushes full throttle ahead into the
unknown. It never stops to take a breath.
While that is a reason to dismiss “Driven” as drivel, the fact remains
that film delivers the goods in terms of action and excitement. The director,
Renny Harlin, knows how to make an action movie. “Deep Blue Sea,” “Die
Hard 2” and “Cliffhanger” were all solid pieces of thrill ride
entertainment that managed to be both silly and exhilarating. Although Harlin
stumbled with the pirate romp “Cutthroat Island,” he still managed to
direct one of the most underrated action movies of all time with “The Long
Kiss Goodnight.” If you love action movies, or movies at all, you owe it
to yourself to rent “Long Kiss.”
“Driven” is no “Long Kiss,” but it manages to get the audience
really energized during the racing scenes. A combination of computer effects,
swooping camera movements, and genuine momentum launch the film’s many racing
sequences into overdrive. Thrown into the stands with the spectators, we become
part of the crowd watching these races. If you let yourself get caught up in the
races, there is no doubt you will be on the edge of your seat.
In between the racing scenes there are numerous love stories going on that are
simply buffer among the action parts. However, even these scenes involving Sophia
hopping from Beau’s arms to Jimmy’s bed, and then back to Beau is fun
to watch. We don’t really care what will happen in these scenes, but its
dumb fun to see the newcomers act out a weakly written story.
Besides the numerous fresh faces we see in “Driven” we still get a dose
of experienced performers (notice I didn’t use the word “actor”)
with Sylvester Stallone, Burt Reynolds and Gina Gershon among others. Stallone
is actually pretty good in this movie, and I thought about forgiving him for the
last 20 bad movies he has made until I remembered he had written the script. Coming
off not as well is Burt Reynolds, who must have had one of the worst face-lifts
of all time. His skin is pulled so tight in this movie one would wonder how he
is able to speak. Although I am a big fan of Gina Gershon (“Bound,”
“The Insider”), she amazingly repeats her diva performance from the
cult classic “Showgirls.” Her scenes are the film’s worse.
Bad dialogue. An absent screenplay. Middling acting. What reason is there to see
“Driven?” Try a lot of awesome racing scenes pumped up with driving
rock and techno music. Try a lot of shots you’ll say “wow” at.
Try a movie so corny and laughable that you will be embarrassed how wrapped up
in it you become. “Driven” is a fun start to the summer blockbuster
season. I just hope Sylvester Stallone never writes another screenplay again.
He may not be so lucky next time out.

New Tom Green movie: gross

Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Tom Green is a genius. He has somehow managed to become a pop culture icon while
doing some of the most vile, annoying and grossest things imaginable on his MTV
show. He has repulsed much of America, while at the same time picking up a legion
of fans. He has either offended or entertained everyone in this country. However,
in “Freddy Got Fingered,” the emphasis is more on the offensive than
on any type of entertainment.
Tom Green plays Gord, a 28-year-old loser who still lives in his parent’s
house. He is constantly berated by his father (Rip Torn) for being such a failure
in life. Gord dreams of being a cartoonist, but after that dream is squashed,
he gets a job at a cheese sandwich factory. However, Gord cannot even keep that
job, and moves back home to his parents. Gord manages to meet a beautiful young
nurse named Betty, who dreams of attaching rocket packs to her wheel chair.
Understanding the plot of “Freddy Got Fingered” is about as hard as
comprehending those Radio Shack commercials with Howie Long and Teri Hatcher.
In other words, it makes absolutely no sense. The film is just 90 minutes of gross-out
gags that give new meaning to the word “gross.”
Consider the following. While skateboarding, Gord’s best friend manages to
severely hurt his leg. After licking the friend’s open wound, Gord takes
his friend to the hospital. In the bed next to the friend is a woman going into
labor. Suddenly becoming a doctor, Gord takes it upon himself to deliver the baby.
Ripping the infant from the woman’s womb, Gord discovers the baby is not
breathing. To resuscitate the stillborn, Gord swings the baby around by its umbilical
cord, spraying blood everywhere. I don’t have to mention Gord biting the
baby’s umbilical cord off or the Indian woman chanting with tambourines for
you to still know that the scene is very disturbing.
That’s just a taste of what audiences will get in “Freddy.” Calling
the film “bad” is not doing it justice. I believe Tom Green knows that
he has co-written, produced, and directed a terrible movie. He wants to shock
audiences and push the envelope further than anyone has every dreamed of pushing
it before. Does he succeed? Yes, you will definitely be grossed out. However,
“Freddy Got Fingered” is not the grossest movie you will ever see, nor
is it the dumbest. It does come pretty close to both, though.
Every critic in the world hates this film, and by next weekend every audience
member that pays to see it will hate it as well. “Freddy Got Fingered”
is a film that will be universally despised. Perhaps that is Tom Green’s
ultimate plan, his ultimate joke. And believe me, it’s a joke that is funnier
than anything else in the movie.

