One of those stories whose moral goes something like “stop and smell the roses” or “be careful what you wish for, you just might get it”. That’s sounds pretty dismissive, doesn’t it? Actually, the movie’s details play out better than that.
Angelina Jolie, she of the Mick Jagger lips, plays Lanie, a TV reporter in Seattle. She’s on her way to the big time, which would be a national show called “AM U.S.A.” or some such made-up thing. The beginning of this movie put me in the “eye roll” mode because I’m tired of movie writers doing “inside TV stuff” because we’re all so interested, aren’t we? The truth is, that’s all many of them really know enough about to write a whole movie plot. There’s Lanie, with her phony hair and big plastic smile looking just like one of the reporters we see right here in L.A. So, now you’ll get to see what really goes on.
And, it’s all obvious right from the start. Lanie is secretly unhappy with her ‘wanna-be” position in life. From her job to her relationship with her father and her sister to her boyfriend, it’s all a façade. But enter Pete, played by Edward Burns. He’s a hotshot cameraman who has left a big time job in New York and looks to be the polar opposite of Lanie. There’s some kind of history between the two of them and it gets nasty right from the start, but we all know, in the end, opposites attract, don’t they?
If it sounds like I’m putting this movie down, I mostly am doing just that. But I have to say this is one of the rare times I felt the writing came out on top of the acting and way ahead of the premise. When Lanie and Pete first do battle, the insults fly and they’re pretty good. In fact, it’s plain that Lanie is way more than the “bubble-headed bleach blond “ she’s supposed to be on-camera. We spend so much time watching her life off-camera, and she’s so introspective, it’s hard to believe she could ever have such a shallow life.
This movie is no comedy despite those witty exchanges mainly because Lanie believes she’s going to die next Thursday. That causes her to have this whole life reevaluation, but I stick with my earlier opinion which is she seems too smart and sensitive to have ever been stuck in that fake TV world in the first place. Oh, and by the way, the belief that she’s going to die comes from your basic homeless street physic, played by Tony Shalhoub. How annoying – he’s quick witted, insightful. His only real problem seems to be that he’s plagued by random visions of the future. It looks like all he needs is a shower and he’s fine. Aren’t the homeless always so noble and just misunderstood in the movies?
“Life Or Something Like It” is fine when you listen to the words, just try to ignore all the dopey people in it, and the reason they’re all in it. Does that make any sense? I give it a “5.0” on the scale.
Friday, April 19th, 2002
No, that isn’t a typo, that’s almost the cool way they write out this movie’s title. And a pretty cool movie it turns out to be.
It’s the story of two teen aged kids, one a brilliant nerd, the other a nasty, snotty rich type, and their plan to get away with murder. Sandra Bullock plays Cassie/Jessie, the homicide detective out to foil their plan. Ben Chaplin plays Sam, her partner and soon to be lover.
Now Sandra’s character is named Cassie/Jessie for a reason – let’s just say she comes with a lot of emotional baggage which makes her a great homicide detective, but not such a great person much of the time. And, actually, her past takes up a big part of this movie’s time. Which is good at first, and later becomes a bit of a clichéd bore.
But let’s focus on the good stuff and there is plenty of it. The boys are clearly the killers from the outset and do the old “frame some fat slob routine”. Sam and most of the homicide guys buy into it, but, of course, not Jessie. But watch her pick up the clues and I have to say, it looks like real police work and not some “pie in the sky” only in Hollywood plot tricks. For instance, the killers say they don’t know each other very well, but Cassie picks up an expression they both use which clues her in to their relationship. She also plays around to refigure the time of death, and that’s convincing too.It’s like watching a better version of “C.S.I.”. Not that I’ve seen that show.
What’s also pretty interesting is the relationship between the two killers. Are they gay or what? One is the introvert, the other the extrovert, but who is really in charge? And are they really in love and can’t figure out how to express it other than to kill someone together? Do these questions intrigue you? They suddenly take this movie out of the ordinary murder story into something much deeper, even better than trying to figure out Cassie’s past. Ah, maybe that’s too much for all of you, but I loved it.
But don’t give up on the main story – it’s still a good one. Cassie has to piece the puzzle together and then squeeze the boys into confessing. That’s compelling too. And I love this “hurt” character that Bullock plays. She’s the usual tomboy, tough girl, but it’s kind of a hoot the way she drags Sam into bed with her by playing the guy part to his shy, tentative girl.
“Murder B8 Num8bers” is anything but a “by the numbers” story, from the killing to the complicated people involved in it. I give it an “8.0” on the 1 to 10 scale.
Friday, April 12th, 2002
This is the story of a Wall Street lawyer and an insurance guy whose lives collide, literally, after a traffic accident. Ben Affleck plays Gavin Banek. He’s on his way to court with an important file. Samuel L. Jackson is Doyle Gipson. He’s also on his way to court, trying to keep his wife and kids from moving out of town on him. Gavin cuts Doyle off and then leaves in a hurry, saying “better luck next time”. But he forgets that file and Doyle holds on to it for revenge. That gets the party going.
