Change Your Image
Niels Martin
Reviews
Wonder Boys (2000)
a funny film
WONDER BOYS is a smart and funny film, which, after some initial struggle to find the proper balance between comedy and drama, delivers memorable performances by all members of the cast, great music (with a few new songs by Bob Dylan), great photography and lighting, strong dialogue and great directing. One of the things that I find to be the most important part of a film is its characters, and WONDER BOYS has a wide variety of fascinating people in it. Toby Maguire stars as the almost suicidal and compulsive liar, James Leer. We've got Michael Douglas as the weed-smoking professor, Grady Tripp. Robert Downey Jr. (who's just a brilliant actor) plays the gay editor, Terry Crabtree, who becomes fascinated with James Leer, and last but by no means least there's the two women, Frances McDormand and Katie Holmes, who do their best to tackle a weekend with the `wonder boys'. But the character that got the most sympathy out of me was not one of the leading roles, it was instead Walter Gaskell (played by Richard Thomas), who during the film, without the fault of his own, ends up with his dog shot and killed, his favourite memorabilia (a Marilyn Monroe jacket) stolen and finally, to top it all of, his wife leaves him: See the film and you'll understand.
The Gift (2000)
if it had only been more original in it's story-line
This film, directed by Evil Dead guru, Sam Raimi, features a surprisingly well-rounded cast, with no weak links. Even Keanu Reeves, who've been known to ruin a film or two before, fits his role. Cate Blanchet, the lead, and Greg Kinnear are both superb. THE GIFT also contains some pretty impressive photography. It's a visually beautiful film. One of my favourite shots in the film is when Cate Blanchet has a vision of a dead Katie Holmes 'swimming' in a tree. Sam Raimi also proves that he's still a pretty brilliant director when it comes to suspense. A lot of directors seems to think that everything needs to be completely dark for things to get scary. Raimi proves them wrong by having Blanchet turn on the light, which any reasonable person in real life would have done, when she enters her house suspecting there might be an intruder in there, and still Raimi manages to create a fairly suspenseful moment. What's so sad about this film is that the plot is not very original. It's easy to figure out where things are going. You can early on tell who the killer is. THE GIFT would have been a fantastic film if its story was more thought out. Now its only mediocre. A shame
Planet of the Apes (2001)
it's entertainment
Being a formidable Burton-fan, his remake of the 1968 classic, THE PLANET OF THE APES, was an affair I'd looked forward to for quite a long time. But, after having seen the film, I regret to say that my emotions are mixed at best. First off, THE PLANET OF THE APES, doesn't have the feel of a Tim Burton film. The one thing I love the most about his films, are the characters in them. You really get to care for a Burton character. But the only character in this film that might resemble a previous Burton character, such as Edward Scissorhands or Jack Skellington, is Ari. She's the typical outcast in her society, set aside by her revolutionary ideas that humans should be treated equally as monkeys (sorry, apes
), but other than her there really aren't any other characters in this film that can evoke care and emotions. The film doesn't visually have the Burton-esque style to it, either. There are occasional shots where some of that Burton magic shines through, like when we see the ape-city at a distance (it looks bewitched), but for the most part the visual style of the film is typical Hollywood extravagance. It would actually seem fair to compare this film with BATMAN. Both films are financially huge projects, where the producers seems to have put a lid on Burton's imagination, perhaps in fair of loosing the bigger audience. Tis a shame
Also, the film doesn't feel grand. I, personally, was expecting a huge film. After seeing the intense trailers, I though THE PLANET OF THE APES would be a film that could give us a taste of what's to come, with LORD OF THE RINGS looming in the distance, speaking in terms of huge CGI made battles and such, but alas
There's only one such scene, and it's over in a flash.
There are also several things that bothered me in the script. First off, the beginning, which was too short too explain why a pilot would risk his life going after an ape lost in an electromagnetic storm. More time should have been spent, or been spent more efficiently, on this bit. There was also stuff in the characters development, which didn't fit. *SPOILERS* There's a scene in the film where Ari sneaks back into the camp of the vicious Thades, to conduct some sort of peace meeting, where she ends up being branded by Thades with the mark of humans. The film doesn't explain why Ari would attempt such an act in the first place, or why Thades would just let Ari and Sandar, who accompany her, leave afterwards, and the scene isn't followed up later in the film. It's only there to give Thades a chance to mark Ari. The writers should have thought of another way for this to happen. Also, towards the end of the film, we see Colonel Attar suddenly betray his patron, Thades, after, for the most part, being a pretty grim ape himself. It didn't seem like a logical course of action for this character. They should have sown the seeds for such an act earlier in the film. I also thought the filmmakers dispatched Sandar too easily. He was the former superior of Thades, but cast into shame when Thades betrayed him, and in the battle scene, where he's supposed to fight his previous protégé, he's intervened by Colonel Attar and defeated in a minute or so. I would have thought such a character, as Sandar, would have deserved a better exit.