Bridget Jones is a lot like you

Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer — Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Renee Zellweger is Bridget Jones.
Bridget is a chubby, chain smoking, blunt talking British woman who begins a diary
in an effort to rid herself of smoking, petty relationships and those few pesky
extra pounds. However, the diary does not help Bridget overcome these obstacles,
and instead she becomes consumed by them even more.
Jones falls for her dashing, skirt chasing boss Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant) at
the publishing firm she works at. Cleaver and Jones begin a passionate, yet playful
affair that helps Bridget forget about her problems. Unfortunately, the relationship
ends in heartbreak and Bridget Jones begins a quest, with the aid of her diary,
to find herself and conquer the world.
The journeys of Bridget are the heart of “Bridget Jones’s Diary,”
based on the best selling book of the same name by Helen Fielding. She is a woman
with a heart of gold, and a lot of flaws as well. She doesn’t take herself
too seriously, but doesn’t value herself very highly either. Bridget is a
character that everyone can relate to (male or female) because the issues she
goes through are truly universal. From crazy parents to drinking a little too
much, everyone will sympathize with her.
What makes the film so great is that it manages to be hilarious, entertaining,
and smart at the same time. It struck me half way through that I couldn’t
remember the last time there was a comedy that didn’t go for gross-out laughs.
The comedy in “Bridget” comes from hilarious scenarios that are well
written and executed by terrific actors.
One such scene involves Bridget showing up dressed as a Playboy bunny at was supposed
to be a “Priests and Prostitutes” family costume party, only to find
a hundred shocked partygoers who are dressed in normal attire. Or when she has
to decide at the beginning of an evening whether sexy underwear or tummy-crunching
granny panties will do her more good in the long run. In both cases, the results
are hilarious.
As Bridget, Zellweger hits a home run in a comedic performance that will be remembered
for years to come. Adopting a British accent can be a risky venture for an American
actor (see Christian Slater in “Robin Hood”), but Zellweger pulls it
off effortlessly. The audience totally buys that this is a British woman, and
so they totally buy into her character as a whole. After “Jerry Maguire”
and “Nurse Betty,” Zellweger has turned in her third great performance,
and hopefully this is just the beginning.
Texan native Zellweger blends naturally with the impressive supporting cast made
up of all Brits, including Hugh Grant as Bridget’s slimy boss, and Colin
Firth as a man whom carries on a love/hate relationship with her.
Everyone has a little bit of Bridget Jones in them. Most of us have reached or
will reach a point in our lives where a change needs to be made. Bridget makes
that change, and even though she falters at times, she is still a great screen
heroin.
I went and saw this film with a group of 12 friends. All had different movie tastes,
and all were weary of seeing a labeled “chick flick.” In the end, every
single person loved the movie and laughed their butt off. It is almost impossible
for a movie to be unlikable by anyone, but this film might just have achieved
that.
“Bridget Jones’s Diary” is a very funny movie that doesn’t
dumb down the audience while making them laugh. It is one of the best films I
have seen in a long time, and should not be missed.

