2006 Summer Movie Review

Before I say anything about any individual movie let me just offer this disclaimer: I think this is the worst summer movie season in memory. Everything seems to be a sequel, a remake or a derivative (think X-Men 3, The Omen, Superman Returns). There are no interesting little independent films such as Callas Forever from a couple of seasons ago, no surfing or extreme sports movies — admittedly a subset of films of more interest to me than to most of you — and no film that breaks new ground technically or from a storytelling perspective. It's almost as if the creative talent in the film industry is burned out, and thus the art of movie-making must wait a generation for anything really new to emerge. Having said all that, I did drag myself to the following films and my thoughts are below. Enjoy, and if I save anyone their hard-earned ten dollars, so much the better.

X-Men 3 — I watched the first X-Men movie with one of my nephews, and when it was over I asked him what he thought. He shrugged and said he thought it was an okay way to waste a couple of hours, but it wasn't anything to get excited about. Since that was exactly what I thought about it, I felt completely free to ignore the franchise. However, there was such good buzz on the third installment, and since there wasn't anything else out at the time worth seeing, I actually sat down and watched the first two movies in preparation to see XM3. What can I tell you? Yes, the third movie is the best of the lot, both in terms of spectacular special effects and in terms of the storytelling. It's always fun to watch Gandolf, er, excuse me, Sir Ian McKellan do his thing on the big screen, and Captain Picard, er, Patrick Stewart is an excellent foil for him. The problem with the X-Men franchise, to my mind at least, is that it raises important questions — about genetics/evolution/the whole Frankenstein tradition — but then fails utterly to offer answers or hope. Instead extravagant, special effects-laden battle scenes are used to finish off the conflicts within each individual movie, but there is no real resolution. Maybe that's the way the original comic books were written, but I always want a movie to add something to the story it tells, something over and above the special effects. Your call.

The Omen — There was no reason for this movie to be made, other than its release date was to be 6/6/06. Liam Schrieber is no Gregory Peck; Julia Stiles, an actress I like, is largely wasted here, although she does as much with the part as she can; and the potential fun of watching Rosemary (Mia Farrow) from Rosemary's Baby morph into Satan's nanny is limited by the flat, pointless script and the fact that she seems to communicate with little Damien telepathically — thus there's not even any interesting dialogue where there should be. The notorious beheading scene, which is about all I remember from the original, is rendered here in a particularly gory, graphic way. There are a couple of other scenes that are also extremely graphic violence-wise, but there's virtually nothing in this movie that is scary in the way a good horror movie should be. It's just a waste.

Cars — Although I am in awe of the geniuses at Pixar, I don't usually go to the movies they produce because they are "kiddie" films for the most part. The buzz on this movie was very positive, however, and I desperately wanted to see a film that I could lose myself in, so I went. Yes, Cars does have a story that adults can enjoy, while at the same time entertaining the children, but I didn't find it to be the unqualified masterpiece that most critics did. The Pixar graphics are quite extraordinary — the Western vistas look like photography, the crowd scenes are amazing, and the slyly embedded visual humor adds something like a sub-story of its own. But to me the story Cars tells is completely predictable to the adults in the audience, even considering the slight surprise twist at the end, which really only serves to set up the expected resolution. For children I think the movie is too long (at 2 hours), and I was confirmed in that opinion as I watched by the number of kids in the audience around me who were restless, or who took bathroom breaks during the course of the screening. Don't get me wrong, Cars is a very enjoyable movie on many levels. I admit that my criticisms are small ones considering the level of artistic achievement and the positive message the film offers. It is so nice to have a movie to review that I can recommend for the whole family. I just didn't enjoy Cars as much as I thought I would, so caveat emptor.

Superman Returns — In contrast to Cars, I enjoyed Superman Returns much more than I expected to do. The movie has not done well at the box office, compared to pre-release expectations and with reference to the costs of production, and it was indifferently or negatively reviewed. For me, since I literally grew up on the comic books and the George Reeve television program, it was hard to even make the decision to see it. I finally pulled the trigger, metaphorically, out of a sense of duty to you, my readers. I promised to keep you up to speed on everything sci-fi &/or graphic novels in films, so....

I was never enthralled by Christopher Reeve's movies from the '70s, although I suspect that has to do with the comparatively primitive special effects of the time, and the fact that movie making in that decade was mostly awful. I was pleasantly surprised by this iteration of the Man of Steel. The movie is too long at just under three hours. Brandon Routh does look eerily like Christopher Reeve, and it takes a bit to get over that. The performances by Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor are uneven, but they are not awful, or at least not as awful as described by other critics. A lot of the length of the film is the result of computer geeks who are obviously in love with the special effects they can create these days, but the movie is gorgeous to view on the big screen. However, and to me most of all, despite the inward-looking premise of the screenplay, director Brian Singer does a good job of staying true to the mythic character of Superman. Superman is a hero from another age, utterly self-confident and imbued with implacable convictions about right and wrong. Despite the annoying refusal to utter the iconic phrase "truth, justice and the American way" in its entirety; despite the uncharacteristic self-examination by the Man of Steel that underpins the whole plot here; despite the implausibility of archetypal heroes like Superman/Clark and Lois having a child out of wedlock, Singer and Routh make it clear that their Superman is still a hero in the most important sense: He will give his all, unselfishly, to save and comfort others. I simply did not expect, going in, that a movie could be made in our present era that would portray the straightforward idea of a hero, without resort to cynicism or camp, and for his effort director Singer should be commended. I plan to see his sequel when it comes out in 2009.

