HOLLYWOOD PICKS THE CLASSICS

HOLLYWOOD PICKS THE CLASSICS: A Guide for the Beginner and the Aficionado. Afton Fraser. Bulfinch; 2004.

This guide to classic film is divided into chapters such as "Must See," "Drama,"  "Suspense," "One of a Kind" performers such as Carmen Miranda and Jerry Lewis, "Screen Teams" and so on. The main asset to this book is the many, many photographs from the movies. It falls short as a work of film scholarship for two reasons: most classic movie fans will already be familiar with most of the material in the book. Also, there is no analysis of the individual films, just a brief synopsis and sidebars on the cast, Oscar wins or nominations, and factoids about the famous players. On that level, the book is still a good bet for young movie enthusiasts who might wish to learn more about films released many, many years before their births. Indeed, the author makes the case that, say, a film from the 1980's can';t really be called a "classic." The included movies are generally the ones you would expect -- no "B" movies or forgotten gems -- along with a few that have always been over-rated.

The book was written by Afton Fraser, the wife of actor Brendan Fraser [Looney Tunes: Back in Action] and mother of their three children. Sadly, four years after this book was published the couple ended their ten year marriage. Also an actor Ms. Fraser now goes by Afton Smith.

Verdict: Recommended for readers who don't know much about classic film. ***. 

HELLBENT

Dylan Fergus

HELLBENT (2004). Writer/director: Paul Etheredge.

"Why wouldn't you want to kill us -- we're fuckin ' fabulous!" -- Tobey

Eddie (Dylan Fergus) works for the LAPD, but only in an administrative capacity due to the loss of an eye in an accident. He wears his father's old cop uniform for a Halloween carnival, which he attends with some of his fellow gay male friends. His buddies include his apparently bisexual roomie, Chaz (Andrew Levitas); slightly geeky Joey (Hank Harris), who is wearing leather for the evening and isn't certain how it'll go over; and Tobey (Matt Phillips), who decides to go in drag, then wonders why no one is hitting on him. Two others attend the festivities: Jake (Bryan Kirkwood), a brooding bad boy type with attitude; and a masked killer who excites the others but prefers beheading people to making love. Just what the world needs: a gay slasher flick. Hellbent can at least be differentiated from Al Pacino's homoerotic serial killer movie Cruising, because both the hero and the major supporting characters are all  gay men, but their brutal slaughter might still make some viewers rather uncomfortable. Typical of slasher flicks, there's little pity for the victims, and just a slight attempt at pathos. The gruesome murder scenes are generally well-handled, with a standout being a slashing and decapitation that takes place amid the flashing lights of a crowded dance floor. The actors and characters are likable although not that well-developed, another slasher flick staple. One does have to ponder, considering the number of gay cops that there are nowadays (there's even a Gay Officers Action League or GOAL) why they couldn't have made the hero an actual cop on a night off. And must they have included the guy in drag and a few other stereotypes? On the plus side, the film does generate some suspense and eeriness, and it has a tense and exciting climax. The ending, however, may leave some viewers up in the air. Kirkwood is a standout as Jake, but the others are all pretty good. There is one especially nice touch dealing with a character who can't quite bring himself to actually kiss  another man until something helps him get over his hang-ups.

Verdict: If we must have gay slasher flicks ... ***.

TROY

Eric Bana as Prince Hector of Troy

TROY (2004). Director: Wolfgang Petersen.