Freeman stars in crummy movie

Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer — Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Criminals and psychopaths don’t just commit crimes anymore. Not in the
movies anyway.
No, villains always have to play a cat and mouse game with the police.
It has been a requirement in almost every suspense film that has come out since
1995’s “Se7en.” The plot always involves a serial killer, or
a serial bank robber, or a serial bomber, who insists on toying with the police.
The reason for this may be a personal vendetta or simply because the villain
admires the protagonist. Which is the case with the Morgan Freeman vehicle “Along
Came a Spider.”
In this case, the hero of the film is forensic psychologist Alex Cross, who
moviegoers previously encountered four years ago in the mediocre thriller “Kiss
the Girls.”
The film begins with Cross’s partner getting killed in a sting operation
that goes wrong. Consumed by guilt, Cross goes on a professional hiatus that
lasts about five minutes. Contacted by the kidnapper of a Senator’s daughter,
Cross becomes involved in the case.
Of course, there is more to this case than meets the eye.
Cross teams up with Secret Service agent Jezzie Flannigan (how’s that for
a name?) played by Monica Potter. Together, Cross and Flannigan go through the
many twists and turns the case takes. There is not a lot that can be said about
the plot of this film that would not ruin the so-called “surprises”
of the story. However, “Along Came a Spider” is a movie made up of
moments that audiences have seen ten times before.
Morgan Freeman is a exceptional actor that can make almost any film work.
One needs only to look back at 1998’s silly “Hard Rain” to witness
a movie that Freeman made passable simply because of his performance. When Freeman
and the material gel together, the end result can be as great as “Deep
Impact,” where he convincingly played the President, or last year’s
zany “Nurse Betty.”
“Along Came a Spider” belongs to the “Hard Rain” and “Chain
Reaction” category of Freeman’s filmography; films that aren’t
deserving of his performance.
Besides its severe unoriginality, the main problem of “Along Came a Spider”
is its storyline. Despite a few genuinely suspenseful moments, the film is pretty
bland as a whole. Not to mention so many plot holes (especially the preposterous
ending) that the film looks a lot like Swiss cheese.
This is one of those movies you’ll walk out afterward with great confusion
asking yourself “wait, what about…” and “if she…”
and “how come…” If there is anything great about this movie it
is that it will spark great conversation afterwards as you and whomever you
saw the film with try to figure out the plot.
Of course, trying to figure out all the plot inconsistencies in “Along
Came a Spider” is a waste of time. The film is a silly thriller meant to
entertain, however if fails even on that superficial level. Unless you’re
a Morgan Freeman junkie, skip this movie. Rent “Se7en” or “Copycat”
or even “Kiss the Girls.” All of those films are thrillers that actually
thrill.

‘Spy Kids’ for big kids too

Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer — Mon, 02 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0000

There is a kid inside each one of us, a so-called “inner child.”
An inner child that still watches the occasional Saturday morning cartoon. An
inner child that loves to play with the little kids at family reunions. An inner
child that still laughs when “Home Alone” comes on cable every year.
It is that inner child that will like, and possibly love, the new Robert Rodriguez
directed family film “Spy Kids.” The movie appeals to the kid in all
of us, and is nearly impossible to resist.
Antonio Banderas and Carla Gugino play Gregorio and Ingrid Cortez, two ex-spies
that have settled down and become loving parents. While working as advisers
to their former spy agency, the Cortezs are kidnapped by the evil host (Alan
Cumming) of a children’s television show called “Floop’s Fooglies.”
Floop is turning former spies into deformed characters called Fooglies on his
TV show. Not only that, but the maniacal mastermind is also creating child robots
to take over the world. Okay, so the plot is a bit hokey.
The Cortezs only hope of rescue comes in the form of their two young children
Carmen and Juni. After finding out that their parents are world renowned spies,
the kids take immediate action and set out to rescue their parents from the
evil clutches of Floop.
Although the summary of the film’s plot may sound downright ridiculous
(and it may just be), it comes together really nicely in the film. In fact,
I’m going to go as far as to say “Spy Kids” is the best film
to come out so far this year. Of course, 2001 has stunk so far, but this film
is still great entertainment. Think of it as a family oriented “Charlie’s
Angels”: lots of action, lots of humor, and lots of fun.
What makes the film work is it’s clear direction. Robert Rodriguez has
directed a modern action classic in “Desperado,” a horror B-movie
with A list stars in “From Dusk Till Dawn” and an underrated teen
horror film with 1998’s “The Faculty.”
With “Spy Kids,” Rodriguez has grown from evolving filmmaker to mainstream,
established director without selling his soul to the devil, even though the
film does have a tie-in with what some consider Satan himself: McDonald’s.