The Lake House — About once a decade I get suckered into seeing a so-called "chick flick." The hook for me in going to see this film was the element of time travel that is the center around which the movie turns. Much to my surprise, I really enjoyed The Lake House, and not because of the sci-fi element. This is a good old-fashioned romance, but it is also a meditation on missed opportunity and second chances that is thoughtful without being ponderous. There is as well a lovely subplot about architecture, light and environment that is beautifully framed within the cinematography. One thing that caused me to really like this film is that the "time travel" element — which is not really time travel, so much as it is parallel dimensions with different time stream flows — is not explained. It's just the given situation in which the principal characters (Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves) find themselves. How they cope with this extraordinary circumstance drives the story and sets up the resolution. Both Bullock and Reeves do good work here, offering more complex and subtle acting than either of them usually manage. There are some very good supporting performances, particularly Christopher Plummer as Reeves' father. It may be a mere chick flick, but The Lake House is far more satisfying in the way it tells its story and gratifies its audience than a lot of far more expensive and muscular movies.

A Scanner Darkly — This movie is based on the Philip K. Dick novel of the same title, and is the story of a drug cop deeply embroiled in the seamy world he is supposed to police. I knew Dick's brother for many years, but I am not a Dick fan. However, the movie itself is done in such a unique way, cinematically, I was curious to see it. The technique used is called rotoscoping, and basically, it means the movie is shot live action, but then is treated in such a way that it looks like animation when you see it on the screen. (This technique is not new, but this is the first feature film to use it, I believe.) It was fascinating to see for the first time, but I think I would not see a feature film using this style again. Because it's between live action and animation, I kept straining my eyes, subliminally, to fill in the actors' actual faces. That became tiresome after an hour. On the other hand, I was most impressed by the quality of the acting. Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson absolutely nail certain types of stoners (admittedly not a stretch for either of them), so much so that this is almost a period piece about the '70s era drug culture, although of course Dick intended the book to be another of his futurist dystopias. Keanu Reeves' portrayal of the burned out cop is credible, but some of the pathos of his situation is lost due to the visual distraction, not only of the rotoscoping, but also because of the fictional device of the "scramble suits," which are disguises the cops wear. In contrast to most modern movies, this film is dialogue rich, and I agree with other critics who have said this is the best rendering of Philip K. Dick to yet reach the screen. It's really too bad that there have been so many, and so many mediocre-to-bad films about the drug culture, because they dilute the power of Scanner. Due to the subject matter this is an adults-only film, but it is well done, and I think, well worth seeing.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest — I confess that, mostly due to timing, I missed the first Pirates in theater, but when I saw it later at home I adored it. I thought it a film that harked back to the great swashbucklers of Errol Flynn and Maureen O'Hara. Thus, Pirates 2 is the movie I expected to save the summer for me, the movie I expected would be the jewel that makes it all worthwhile. I was wrong. This is a bad movie, even though it has some fun and funny moments. The special effects are technically awesome, but they run from yucky to gruesome, and they leave nothing for your imagination. Therefore, this is not a movie for children. Many of the action sequences rely on silly contrivances, rather than artful swordplay. There is a scene of frank cannibalism, and not by a benighted bad guy. The movie is much too long at a little over two and a half hours. The scenery is gorgeous, but it can't make up for a bad script and a whole lot of bad acting. Johnny Depp gives a stunningly uncharacteristic, monotone performance that is all camp, and by the end of the story it's just irritating. The scenes between him and Kiera Knightly, scenes that are critical to setting up the third part of the trilogy, become more and more unbelievable as the movie goes along. Knightly does a reasonable job with her part, but Orlando Bloom seems to be sleepwalking through his. I suspect that everyone was having way too much fun working in the Caribbean, and approached their acting way too casually. The Pirates' franchise is produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. He usually does quality work, but not here. The director is someone totally unknown to me, Gore Verbinski, but based on this movie I won't seek out his work again. I am going to meditate on why second acts of these cinematic trilogies are always so overwrought and lackluster, and if I come to some conclusions I will share them with you later on. Pirates 2 has made a lot of money, so I guess most people disagree with my review, but I stand by my judgment: This a second rate movie that's only worth seeing to prepare for the third, if you care.

Notable movies I did not see: Mission Impossible 3 — I thought the first MI movie was an abomination, compared to the sophistication of the old television series upon which it was nominally based, so I had no interest whatever in seeing the inevitable sequels, and that was before Tom Cruise went stark raving nuts over Scientology. An Inconvenient Truth — A couple of my liberal friends cajoled me to see this movie, but I held fast to my conservative principles on this one. I cannot bring myself to spend my money on something that I frankly consider to be bunk, but more importantly, I will not spend a penny, or let friends spend their pennies if I can help it, on a stalking horse for Al Gore's next campaign for the presidency. Beowulf & Grendel — I only found out about this movie when it was too late for me to catch it. In contrast to the juvenile treatment of Tristan & Isolde that came out earlier this year, this film looked like a movie for grown-ups, but the timing just didn't work for me. If anyone caught it, I'd love to hear your feedback.

Bonus music review:

Madeleine Peyroux — Careless Love — A friend was kind enough to turn me on to this cd, and thanks very much M. This artist is the very reincarnation of Billie Holiday. If you have any appreciation of Holiday, or if you like the music of Alicia Keys, check out Peyroux. I think you'll be glad you did.

K. T. Tunstal — Eye of the Telescope — This is upbeat folk-rock, but the special appeal is that Tunstal plays all the instruments on all the songs, all of which she wrote. I admire the musicianship in that, as well as just enjoying the songs. If you want a cd for driving down the highway, check this one out.

Coming next: World Trade Center and The Wicker Man.