In 1994, Ron Howard was one movie away from director purgatory. No, you say, surely not the Oscar winning director of “A Beautiful Mind” and the man in charge of the sure-to-make-jillions “The Da Vinci Code.” Why, he’s a national treasure!
He’s a national treasure now. In 1994, he was the man who followed “Parenthood” and “Backdraft” with the ill-conceived Cruise/Kidman movie “Far and Away” and the god-awful “The Paper.” One more “Paper,” and he, not Rob Reiner, is directing “Alex and Emma.”
You have to hand it to Mel Gibson. Sure, the man is the Grand Poohbah of crazy, along with every other euphemism for ‘nuts’ that they use in the chorus to Pink Floyd’s “The Trial,” but while his convictions have led him to make some profane declarations of late, you cannot deny that the man has onions. Is he really following his Jesus snuff film “The Passion of the Christ” with a tale about the fall of the Mayan empire, spoken entirely in Mayan? And he’s paying for it himself? Do you need a wheelbarrow for those stones you’re carrying around, Detective Riggs?
But balls and money will only get you so far. There is no question that Gibson is a competent filmmaker – and he has the Oscar to prove it – but if anyone in Hollywood could use some guidance, it is surely Gibson, and “Apocalypto” suffers from not having that helping hand that he desperately needs. It’s too long, unnecessarily graphic, and surprisingly plot-free for a two hour-plus movie.
Some have gone on record as saying that the heavy metal documentary “Anvil: The Story of Anvil” is one of the funniest movies they’ve ever seen. From here, that is sheer schadenfraude. To find it hilarious, one would have to take joy in the band’s misfortune (of which there is a truckload), and anyone who does that is a) missing the point, and b) seriously messed up. There are some funny moments, yes, but the movie is more tragedy than comedy. If anything, “Anvil” is the mother of all underdog movies, and if you’re not cheering for these guys by movie’s end, then you simply have no soul.
On the surface, “Anonymous” appears to be a radical departure for director Roland Emmerich, who has made his bones destroying the world by way of natural disaster and alien invasion. Look closer, though, and you’ll see that “Anonymous” boasts many of the same qualities of his action-driven work. It’s bombastic, needlessly complex, and about as historically accurate as “2012” or “The Day After Tomorrow” are scientifically accurate (which is to say, not very). As a work of historical fiction, though, it’s quite entertaining, and Emmerich coaxes some remarkable performances from his cast. It’s all a bit ridiculous, yes, but one should never let facts get in the way of a good story.
Did you know that “Annapolis” is a boxing movie? Neither did I, until the movie started rolling. Is there any mention of that in the trailer of the TV ads, or are they all built around that “Officer and a Gentleman” nonsense? Was it the poor performance of “Cinderella Man” that convinced the studio to bury the boxing angle?
No matter, the movie isn’t any good either way. “Annapolis” takes way too many elements from the aforementioned Gere/Gossett movie, but that’s not its biggest problem. Its fatal flaw is that it doesn’t contain a hint of emotional depth, or give the viewer any reason to care a whit about the characters onscreen. David Collard, the movie’s screenwriter, must be a Vulcan.
If “Annabelle” had any sense of when to let up on the throttle, it could have been one of the truly great horror movies of the past few decades. Instead, it chooses to mentally exhaust the audience by turning every single thing on screen into a weapon of one form or another, and it ramps up the already unnecessary tension with sound work that turns a sewing machine into a thunderstorm. It makes sense, in a way: they’re trying to make the audience as paranoid as the protagonist, but the one thing that “The Conjuring,” the film in which evil doll Annabelle made her feature debut, did so well was balance the light with the dark. “Annabelle” is nothing but darkness, and a lot of that darkness is been-there-done-that darkness. Indeed, the story line is largely borrowed from “Rosemary’s Baby,” with nods to “The Omen,” “Witchboard,” and even “Poltergeist.” Those are good to great sources, but Annabelle deserved a story of her own, not one stitched together from the carcasses of others.
Much ado – about nothing, if you ask us – has been made about “Angels & Demons,” Dan Brown’s prequel to his worldwide smash “The Da Vinci Code,” on the grounds that the book is, like its predecessor, a full-on assault on Christianity. The truth is that the only assault the moviegoers will experience while watching the movie is the one on their gag reflex. This is a gruesome PG-13 movie, like “Da Vinci” with Jigsaw as the villain. Fortunately, the movie’s brisk pacing allows them to gloss over the movie’s shortcomings before the audience catches on. Fans of the book, however, will shake their heads when the credits roll. It’s well made, but five more minutes of back story would have done wonders.
They might make them faster and slicker now, but “An American Werewolf in London” is still one hell of a monster movie. Anyone considering making a horror movie today should take a look at what John Landis does here. The three leads have personality – the kids in modern-day horror movies are deathly serious and dull – and the main man in a position of authority is actually willing to listen to what the protagonists have to say. As a bonus, Landis injects a fair dose of comedy to keep things lively.
There are some amazing stories that have come from the ashes of the Iraq War, but so far, it appears that Kathryn Bigelow is the only person capable of making them pop on the big screen. Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper” has a whale of a protagonist, a carefree good ol’ boy who gave up his easy-going existence to serve his country and became one of the most decorated soldiers in American history. Sadly, the movie about his life does little to separate itself from its Iraq War movie brethren, save for the occasional moments where our hero has qualms about killing complete strangers. It is perfectly enjoyable, and it is well made, but it doesn’t bring anything new to the table. To add insult to injury, the off-camera ending feels like a cheat.
The 1990s have not enjoyed the level of nostalgia that people still bathe upon the ‘70s and ‘80s. Case in point: the fourth installment of the “Scream” franchise didn’t even make half as much as the third one (even though it’s much better), and that is including inflation. The decision to make another “American Pie” movie, then, was curious, to say the least. Yes, 2003’s “American Wedding,” the last official installment in the “American Pie” franchise (not including those “National Lampoon”-esque video sequels), made over $100 million, but is it anyone’s favorite movie? Even the 2001 sequel was pretty awful. Is anyone really asking for this movie?