Rodriguez has created a lush and colorful world in “Spy Kids” that
seems pulled out of a slightly warped children’s book. The film attracts
all your visual sensations without numbing your brain with an inane plot and
characters. The film itself is very silly and childish, but just as with “Charlie’s
Angels,” it is put together so well, with such intelligence, that you aren’t
insulted as a moviegoer. Instead you are thrilled to have such a good time.
Possibly the greatest asset of the film are its two child stars, Alexa Vega
as Carmen and Daryl Sabara as Juni. So many child actors in movies come off
as annoying, or as just plain bad actors. That could have sunk “Spy Kids.”
However, the two young actors are perfectly cast. I do not think either is
the next Haley Joe Osment, who made “The Sixth Sense” the smash that
it was, but the two kids in this movie deserve credit for pulling off the difficult
task of playing kids who are goofy without giving performances that are goofy.
Some people will inevitably hate “Spy Kids.” If they do, they will
fail to see what true fun it is. This movie is made for everyone, age 5
to 95. There is something here for every age of film-goer. Leave your cynicism
behind, and simply enjoy the ride.

‘Heartbreakers’ delivers

Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer — Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Jerry Hoffman

If you’re looking for some good laughs and a lot of smiles, then check
out the new film, “Heartbreakers.”
“Heartbreakers” is an enjoyable mixture of light and dark comedy.
At times, you may want to write this film off as predictable fluff, however,
it contains just enough bite to make it good.
Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love Hewitt play a mother and daughter con artist
team, Max and Page, who travel the country duping men out of their money. At
the beginning of the film we are shown an example of the con they play when
Weaver marries sleazeball Ray Liotta, only to divorce him after 12 hours when
he is caught almost cheating with Hewitt. Liotta has no idea that the two beauties
are actually mother and daughter, and that the whole marriage was actually a
setup. Weaver files for divorce, gets a very nice settlement, and moves on to
the next con with her daughter.
There is a catch though; Hewitt is ready to quit the con game and settle down.
Weaver, afraid of losing her daughter, convinces her to stick around for one
last job. Traveling to Florida, the pair decide to set their sights on billionaire
chain-smoker William B. Teney (played with great fun by Gene Hackman). Weaver
sets the trap, and Hackman’s character takes the bait. However, Hewitt
meets and falls for local restaurant owner Jack (Jason Lee) and becomes torn
between fulfilling the con, or establishing a stable, normal life.
Although billed as a Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love Hewitt star vehicle,
“Heartbreakers” is a true ensemble comedy. Gene Hackman, Ray Liotta
and Jason Lee, a cult icon from “Mallrats,” all contribute a lot to
the film and turn in genuinely funny performances. Weaver turns in a great comedic
role as the mother half of the con team. Weaver has always been an underrated
actress, despite turning out dead-on performances in “Working Girl,”
“Dave” and “Galaxy Quest,” just to name a few. “Heartbreakers”
is not a great film, but Weaver does make it the solid film that it is. If this
film is any kind of success at the box office, all the credit should go towards
her.
As for Jennifer Love Hewitt, she actually does a decent job as Page. I do not
think Hewitt has turned in an above average role to date, but she proves with
“Heartbreakers” that she is on her way. After a few slasher films
and teen movies, Hewitt fits nicely into this adult comedy playing a sexually
secure vixen. Dressed in a number of tight and revealing outfits, Hewitt’s
“assets” are given their fair share of screen time. However, there
is still a performance going on.
Playing the cigarette addicted billionaire, Gene Hackman is an absolute riot
on-screen. Jason Lee is also great fun as the potential love interest for Page.
Sarcastic, yet charming, Lee creates a character who is the perfect match for
Page’s conning character. Along with Ray Liotta, the three actors make
help “Heartbreakers” a worthwhile cinematic affair.