On a mission to establish good relations between Greece and Troy, the Spartan prince Paris (Orlando Bloom) foolishly spirits away King Menelaus' wife, the beautiful Helen (Diane Kruger). Paris' brother, Prince Hector (Eric Bana) is appalled at Paris' actions and fears the worst when they return to Troy. Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson) wants revenge on Helen and Paris while his brother, King Agamemnon (Brian Cox), is more interested in sacking Troy and adding to his power. Although the rather egomaniacal Achilles (Brad Pitt) has little respect or admiration for Agamemnon, he is importuned to join the Spartan forces and eventually engages in one on one combat with Hector. The main difference between the two is that Achilles fights for sheer glory, while Hector fights for king and country. After much bloodshed on both sides, the Greeks come up with an idea for a certain horse ... Inspired by Homer's Iliad, Troy is an exciting war movie that eschews all the fantastic elements of the story (such as the Gods influencing many of the characters behind the scenes) and tries to present it as something historical. [Although 19th century scientists did find evidence of the city of Troy in modern-day Turkey, and it may be true that the Greeks mounted an expedition to, or some kind of assault on, Troy, the story of the Trojan War is mostly mythological.] If you haven't read Homer's Iliad or Edith Hamilton's Mythology since college it may surprise you which elements of David Benioff's screenplay are taken from those sources and which aren't. Whatever the case, Achilles' dull and unconvincing romance with Hector's cousin Briseis (Rose Byrne) serves no useful purpose except to give Brad Pitt a chance to show off his butt. On the other hand, one of the best scenes in the movie is when King Priam (Peter O'Toole) of Troy begs Achilles to give him his son's corpse for proper burial.

As for the acting, this is not Brad Pitt's movie but Eric Bana's. Bana [Deadfall] not only plays the most sympathetic character in the movie, but plays it extremely well, with quiet strength and nobility along with a sex appeal that puts his lover boy brother, Paris (as essayed by the average-looking Bloom) in the shade. Pitt [World War Z] seems wildly miscast at first -- and he's never completely convincing as some great warrior -- but you get used to him and he isn't awful. O'Toole has some excellent moments, as do Cox and Gleeson, while Sean Bean is less effective as Odysseus. Bloom is okay as the unsympathetic jerk-off whose selfish actions both precipitate and, due to his cowardice, prolong the war, but Diane Kruger, although quite pretty, displays little acting ability as Helen. An unintentionally hilarious shot shows Bloom and Kruger watching the burning of Troy and the murdering of its citizens and displaying about as much emotion as a couple watching a commercial for Shake 'n' Bake (one hopes for their sakes that this was a rehearsal shot that accidentally made it into the final cut).  Garrett Hedlund makes an impression as Achilles' young cousin, Patroclus -- many people feel he was not Achilles' cousin, but his lover, and he is not a cousin in The Iliad --  and there are also small roles for Saffron Burrows and Julie Christie as Achilles' mother. James Horner's musical score is surprisingly generic, but he's done so many of these things he can probably compose them in his sleep by now. Wolfgang Petersen also directed Shattered.

This review is based on the Director's Cut of the film, which adds thirty minutes to the running time and probably should't have.

Verdict: Well-produced if imperfect movie is the obvious product of a lot of hard work and good intentions. ***.

THREE OF HEARTS: A POSTMODERN FAMILY

Sisters: Sam Cagnina, Samantha Singh, Steven Margolin

THREE OF HEARTS: A POSTMODERN FAMILY (2004). Director: Susan Kaplan.

In this documentary two delusional homosexual men, Sam Cagnina and Steven Margolin, have been in a relationship seven years when the former importunes the latter to bring a woman, Samantha Singh, into the mix. Sam, the "queenier" of the two, admits years later that he was ashamed of his sexuality, and wanted to have a "normal" life and be "part of society" -- the typical reason most closeted gay men get married to women. [In an interview he also said he wanted children, which is also, of course, a way for men to "prove their manhood."] Most women would certainly shy away from being in a relationship with two gay men in a committed relationship, but because they sleep with her she apparently sees them as legitimately bisexual, which turns out not to be the case. The trouble with this trio is that we have three very immature (both chronologically and emotionally) people who decide to "play house" and make babies, indulging in the kind of polygamy that may work great in college during an experimental stage, but hardly flies in the long run. "I stayed with my experimentation and made it my life," says Samantha. Some people see this as a study of unconventional people trying to be themselves, but it comes off more as a loving gay couple being destroyed by bad decisions and the insertion of an unnecessary third party. The guys' desire to be in some kind of ersatz hetero relationship hardly makes them "unconventional" in any case. Steven says late in the film that "I was never very comfortable with my homosexuality" and it is probably his increased awareness in that regard, dealing with his internalized homophobia, that leads him to finally ditch the other two and make his own life with a male partner. [The two Sams stay together and raise two children but no longer have sex.] Samantha says of Steven, "you never expressed that you were gay," which makes her seem so clueless as to be laughable; she's the ultimate "fag hag." One senses that Steven is furious at the other two for getting him involved in a situation he probably never really wanted to be a part of, but he still has to bear some of the responsibility. Three of Hearts is not without its interesting aspects or entertainment value, but the outcome of this silly "experiment" is obvious from the first. The filmmakers never ask the tough questions, such as what other motives Samantha might have had for hooking up with these guys (that all three participants are exhibitionists goes without saying) and so much else goes completely unexplored. Ultimately, the whole movie, while well-produced, seems like a bad LOGO flick or a really lousy idea for a sitcom. One critic even suggested that the picture was contrived and phony from the get-go.