The ending, high above all things, must be discussed. Naturally, there was a huge amount of pressure on the filmmakers to come up with an ending that would match the original 68-ending, and take it's audience by surprise. It seems to me, that in their desperation to concur such an ending, they exit the film with more questions than answers. *HUGE SPOILER* I see only two possible answers to the end: (a) Everything took place on earth all along, and Captain Leo Davidson has only been traveling back and forth in time, as in the original film, or that (b) we are talking about two different planets. If it's the first, (a), then Captain Leo Davidson should have been able to figure all this out, by calculating coordinates and such, but if it's the second, (b), then how in the nine hells did Thades make his way to earth? Puzzling.
Tim Roth, who stars as Thades, makes it clear that he's one of the meanest villains out there. Mark Wahlberg is a fine enough actor, who's done better before, that pulls of the part of Captain Leo Davidson quit nice, not being especially heroic, but not too much of an anti-hero either. Helena Bonham-Carter, as Ari, is, next to Tim Roth, the best actor on the cast. Putting Michael Clarke Duncan behind the make-up of Colonel Attar was also a good move on Burton's behalf. First off, because he's big enough to fit the role, and second, because his melancholic eyes are perhaps the only thing that lends credibility to the fact that he chooses to disobey his patron, Thades. Paul Giamatti was superb, creating comical relief with Limbo, the slave trader. Estella Warren, in her skimpy Xena outfit, was incognito at best. So, all in all, as I arrive upon my conclusion, it must be said that THE PLANET OF THE APES is a pretty entertaining film, if nothing else. The film is clearly less political than it's predecessor. It seems to have no ambitions. It only wants to entertain. And so it does, many thanks to a good cast, great make-up, enough funny scenes, and, last but not least, an excellent villain.
Detektor (2000)
An admirable attempt. A half-finished product.
The film is in itself an interesting phenomena. The media and the public (in Norway) has been screaming on about how the Norwegian film industry needs a change, and a long comes a film that definitely stands for something new and is thus widely accepted and celebrated, even though the story has obvious faults (but people seemed to get a kick out of it, simply because it was something different).
The film revolves around the 28 years-old psychiatrist, Daniel Jor, who lives with his dominant mother, and spends an alarming amount of time searching for lost things with a metal detector (which reflects on the theme of the film: the things that are hidden in your own and others lives), accompanied by his faithful sidekick, Ronny.
The problem of the film is that it doesn't really have much to say. It has all these loose threads hanging in the air, which is then loosely tied together at the end, but it doesn't really mean much. The character of Ronny is a fitting example. He's obviously just there to provide a comical relief. He doesn't really serve any deeper function. I'm one of those people who like it when a film gives me something to ponder about (after it has ended). Detektor does no such thing. You see it. You laugh a little. But that is really all there is.
The Patriot (2000)
Hollywood extreme
This is such an obvious Hollywood mainstream film. In my case, that basically means I can't connect with neither the film nor its characters. As an example: there is a scene in the film where the entire population of a small town is burnt alive within a church. This should bother me, but the sequence stirs no emotions.
Furthermore, the film is so sickly pro-American (in recent years surpassed only by "Saving Private Ryan): the film makes it quite clear that all Europeans are mean villains, while Americans are courageous heroes. Then there is the case of Mel Gibson's character and his "free workers". I've read that this was something Mel Gibson pushed through, and that the original script intended Gibson's character to hold slaves. I agree with director Spike Lee in his criticism that this is an obvious false representation of history. Furthermore, the film could have made a point out of Gibson's character (and his fellow Americans) fighting for his freedom, but not seeing the African-Americans desire for freedom, if they had chosen to keep the original aspects of slavery in the film.
Hannibal (2001)
A good film with some flaws
Here's a theory on Ridley Scott: he's got two faces. There's one Ridley Scott who becomes deeply involved in a project, who works with it for several years, and the final product becomes spectacular. Alien and Blade Runner would be prime examples. Then there's another Ridley Scott who sort of functions like a hired gun: these are normally the films he shoots in between he´s more passionate projects. "Hannibal" is such a film. It´s evident that master director Ridley Scott hasn´t stretched the screenplay to its limits and truly explored the story, but rather presented it in a fairly straight forward way. The result is an enjoyable film - well worth seeing - but it certainly has its flaws. It´s a shame, too, that such a great actor like Gary Oldman is covered with grotesque make-up throughout the film... The cinematography and music, though, ranks quite high.