Et cetera Oscar predictions very bold

Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer — Fri, 23 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0000

It’s that time of year again. The weather is turning warmer, midterm grades
are coming out, and, of course, the Oscars are about to be awarded. Unlike previous
years where the winners have been as expected as Puffy Combs getting acquitted,
2001 looks to be an unpredictable night at the Oscars. Most of the categories
could go a number of ways, so lets take a look at the five major awards:
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Jeff Bridges “The Contender”, Willem Defoe
“Shadow of the Vampire”, Benicio Del Toro “Traffic”, Albert
Finney “Erin Brockovich”, Joaquin Phoenix “Gladiator”. Phoenix
was a good villain in “Gladiator”, but his nomination has been widely
criticized as undeserving. Audiences mostly ignored “The Contender”
and “Shadow of the Vampire”, so Bridges’ and Defoe’s chances
are next to nothing. Some sentimentalists think Finney will take the trophy for
“Brockovich” because he has been nominated five times and has yet to
win. However, I think Benicio will win (and deservingly so) for his terrific performance
in “Traffic”.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Judi Dench “Chocolat”, Marcia Gay Harden
“Pollock”, Kate Hudson “Almost Famous”, Frances McDormand
“Almost Famous”, Julie Walters “Billy Elliot”. This could
go anyway. Dench and McDormand have already won Oscars in the last four years,
but they could still easily win again. Chances for Walters and Harden are slim,
but still there. “Almost Famous” made Kate Hudson a star, and that should
push her over the other contenders to victory.
BEST ACTOR: Javier Bardem “Before Night Falls”, Russell Crowe
“Gladiator”, Tom Hanks “Cast Away”, Ed Harris “Pollock”,
Geoffrey Rush “Quills”. Many did not see the performances of Bardem,
Rush and Harris. I think the real competition is between Crowe and Hanks. Hanks
has already won twice, but he still seems to have the edge here. However, Crowe
is also a favorite and could easily walk away with this one. It’s a toss
up. In my opinion, Hanks gave the better performance, so I’m rooting for
him.
BEST ACTRESS: Joan Allen “The Contender”, Juliette Binoche “Chocolat”,
Ellen Burstyn “Requiem For A Dream”, Laura Linney “You Can Count
On Me”, Julia Roberts “Erin Brockovich”. This one is easy. People
have been calling Julia’s win in this category every since “Brockovich”
opened last March. She gave the performance of a lifetime as the real life legal
crusader, and nothing will stop her from winning. I have not seen “Requiem”,
but I can say that Allen, Binoche and Linney all gave great performances. However,
this award is all Julia’s.
BEST PICTURE: “Chocolat”, “Gladiator”, “Traffic”,
“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”, “Erin Brockovich”. The most
coveted award of the night is anyone’s to win. “Chocolat” and “Gladiator”
were very good films but we’re talking about Best Picture here and “very
good” doesn’t cut it. Still their studios have been promoting them endlessly,
so either could win. “Erin Brockovich” was brilliant, but it came out
a full year ago and feels like old news. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”
has a lot of momentum, but some people have written it off a just an action movie.
“Traffic” deserves to win for the edgy, contemporary masterpiece that
it is. However, “edgy” does not go over too well with Oscar voters.
Many pick “Gladiator” to win. I’m pulling for “Traffic”.
Find out how right or wrong I was when the 73rd Annual Academy Awards air at 8pm
on ABC.

‘You Can Count on Me’ isn’t lying; it delivers

Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer — Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0000