Verdict: Thank goodness gay couples can now adopt! **.

GODZILLA ON MY MIND: FIFTY YEARS OF THE KING OF MONSTERS

GODZILLA ON MY MIND: FIFTY YEARS OF THE KING OF MONSTERS. William  Tsutsui. Palgrave Macmillan; 2004.

Full disclosure: Although I am a big giant monster movie fan  and even wrote a book on the subject, I confess I have never been that carried away with Godzilla and its many sequels, although I do check them out from time to time. Tsutsui is right that the original Japanese version, entitled Gojira, is essentially a "serious" film with sombre undertones, and by no means a bad movie. But while it may not have those undertones, I much prefer the American film The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, the success of which inspired Japanese filmmakers to make Gojira in the first place. [I even prefer The Giant Behemoth and Gorgo, which was sort of an imitation of Godzilla, over Gojira.] That being said, I approached an entire volume devoted to Godzilla with some trepidation. An entire book on Godzilla? Still, Tsutsui almost manages to pull it off, despite the fact that eventually he makes the same points over and over and the book at times seems understandably padded. [A good way to increase the page count would have been to include a filmography, but inexplicably this book doesn't have one, a serious oversight.] Still, Tsutsui writes well and intelligently and his enthusiasm for his subject is a large part of the book's appeal. True, Tsutsui sometimes tries too hard to convince us of Godzilla's influence and significance -- I mean just because something is "influential" doesn't make it especially significant -- and he doesn't seem to acknowledge that there are any other decent giant monster movies out there. His argument that the American-made Godzilla with Matthew Broderick [a disappointing film in many ways] trashed the legend seems to ignore the fact that Japanese filmmakers did a pretty good job of turning Godzilla into a camp parody long before director Roland Emmerich came along. But at least the author acknowledges that many of the Japanese Godzilla movies are quite dreadful, which stirred up the wrath of major demented Godzilla geekazoids in their reviews on Amazon.com. [Get a life! It's also kind of depressing that there are actually people who will go to a Godzilla convention but have never attended the ballet, opera, a classical music concert, or serious theater. Monster movies are fun, but they're not the be-all and end-all!] But when all is said and done, this is an entertaining book and not as stupid as you might expect.

Verdict: Recommended for the more intelligent Godzilla fans, all two or three of them, LOL. ***.

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS (2004). Director: Stephen Hopkins. Based on the biography by Roger Lewis. An Australian film shown on HBO in the U.S.

This biopic skips over most of Sellers' early life and really begins with him winning the British Academy Award. But a bigger problem is that director Hopkins eschews a sensible narrative style and has Sellers [as played by Geoffrey Rush] speaking directly to the audience, or dressing up and playing his wife at one point and his mother at another. This approach doesn't help the movie and certainly doesn't help us understand Peter Sellers. Emily Watson and Charlize Theron play the wives, Ann and Britt [Ekland]; John  Lithgow is Blake Edwards and Stanley Tucci is Stanley Kubrick. Miriam Margoyles does a nice job as Sellers' loving mother, Peg, as does James Bentley as her grandson, Michael. In its attempt to celebrate a great artist yet condemn him as kind of a prick, the movie succeeds in doing neither. Rush is fine, but the movie quickly becomes tedious. Who needs reproductions of Sellers' movies when we can see the real things for ourselves? And Rush was seen to better advantage in The King's Speech, a far better picture than this. Heck, Green Lantern, in which Rush only contributed a voice, is better than this.

