Possession / *** (2002)

Freudian theories, as demonstrated in Neil LaBute's "Possession," have altered modern romance perhaps more dramatically than society cares to imagine. No longer is the mere essence of love the single most important thing about relationships or commitments; people dictate their lives according to fears and insecurities, pulling away when the chemistry gets intense or the passion escalates beyond their expectations. Lovers analyze and nitpick on minute details, emphasize things that need not to be stressed, and look for excuses not to completely devote themselves to romantic obligations. No, love isn't the entire package anymore; it's a mere detail.

Simone / ***1/2 (2002)

The line that divides reality from fantasy is so shattered like a flimsy pane of glass in Andrew Niccol's "Simone," not even a child could mistake it for being authentic. Crossing boundaries and suspending the simplest morsels of logic in nearly every single frame, the movie tells the story of a big Hollywood director whose career is on the downswing until a young and unknown blond actress cast in the lead role of his latest film captures the hearts of millions. The catch? She's a digital illusion, manipulated via microphones and keyboard commands almost as easily as I'm typing this review, who looks so real on the screen that it's as if special effects have advanced literally overnight, allowing computer-generated thespians to come across without ever being questioned for legitimacy. Show me proof that this is all possible and I'll show you where to stuff it.

XXX / *** (2002)

If the summer action blockbusters are only as good as their lead stars, then the filmmakers of "XXX" are lucky that they have a man like Vin Diesel at their disposal. In a movie which asks the audience to believe that a man can swipe a senator's car and drive it off a bridge without dying, prevent a diner from being taken hostage, elude Colombian government enforcers who think he's a drug lord, and save the world from nuclear war in just under two hours (in movie time, of course), the actor has to be defined by a rather monstrous physique, otherwise the film's plausibility is overridden by unconvincing scenarios in which stunt doubles on wires pretend to look like they're pulling off dangerous tricks on a blue screen. Luckily, Diesel is a large, muscular, firm and foreboding screen presence, ideal for these kinds of physically demanding movies just as the Greeks were for the early athletics. It's nearly impossible to imagine anyone else filling the role as believably as he does.

Signs / ***1/2 (2002)

Theories about extraterrestrials have been used for entertainment as far back as movie cameras have been in operation, sometimes being so relentlessly exercised that the novelty of the concept quickly and easily becomes just another cliché in most modern motion picture circuits. In the literal dawn of mankind's space exploration, however, concern with movie formula is traditionally suspended because of the countless unanswered questions that continue to result from our uncertainty, and audiences continue to flock to the multiplex in search of new ideas and assumptions on the topic. As fascinating as it all may be, however, we still can't forget that movies are not always the most accurate reflections of reality, either; although there is much room to speculate on what exists beyond the Earth's atmosphere, especially in art, there is only so many times an idea can be twisted and reshaped before it begins to lose its elasticity.

Austin Powers in Goldmember / *** (2002)

There is a moment towards the beginning of "Austin Powers in Goldmember" when our unlikely British hero is being pursued by a helicopter down a stretch of desert highway, being shot at by fast air rifles. In the literal blink of an eye, he ejects himself from his vehicle, the appropriately named "Shaguar," and proceeds to flip behind the airborne enemy, where he shoots it until it explodes. The audience is baffled and disheartened by this seemingly serious battle sequence... until he turns around and reveals his true identity. The opening joke is so precious and rare that I won't dare reveal the punchline here. We've often been treated to this precious kinds of jokes throughout the series, but few times have they been so energetic and hilarious.

The Country Bears / *1/2 (2002)

If the childhood fantasy that animals can talk continues to inspire the moviemakers at Disney, then "The Country Bears" represents a very serious error in judgment. Most of us have delved into the possibilities of our wild neighbors having the intellect and characteristics of normal human beings, but seldom have we imagined them looking so ferocious or foreboding as they appear to be in this screen treatment. Based on the famous Country Bear Jamboree attraction at Walt Disney World, here is a movie all about concept and nothing about forethought; it walks and talks like an endearing fable, bankrupt of the realization that it can be creepy and unsettling on the eyes.

Pumpkin / * (2002)

If society was allowed to function the way that the characters in "Pumpkin" do, life would be a series of "Leave it to Beaver" reruns in which your identity was decided by how plastic and shallow you could be. With such thoroughly calculated ineptitude, the movie imbeds these traits into the film's players the instant they arrive on screen, saturating their psyches in all the familiar sitcom traits until they're too far gone to be saved. But this rather devastating property is only a small clue as to what horror the movie truly volunteers, and by the time the film reaches its final act, most of us are too limp from frustration to even care what happens next.

Stuart Little 2 / *** (2002)

There is immediate difficulty for people, like me, who go into "Stuart Little 2" without having seen so much as a frame of the first film (or for that matter, without having read a single line from the famous children's book by E.B. White, who also created "Charlotte's Web"). How do you approach the experience? What is required of those of us who have no foreknowledge whatsoever about the already-established subject matter we are confronted with? And furthermore, are we in an unfair position to judge a film on its merits when the foundation for the plot was anchored in an earlier movie that we have yet to see?

Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course / **1/2 (2002)

To have the kind of personality that is imbedded in Steve Irwin's psyche is to wrestle with death on a daily basis. The notorious and audacious "Crocodile Hunter," as he is known on his Animal Planet series, is the kind of spirited by troublesome guy that most of our parents warned us about when we were young: the seemingly insane individual who always acted on impulse but never thought about the potential consequences until it was too late. On a weekly basis, Irwin, along with his wife, descends perilously into the murky habitats of wildlife, exploring creatures and their characteristics so thoroughly and profusely that their own lives are sometimes placed on the line. His passion for nature is also a personal war, and though it's hard not to be charmed by the guy's crazy and sometimes hilarious methods, it's also hard not to wonder if he's ever suffered some kind of brain damage.

Road to Perdition / *** (2002)

There is something strangely amiss about Sam Mendes' "Road to Perdition" that prevents me from calling it one of the year's best films, and I'm not even sure what that one thing is. No, it's not the premise nor is it the resulting story that builds from it. No, it's not the casting or the acting. It certainly isn't the cinematography or film editing, either; in fact, those two elements are so plausible and effective here that it would be easy to justify the movie getting major Oscar nominations. The more I think about what so irked me about this interesting and well-crafted drama, the more it frustrates. In either case, it's obvious that when one sees this long-awaited vehicle starring Tom Hanks and Paul Newman, chances are they will admire what they see, even though they'll hardly be completely absorbed.

Reign of Fire / ** (2002)

There is a great concept lost somewhere inside the ruckus that is "Reign of Fire," struggling so hard to materialize that its level of energy dwindles before the first half hour is even finished. Sandwiched in a realm when interesting myth clashes with modern society to result in an apocalyptic future, the premise is as inspired and distinctive as those in summer blockbusters come, compelling and ironic and yet not too devious on the audience's intelligence. And yet with all that promise backing the setup, a wall of resistance is built that refuses to lead us to some kind of worthwhile payoff. The movie is cold, miscalculated and hollow, and aside from a few isolated scenes of genuine excitement, it's also rather dreary.

Strangers on a Train / **** (1951)

Bruno is the kind of guy who just can't take a hint. He persists like an obnoxious adolescent with undeniable charm, pouncing at seemingly perfect moments but failing to distinguish importance from irrelevance in most of his actions. When he takes those qualities with him aboard a train and meets up with a famed tennis player, he diligently swings things in his direction. He provokes conversation, milks information out of his victim, suggests wild and lurid ideas, and carefully acquires items that will keep him linked to the prey throughout the inevitable ordeal. Wild and crazy he may be, but stupid he is not.

Minority Report / ***1/2 (2002)

Steven Spielberg's "Minority Report" is a critical essay lurched underneath Hollywood tradition, a visionary and thought-provoking story that could have easily been one of the greatest pictures ever made had it not caved in to movie formula during the crucial final scenes. For a rock-solid two hours, the director of some of cinema's biggest masterpieces sends us headfirst into a nightmarish, unforgettable landscape that is clotted by elaborate technology, cutting edge law enforcement, elite government officials and fragmented personal identities. During that space of time, there is even a point when we ask ourselves if Spielberg has finally mastered a genre that he has so often tested himself in over the years (first with "E.T. - The Extra Terrestrial" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," later with "A.I. - Artificial Intelligence"). Those hopes, unfortunately, are blind-sighted when the film takes its last steps onto a familiar piece of moviemaking ground, which insists that completely explained endings in science fiction are better suited for audiences than ones which leave a lot of the details up to speculation. Literal translation: the filmmakers can't trust an audience with evidence, even when there's enough of it to support their own individual interpretations.

Science Fiction's greatest honored in the OFCS's first top 100 movies list

June 10, 2002

I have usually considered myself a less-than-cooperative participant in the past to vote-ins associated with lists like the "100 best or worst of the century," but when it came to my attention that the Online Film Critics Society, a gathering of more than a hundred professional (and influential) film critics which I happen to be part of, was putting together a list of the greatest Science Fiction movies ever made, something in the darkest corner of my mind jump-started an engine of enthusiasm. Each of us group members were asked to submit a list of our favorite 25 sci-fi endeavors, all of which would be tallied and combined to a final list of 100. A simple request like this might have easily gone over the head of a busy critic, but the society's governing committee persisted in getting everyone's contributions, sending out e-mail reminders at a pace that would only add weight to the importance of participation. For the society as a whole, everyone's involvement would have sent a message about how deeply everyone cared about the group they were affiliated with. But coming through on these requests was only partly about participating as a team; for some of us, like myself, it was more about the opportunity to connect with a specific division of cinema that is often the gateway for the biggest and brightest imaginations.

Summer 2002: A Look Ahead

June 7, 2002

The June-to-August period is usually the busiest of the year at the local multiplex, but long lines and sold-out showings began popping up in during the first weeks of May as studios decided to jump-start the season of movie blockbusters by unleashing their endeavors before anyone else had a chance to. This year, that theory expanded to include the last weeks of April as well—Universal's "The Scorpion King" triggered a new wave of enthusiasm at theaters that has only strengthened turnouts since. In fact, this last May was the biggest record-breaker on history; in addition to groundbreaking profits racked up by major blockbusters like "Spider-Man" and "Star Wars Episode II - Attack of the Clones," the month also saw the biggest overall turnout in history, in which the top ten films at the box office ranked in over $200 million a Friday-to-Sunday period, the most ever for one weekend.