“You Can Count On Me” is a small, independent movie that is slowly working its way all across the country. Hopefully, it will find its way to Mount Pleasant very soon. If not, be sure to remember it when you’re looking for something to rent in a few months.
The film is something extremely rare: it’s realistic. It does not falter to silly plot points or implausible story twists. It is a straightforward character study that is full of heart, and full of everything that most mainstream Hollywood movies lack.
The film begins as a young brother and sister are orphaned after their parents are killed in a car accident. It then flashes forward 20 years, as the two siblings have each lead very different lives.
Laura Linney, in her Oscar nominated role, plays Samantha, a single mother raising her son in her small hometown. She is a manager at the local bank, and has built something resembling a normal life. On the contrary, her brother, Terry (Mark Ruffalo), is a drifter who always seems to end up in trouble. After an absence for over two years, various circumstances bring Terry back home to live with Samantha.
Through the events of the film we learn that neither sibling is what they appear to be. Samantha projects herself to be a dedicated mother and Christian. However, she soon begins an affair with her married boss, played by Matthew Broderick. The same goes for Terry. Although he is extremely foolish and unfocused most of the time, he still has a good heart and wants very much to get his scattered life together. He just doesn’t know how.
“You Can Count On Me” is a film driven not by its plot, but by its characters.
The reality that the film captivates so well is due in large part to this. There
is no big manufactured plot going on. Instead, it is a character study of a brother
and sister relationship. Not to say the film is not entertaining, it has a lot
of funny moments, but there is no contrived script at work. It is a film that
almost could have been a documentary. That is how real the acting, writing, and
directing come across.
Kenneth Lonergan has written and directed a film that will touch anyone who has
a brother or sister. It is a relationship that is rarely explored on a serious
level in film. Like other siblings, Samantha and Terry have absolutely in common,
except that they’re related.
Laura Linney (“The Truman Show”) is definitely deserving of her Oscar nomination, in a touching performance that seems totally genuine. As Terry, Mark Ruffalo is equally good playing a character that is very unlikable. Both actors pull off remarkable performances of people who live #147;ordinary” lives.
The sincerity of “You Can Count On Me” is the antithesis of superficial films like last fall’s “Pay It Forward”. Instead of relying on melodramatic moments and sensational plot twists like that movie did, “You Can Count On Me” remains grounded in reality. It does not end all neat and tidy. The film does not insult the audience by resolving two hours worth of conflict in the last few minutes of the film. Instead, Kenneth Lonergan has given the audience a film that is respects them. A film that, just like life itself, you can learn something from.

Brad Pitt ‘special’ with Julia Roberts in ‘The Mexican’

Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer — Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Some people are just born movie stars.
They have that special “something” that makes them glow on a movie screen.
That “something” that speaks directly to the audience. That “something”
that makes an actor a fan favorite. Both Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt have this
“something,” and in no movie does their cinematic glow shine brighter
than in “The Mexican.” The film is not Robert’s or Pitt’s
best, but it does prove that true star charisma can make almost any film work.
Pitt stars as Jerry, a goofy loser whose criminal antics are taking their toll
on his girlfriend Samantha (Roberts). Jerry works for the mob and is sent on a
mission to Mexico to retrieve a legendary gun, “The Mexican,” for his
mob-boss. Samantha had planned to move to Las Vegas with Jerry, but now she is
fed up with his endless string “one last job’ excuses. So the two split
up. Jerry heads to Mexico, Samantha heads to Vegas, and they both head for adventure.
Jerry encounters great obstacles in his quest to obtain and maintain possession
of “The Mexican.” His employers become worried that Jerry will screw
up yet another mission, so they send a hit man named Leroy after Samantha to keep
watch over her and make sure Jerry is focused on his task. Leroy (James Gandolfini)
is a hit man with a heart of gold, and he and Sam soon become unlikely buddies.
There is more to Leroy than first meets the eye, and he and Samantha are soon
sharing confessions and insights about love. She talks a lot about her troubles
with Jerry, while Leroy offers surprisingly effective advice. The movie cuts back
and forth between the two stories: Jerry’s quest for the pistol, and Samantha’s
trek with Leroy. The film climaxes as the two plots reconnect.
“The Mexican” is a quirky film that is not for everyone. The plot attempts
to combine comedy, drama, action and suspense among other things, which not all
moviegoers will appreciate. Overall, the script by J.H. Wyman works very well.
The audience buys into Jerry and Samantha, due to the writing and performances
of Pitt and Roberts, therefore all the twists and turns of the plot work.
As Leroy, James Gandolfini nearly steals the show. As with the rest of the film,
just when you think you have Leroy figured out, you’re thrown a curve ball.
Something unexpected happens and takes the film in a totally different direction.
“The Mexican” is about a lot of things. The legend behind the ancient
pistol that Jerry is after is the center of all the characters. It is a deadly
object that symbolizes love and death. It encompasses total chaos and no order,
just like the plot and characters in the film.
After coming off a career high with “Erin Brockovich,” Julia Roberts
shines again in a less dramatic, more screwball role. There is a great moment,
after Samantha has left Jerry, when she is driving on the highway on her way to
Vegas, and she looks into the rearview mirror. She smiles at herself, at her shot
at independence from Jerry. It’s a small, minute moment, but a representative
one.
“The Mexican” is filled with a lot of these original, human touches
that make it something special.
Brad Pitt also sparkles in his role as Jerry. After a slew of so-so dramatic roles
(“Seven Years In Tibet,” “The Devil’s Own”), I think
Pitt has found a new niche as a comedic leading man. With this film and “Snatch,”
Pitt has proven he has a real future as an actor in comedies.
“The Mexican” can be viewed as a muddled mess that has no real point.
However, if the audience looks at the bigger picture, they’ll see a film
that is an enjoyable farce with a lot of human touches. The film will not win
any Oscars next year, but it will be remembered as a film that showed why Brad
Pitt and Julia Roberts are great performers and a film that was different enough
to be special.