Verdict: All you need to know about Sellers is in his movies. **.

ANACONDAS: THE HUNT FOR THE BLOOD ORCHID

Johnny Messner

ANACONDAS: THE HUNT FOR THE BLOOD ORCHID (2004). Director: Dwight H. Little.

In this sequel to Anaconda, an expedition is sent to Borneo to get a supply of a flower known as the Blood Orchid, which is believed to contain ingredients that might make it a veritable fountain of youth. It certainly works on the anacondas in the area, not only keeping them alive forever but assuring that they grow to tremendous proportions. Bill Johnson (an intense Johnny Messner) is the leader of the little group, which includes Jack (Matthew Marsdon); "Sam" (KaDee Strickland), Jack's assistant; Cole (Eugene Byrd), who's nervous if likable; and Ben (Nicholas Gonzalez). The cast is pretty good, and the characters seem to care about each other and act bravely for the most part. There's a terrific climax in a giant snake pit. This is much more entertaining than expected, a good old-fashioned "B" movie for monster fanatics.

Verdict: Like an old-time creature feature. ***.  

LETTER FROM AN UNKINOWN WOMAN (2004/CHINESE)

LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN aka
Yi ge mo sheng nu ren de lai xin (original title) (2004/Chinese). Director: Jinglei Xu.

"If you were to call me, even if I were in my tomb, I would gather my strength, get up, and go to you."

"There is nothing more terrible than to be alone with people all around."

In this adaptation of Austrian writer Stefan Zweig's story "Letter from an Unknown Woman" -- already filmed under that title by Hollywood in the 40's -- a young woman named Jiang (played by the director Jinglei Xu) develops an intense, life-long romantic obsession with a writer who lived near her when she was a girl. Although the story has moved from Austria to China and has been updated to a pre and post-WW2 period, this version is somewhat more faithful to the print source than the Hollywood version. The settings are colorful, and the production is well-served by handsome photography and a lovely musical score -- not to mention wonderful acting from the director-star and others in the cast. One problem with the movie is that, even given cultural differences, it is hard to believe that the object of the woman's obsessions, as portrayed by Wen Jiang, would inspire fantasies in pretty young girls. Jiang is not unattractive, but he's not exactly Louis Jourdan, either. Officer Huang [Haung Jiao], who romances the woman, is a bit more on the mark. [Admittedly romantic obsession often has little to do with looks.] Whatever its imperfections, this deliberately-paced movie is moving and altogether admirable. Some may even prefer it to the Hollywood version.

Verdict: A little gem from China. ***.

NATIONAL TREASURE

NATIONAL TREASURE (2004). Director: Jon Turteltaub.

Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicolas Cage) is convinced that the key to an ancient treasure can be found on the back of the Declaration of Independence -- even though his father (Jon Voight), who once believed, is now dubious -- and makes up his mind to "borrow" the document, especially when he learns that his former colleague, the evil Ian Howe (Sean Bean) has decided to do the same thing, with much less benevolent motives. Along for the ride are Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), who works with Washington documents, and Gates' younger associate Riley (an appealing Justin Bartha). The action moves from Washington to catacombs under Manhattan, although perhaps not at a swift enough pace, although there are exciting moments and the treasure set is a beaut. One has to wonder why this Disney attempt at an Indiana Jones clone was such a hit at the box office, however.

Verdict: Okay but unexceptional on virtually all levels. **1/2.

THUNDERBIRDS

THUNDERBIRDS (2004). Director: Jonathan Frakes.

The Tracy family, headed by widower Jeff (Bill Paxton, pictured), form an outfit called International Rescue, and are idolized the world over as first-class, fearless heroes. The youngest of Jeff's sons, Alan (Brady Corbet), is itching to get into action as one of the Thunderbirds. He gets more than he bargained for when the group goes up against a villainous fellow known as The Hood (a completely and criminally wasted Ben Kingsley). If you're going to make a fairly big-budget, big-screen, live-action remake of a marionette kiddie show from the sixties -- and hope it turns into a popular franchise -- you better make sure it's a film for "kids" of all ages, which Thunderbirds definitely isn't. Focusing on the youngest characters, it seems geared for toddlers, who will probably be bored. The scientist "Brains" (Anthony Edwards) and his young, genius son both stutter. The Hood has a female associate played by an actress who's forced to wear huge gopher teeth. Lady Penelope (Sophia Myles) and her chauffeur Parker (Ron Cook) are also on hand. The biggest problem with this busy but silly movie is that the action scenes are not handled with any particular cinematic panache. This is almost as bad as Thunderbirds Are Go, a feature-length version of the puppet show.