What’s terrific about this movie up front is the effective way it uses short cuts to introduce us to the characters. Too many times, writers use dopey gimmicks and stereotypes to get us inside someone’s head in a hurry. But here it’s very clear who these two troubled guys are. For example, Doyle refuses Gavin’s blank check as settlement, saying, “I need to do this right.” Now, you could say, well, the check might bounce. But consider that Doyle is a recovering alcoholic and you understand his position.
As for Gavin, well, his law firm is up to no good and it’s clear early on he’s conflicted about it. That file is the key to their latest scam. But just wait. Later on , there’s a scene between Gavin and his wife that is worth waiting for. She happens to be Gavin’s bosses daughter and she lays it on him with a speech about how he needs to stay loyal to this crooked law firm, which is about as scary as the one in John Grisham’s “The Firm”. For a moment, you actually believe that maybe Gavin ought to go on doing the “wrong thing” because the alternative is too risky and too complicated.
Now, for those of you who just find all of that too heady, you can sit back and enjoy the evil game of “one up-manship” that these two play on each other. Gavin’s got the money and the connections. Doyle’s got the street smarts and the temper to counter Gavin. It’s great stuff. I can even forgive the fact that Gavin’s co-worker knows a “guy” who can bring Doyle to his knees. But then again, they’re working for this crooked law firm, why not?
What’s great about “Changing Lanes” is that it manages to walk a fine line between telling an action filled story and not being ridiculous about it. Yeah, this isn’t likely to happen, but if two guys did get collide like this, the most likely results would be an exchange of insurance information or one shooting the other dead. One movie would be very boring, the other very short. “Changing Lanes” gets a little talky and preachy near the end, but it’s still worth your time. You might even get a little misty eyed at the very end. I give it an “8.0” on the scale.
Friday, April 5th, 2002
A lot of people asked me if I could figure out what this movie was about before it was released, and I have to say, after seeing it, I’m not sure I can even say now what it’s about.
Basically, it’s the story of two kids show hosts. After one replaces the other, the one that was dumped is out for revenge. It’s supposed to be dark and funny and weird and all that. It’s none of those things. Okay, it’s weird I suppose.
The problem with this movie become evident very early. Robin Williams plays one of the hosts known as Rainbow Randolph. We start with a quick look at his successful show. It airs on a television channel called Kid Net. But before you can take a few popcorn kernels out of the box, Randolph is arrested for taking money in exchange for giving somebody’s kid a prime spot on the show. One guy three seats over from me laughed. I don’t know why this would be funny, but my problem is how about a little context, a little setting. Other then an opening song, we know little about the Rainbow Randolph Show, except that Robin Williams in all that makeup and glittery clothing is actually kind of creepy. Surrounded by dwarves and prancing around on stage, it looks more like an escapee from “Moulin Rouge”.
Rainbow is then replaced by Smoochy The Rhino. This is a character played by Edward Norton. He’s picked because he’s a goofy, good-natured, seemingly incorruptible type. His songs stink, his rhino outfit is horrible, but the inside joke is that it doesn’t matter because they can make anyone a hit. Bet you didn’t know that! Yes, this movie is full of plenty of inside television jokes. Much of that is played out through two network characters, played by Catherine Keener and Jon Stewart. You get to sit in on their meetings as they plot out their next move. Of course, they’re devious, cynical and nasty. That’s right – the big joke here is that the behind the scenes world of people who bring you the kiddie shows is one dark, ugly place. The Smoochy character is then your basic good guy trying to get the TV people to see the ethical light. Very insightful, isn’t it?
That’s the big picture presented by “Death To Smoochy”. The grueling detail of this movie then involves a number of subplots concerning Rainbow’s trying to ruin Smoochy’s career and a never ending collection of mafia type guys either trying to corrupt Smoochy or trying to foil Rainbow, or, ah, who cares? To fill up the time, we’re introduced to this former boxer who works at his mother’s bar. He takes a liking to Smoochy and because his Mom is an Irish Mafioso, Smoochy has to put him on the show or else. Of course, they come in handy when Rainbow’s plot against Smoochy unfolds. I don’t know what age group this movie was intended for, but all that I just went through plays out for the attention span of a ten year old.
Most of the people in this movie are just cartoon characters waiting for the next anvil to fall on them. And after a while, even I got fed up with the curse words. Most people know the beauty of a good “f-word” is the timing and the placement. Whoever wrote the lines for Rainbow totally missed that nuance. It’s constant and it’s not funny. Oh, and by the way, the whole thing was brought to you by Danny DeVito, who plays Smoochy’s dirty agent. How embarrassing for him. Of course, nobody ever would have let this movie see the light of day if it wasn’t a Danny DeVito production. That ought to be the next “inside” movie made. How large sums of money were wasted because nobody could tell some big star that the movie he wrote, directed and starred in is one big turd. Well, at least I just did. Too bad it was already unleashed on an unsuspecting public. “Death To Smoochy” – yikes, death isn’t good enough for it. I give it a “2.0”.