‘Chocolat’ leaves a good aftertaste

Patrick PowellLIFE Et cetera Writer — Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Chocolat” is a pleasant fable about acceptance, tolerance, and repressed desires all wrapped up in beautiful packaging as a sweet romance.
The film was recently nominated for a best picture Oscar, and although some may disagree with the film receiving that prestigious accolade, “Chocolat” is still a good film which leaves you craving for more.
As the film opens, we are shown a nice little French town in the 1950′s. The townspeople are very conservative, very religious, and collectively very unhappy. That’s until Vianne (Juliette Binoche) and her daughter blow into town (literally) just as Lent is about to begin. Vianne opens up a chocolate shop, or “chocolaterie”, which holds more power than simply fulfilling the small town’s need for sweets. It seems that Vianne uses special, almost magical, forces in preparing her candy. The chocolate possesses a sort of mystical power to it.
One by one the townspeople drift into the new shop, and Vianne finds a special chocolate just for each of them. The chocolate sparks change as a battered wife finds the courage to leave her abusive husband, an old crusty woman rediscovers her smile, a lazy husband rediscovers his lust for his wife and so on and so on.
All this changing does not go by unnoticed, as the town Constable (Alfred Molina) is outraged by Vianne’s power over the townspeople and her unwillingness to attend church. The Constable begins to plot against Vianne and her chocolate shop, and attempts to turn the townspeople against her. Further problems arise with the arrival of Johnny Depp and his band of Irish gypsies who travel along the river. Vianne embraces the group, while the rest of the town refuses to welcome them. The film ultimately aims to teach a lesson about accepting other’s differences and rejuvenating the passion for life.
“Chocolat” plays as a charming fantasy that manages to cover some significant issues in it. Some may find the film a bit condescending as it seems to preach a lot about diversity and the pigheadedness of Catholicism. However, the film needs to be taken at face value as a sweet fable about being open minded. The audience does not have to agree with all issues in the film in order to enjoy it.
As Vianne, Juliette Binoche carries the film and is simply sensational. It is rare that a film solely belongs to actress, but “Chocolat” is all Juliette Binoche. She definitely deserved her Oscar nomination for her subtle, yet striking, performance. Also very good is Judi Dench as the crusty old woman who is reunited with her estranged daughter played by Carrie Anne Moss (Trinity from “The Matrix”). That mother/daughter relationship is one of several bonds that are restored by the magic of the chocolate. Dench also was deservingly nominated for an Academy Award.
I am not sure “Chocolat” is one of the top 5 best films of last year, but I do think it is still a very solid film with great performances, luscious photography and an overall enchanting spirit to it. There is nothing really elaborate in the film, but as “Chocolat” proves, being simple is not always such a bad thing.