Verdict: Thunderbirds are not go. **.

TALES TO ASTONISH

TALES TO ASTONISH: Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, and the American Comic Book Revolution. Ronin Ro. Bloomsbury; 2004.

NOTE: As previously noted, Great Old Movies will occasionally run reviews of comics and comics-related projects due to the similarity of the mediums of comics and film -- and the fact that more movies are inspired by comic books than is ever admitted!

While most people expect there to be all sorts of internecine quarrels behind the scenes of, say, an opera company or sitcom set, they may be surprised at all the squabbling that goes on behind the scenes of a comic book company. This highly entertaining and readable book, ostensibly a biography of Jack Kirby, documents the heady early days and troubled later years of Kirby, his frequent collaborator Stan Lee, Marvel Comics, and the other firms, including DC Comics, that they, especially Kirby, were also involved with as time went by. With Joe Simon, Kirby created Captain America back in the Golden Age of Comics during the forties. In the sixties, he and Lee collaborated on such characters as the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, the Avengers, the X-Men, and many others. Kirby became disillusioned, then enraged by the perception that Lee – which he felt Lee fostered -- was the sole creator and writer on these various strips, when Kirby did much of the plotting and creating himself. Eventually Kirby left Marvel for rival DC Comics where he created his own “Fourth World” of comics characters such as The Forever People, Mister Miracle, and The New Gods – but DC Comics was dissatisfied with the books and canceled them prematurely. (Ironically, The Fourth World proved a major influence on the Star Wars movies and most of Kirby's characters, particularly the villainous Darkseid, are now a big part of the DC Comics Mythos.) It was also noted that Kirby's books suffered without the deft scripting of Lee, whose contribution to the Kirby-Lee comics could not, in truth, be underestimated. Still, Lee got too much of the credit as far as Kirby, and many others in the comics industry, felt. Ro's book is full of fascinating details such as how Kirby and Lee disagreed vehemently on the direction taken by the character the Silver Surfer, who had a brief popularity, and the way that DC Editors had another penciller replace Kirby's drawings of Superman's face so that the image would conform to the accepted version of the Man of Steel. While it is utterly ludicrous to compare Kirby to the likes of Michelangelo(!), as one person does, this book makes clear that he was an extremely talented and very influential artist whose imagery and style has resonated throughout the comics industry for generations and will undoubtedly continue to do so for many years to come

Verdict: Darn good read for comics and pop culture fans. ***1/2.

7 WOMEN, 1 HOMOSEXUAL AND CARLOS

7 WOMEN, 1 HOMOSEXUAL AND CARLOS [AKA 7 mujeres, 1 Homosexual y Carolos/2004). Writer/director: Rene Bueno.

Carlos (Mauricio Ochmann) loves his fiancee Camila (Adriana Fonseca) but his friends and co-workers keep telling him that every man has a right to be unfaithful. More than one person tells him that every man has a right to "seven women and one homosexual" -- whatever the hell that means [but it comes off as quite condescending and homophobic, not to mention moronic. Would the "macho" guys in this movie really want to have sex with another guy?] Despite the title and the ads, this is not a racy sex comedy, but a pretty dull, routine and conventional comedy about a guy who loves one woman but whose peers try to pressure him into being unfaithful. Who cares? As his girlfriend is beautiful the whole thing doesn't make any sense anyway. From Mexico.

Verdict: This is considered one of the better movies to come out of Mexico, which means they've really got a problem. *.

THE FINAL CUT

THE FINAL CUT (2004). Written and directed by Omar Naim.

In a futuristic world, certain people have "Zoe" organic implants which are undetectable and grow in the brain and nerve centers, recording -- filming -- everything that happens to them throughout their entire life. Alan Hakman (Robin Williams) is a famous "cutter," someone who takes the hours and hours of recordings of a certain person's life and edits it into a memorial film that is shown after their death. Hakman is haunted by something that happened in his childhood, and now he is being asked to "cut" the life of a married man who may have had some terrible secrets concerning his daughter. The Final Cut has a fascinating premise and a superlative performance by the wonderful Williams, but despite its many intriguing ideas, it seems contrived and awfully anti-climactic. Still, it gets points for originality and is certainly absorbing. Stephanie Romanov and Genevieve Buechner score as the wife and daughter of the deceased.

Verdict: Decidedly different and thought-provoking if ultimately unsatisfying. ***.

SEED OF CHUCKY

SEED OF CHUCKY (2004). Written and directed by Don Mancini.

Tiffany: "Jennifer Tilly is playing me in a movie! What perfect casting!"

Chucky: "But that voice!"

Tiffany: "I think she sounds like an angel."

The offspring of the killer doll Chucky and his equally psychotic mate Tiffany makes his way to Hollywood where they're making a movie about his folks, but -- in a nod to Ed Wood -- there's some confusion as to whether his name should be Glen or Glenda. Used as mechanized props in the movie, Chucky and Tiffany come back to life and try to bond with their little son or daughter, who is appalled by the way they slaughter people indiscriminately. Meanwhile the real Jennifer Tilly (who plays herself and is -- Lord save us -- the voice of Tiffany), a freak of nature if ever there were one, is hoping that the blubber-lipped rapper-director Redman (played by Redman) will cast her in his next picture, a biblical epic. "You're prostituting yourself so you can play the Virgin Mary!" argues Tilly's assistant when she learns her boss has "plans" for Redman. You get the picture ... Initially entertaining, this very, very black and grossly gruesome comedy eventually becomes way too silly and rather tedious. It serves chiefly as a vehicle for actress Tilly to spoof herself and prove she's a good sport. At the end Tilly says "I'm a star!" Well, if you're starring in movies like Seed of Chucky you're probably not a star. Anyway, Tilly is amusing but she needs a better script. Brad Dourif is fine as the voice of Chucky.

Verdict: A real moron movie. *1/2.

THE BOOGEYMAN

THE BOOGEYMAN (2004). Director: Stephen Kay. Written by Eric Kripke, Juliet Snowden, and Stiles White.

A young boy who is convinced that the boogeyman is hiding in his closet is comforted by his father, who moments later is sucked into said closet by an unseen monster. Fifteen years later this same boy goes home after his mother's death and has to confront the demon in the closet. Although the premise has possibilities, most of them go unexplored in a film with little internal logic, insufficient characterization, rather bland acting [for the most part], and an off-putting directorial style that distances the viewer from the action, constantly reminding him that this is a movie, instead of pulling him into it. The movie is short but slow, and the only real excitement comes in the final minutes when the hero finally faces off against the creature, who looks good and is brought vividly to life – but still has much too little to do. By the numbers horror that is derivative and not very scary, although a couple of scenes come close. Sex symbol Lucy Lawless is cast as the hero's mother.

Verdict: Very disappointing **.

AVP: ALIEN VS. PREDATOR

AVP: ALIEN VS. PREDATOR (2004). Writer/Director: Paul W. S. Anderson.

This is the fifth in the Alien series and the third in the Predator series. But while the predators may emerge triumphant -- or do they? -- most people will buy this DVD because of the Aliens. [Frankly, the two Predator films, while not without their moments, couldn't compare to the Alien movies.] A scientific research team descends into a tunnel somehow burnt into the frigid wasteland to discover a pyramid that is centuries old and shows evidence of several different cultures. They also find themselves smack in the middle of a battle between the Predators and the Aliens, who seem evenly matched. The movie explains the relationship between the two alien species and mankind and features some excellent special effects and well-handled action scenes. It is also a very good-looking, well-photographed movie. It isn't especially scary, however, and at times seems more of an action film than a horror flick. There is an attempt at characterization with some appealing actors but they get killed off before we can really bond with them. Although there are a couple of scenes featuring the acid blood of the Aliens, there are times when the little critters get torn apart without that same blood having much of an effect on the people or Predators standing nearby. Lance Henriksen is the only name in the cast, and he's fine, as usual. The lead actress, Samaa Lathan, isn't bad, but she lacks that Sigourney Weaver-type presence [this is not to say that Weaver is a great actress] and doesn't always nail her scenes convincingly.

Verdict: There's life in those old aliens yet. ***.

CATWOMAN

CATWOMAN (2004). Director: Pitof [sic].

“You're just a little girl playing dress up.”

Catwoman was originally introduced decades ago in the pages of the Batman comic book, where she was first known as “the cat” after the cat's head mask she wore. Over the years she's gone through many changes in costume and attitude, and has been both a major villainess as well as an ally of the Caped Crusader. She was eventually given her own comic book. In this film adaptation the word “Batman” is never mentioned, and Catwoman is no longer a stylish cat burglar named Selina Kyle. She has been re-envisioned as a timid artist named Patience Phillips (Halle Berry) who overhears something she shouldn't and is killed by the bad guys. Luckily a cat who personifies the cat god comes along and literally breathes life into Patience; she is reborn as a much stronger woman who is essentially good but plays by her own rules. Tracking down the people who killed her and who ordered the hit (a married couple who run the corporation she works for), Catwoman runs into and romances a likable cop breezily played by Benjamin Bratt. She learns that her bosses are marketing a face cream that will eventually make women addicted to it and which has an extremely toxic effect. Sharon Stone plays the female half of the company chiefs and the climax is a rousing “bitch-fight” between her and Catwoman. While it takes much too long for Berry to finally become Catwoman and for the action to start, once it gets in gear the picture is quite entertaining. The direction is often a little too “rock video” for my taste, but the picture gets points for its striking art direction. The film is well-acted by all the leads, and the fine supporting players include Alex Borstein as Patience's amusing man-crazy friend Sally, and Lambert Wilson as Stone's sinister husband. The DVD features some scenes that were cut. One of them, a sequence of Catwoman being tracked by a killer dog in a junkyard after her re-birth, is excellent and should never have been left on the cutting room floor.

Verdict: Not great but not bad. **1/2.

THE VILLAGE

THE VILLAGE (2004). Director: M. Night Shyamalan.

This tedious film should have been entitled Hoaxes, for the massive hoax that alleged thriller director Shyamalan keeps playing on his audiences. The Sixth Sense was a fairly credible, if derivative, horror film, and Unbreakable, despite its obvious flaws, was at least unusual. Signs was a big shaggy dog story with some tense moments and a really dumb ending. But The Village takes an interesting premise and gets too clever – or rather not clever enough – for its own good. Never has Shyamalan appeared more over-rated than with this picture.

SPOILER ALERT: We're led to believe that this is a period film and that the action takes place in an early American village. The people in the village are afraid to ever leave because they must walk through a wooded area where monsters (”those we don't speak of”) supposedly dwell. Halfway through the film we learn that the monsters were sort of cooked up just to keep people from leaving. At the end of the film – although to most viewers this will come as no surprise – we learn that the story actually takes place in the 21st century (big whoop – hasn't Shyamalan ever heard of the Amish, for instance?) Apparently a group of people who lost loved ones to big city crime were so disheartened that they decided to “drop out” and go back into the “past” and a simpler era. [The fact that there is not a single Black, Hispanic, or Asian person in the village makes us wonder if this is a satire on white flight or merely inherently racist?] At the end there's some dialogue which tells us that the government prevents planes from flying overhead – but why? None of the original “settlers” seem that rich or influential. If some people want to drop out, fine, but why would the government aid or give a damn about them? Even more peculiar is the fact that the character played by William Hurt lets his – get this – blind daughter go off into the woods to get medicine, never giving the poor girl even a hint of what she's going to find when she gets to the other side. The one person chosen to go through the woods is blind? Supposedly compassionate, Hurt's character must be the worst father in the world. There are some eerie, well-directed, if derivative, scenes in the movie, and many others that are simply awkward. Some of the acting is quite stilted, but heroine Bryce Dallas Howard (the blind Ivy) makes a good impression. She and Joaquin Phoenix have a splendid scene wherein they confess their mutual love on a porch. William Hurt has one big moment succumbing to passion and anger in which he is quite good, but otherwise his acting is unimpressive. Sigourney Weaver is miscast but she, too, has her moments. Adrian Brody is excellent as the mentally deficient Noah. A lot of people found this film to be charming and romantic – it does play like a fairy tale – but there just isn't that much to it. Shyamalan had better come up with something better than bad feature-length Twilight Zone episodes if he wants to keep getting financing from the studios. Even if he had simply made a real period piece with settlers fighting off “those we don't speak of,” it would have made a better film than this.

Verdict: The movie is being hyped as being “like the best of Hitchcock.” Don't you believe it! *1/2.

LOVE, ACTUALLY

LOVE, ACTUALLY (2004). Writer/Director: Richard Curtis.

Curtis wrote the screenplay for the more successful (if unspectacular) Four Weddings and a Funeral; directing his own screenplay this time he's much too self-indulgent, with no one to rein him in. There have been many fine films over the years that mix a variety of characters and try somehow to pull them all together, but despite some memorable moments of charm and humor this one doesn't quite work. Some of the interlocking story lines include a widower (Liam Neeson) who encourages his very young stepson to pursue the girl of his dreams; a new prime minister (Hugh Grant) who has a personal assistant removed from his office because he's simply too attracted to her; and a married woman, Grant's sister (Emma Thompson), who discovers that her husband is falling for a woman at his office; and so on. There's also an aging rock star who has one last hit and realizes the only person he really loves (platonically) is his obese manager; and a handsome young man at a wedding who is obsessed not with the groom, as we're sort of led to believe, but with the very lovely bride. (Although Curtis included a long-term gay couple in Funeral, in this picture they are conspicuous by their total absence.) Curtis was obviously attempting a labor of love [pun intended], making a film that illustrates the point that there's an awful lot of love in the world despite all the ugliness in the headlines, but some of his ideas should have been jettisoned before they left the printed page. The bit with two porn actors who fall for each other never quite jells, and the sub-plot about the frustrated London lad who finally gets laid in America is handled in a ridiculous “frat boy” fashion. Neeson encouraging his eleven-year-old son to dash past airport security just so he can say good-bye to a little girl he's never even spoken to before borders on the utterly ludicrous – and dumb. Some viewers will suspend disbelief and enjoy this movie thoroughly, but a more thoughtful, if equally romantic, viewer may find that the overlong film offers much less “love” than it ought to.

Verdict: It will hold your attention but you won't necessarily be happy that you sat through it. **.

VAN HELSING

VAN HELSING (2004). Director/writer: Stephen Sommers.

The church employs an amnesiac named Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) to hunt down and kill all spirits and monsters of darkness, and after defeating an inexplicably giant-sized Mr. Hyde, he is assigned to destroy Dracula and his sexy brides. Helping him with his task is a Transylvanian lovely (Kate Beckinsale, in very contemporary bustier), and a geeky friar. Although this film was released by Universal, it plays much more like a parody of Hammer Horror Films of the sixties and seventies than of the Universal monster flicks of the forties. Unfortunately the campy approach – as it so often does – means that it's impossible to really care about what happens to the one-dimensional characters, and the film falls flat on its feet. [True, James Whale's classic Bride of Frankenstein was itself a parody of Frankenstein, but at least it recreated a period atmosphere; Van Helsing, like Xena and Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, has a very 21st century approach.] The movie's main strength is some striking scenic design, some very effective action scenes, and first-rate special effects, which include winged vampire-women who fly around a town square picking up struggling victims [these vampires are incredibly strong it seems]. There are some interesting concepts in the movie – Dracula wants to use the life energy inside the Frankenstein monster's body to resuscitate thousands of his vampire bat-like children (remember those brides?) -- but after awhile it simply gets too silly and busy for its own good. Jackman and Beckinsale manage to hold on to their dignity, but Richard Roxburgh's over-the-top and perfectly dreadful performance makes him the all-time worst Dracula of the cinema. This is House of Dracula for the “frat boy” generation.

Verdict: If you really love these old movies, forget about this and watch the Universal –or Hammer – films on DVD again. *1/2.