Frailty / **** (2002)

The laws of the serial killer movie have usually obeyed patterns much like those of the serial killers themselves, fitting a profile that is easily navigated by an audience but seldom too routine to come off as mundane. Think of this daunting task from the perspective of a federal agent; in the genre, he/she is responsible for piecing together a mystery in which the pieces are scattered in familiar ways, but always lead to less obvious outcomes. The same can almost always be said for the cinematic endeavor; movies in this vein open with the discovery of the killer's latest casualty, continue with scenes from the point of view of the murderer and/or victims, escalate into a cat-and-mouse mystery game, and ultimately end with unforeseen (but satisfying) jolts. Of course, not all films about these things can be called successful, but compared it to similar film genres and the result is not exactly a horrendous one, either.

Panic Room / ***1/2 (2002)

David Fincher is one of those directors whose cabalistic forte is an acquired taste for most audiences, and though that distinction makes him more susceptible to being separated from the consensus of Hollywood's greatest living filmmakers, few of his detractors can so easily admit to not having a slight interest in his newest endeavors.

That's the first notion that comes to mind with his latest film "Panic Room," a thriller that follows his consistently rocky road established by the likes of "Seven" and "Fight Club." We're fully aware of the tricky antics and eccentric techniques Fincher is capable of behind the camera, but it's hard not to be somewhat intrigued by the effort, even if it's just brief.

Blade II / *** (2002)

The audience owes a certain amount of respect to movie vampires, who were born in Hollywood's golden age and have managed to survive in a time when their essence has veered from original to routine. Few big-screen creatures can claim the distinction of persisting as long, and though we tend to dismiss the mighty bloodsuckers as walking clichés as of late, we still find ourselves embracing their existence, ignoring potential forewarnings in the often-misguided hopes that they can recapture their inventive potency.

We Were Soldiers / ** (2002)

As hard as it may seem, the big budget Hollywood war film is on an unfortunate fast track to becoming the latest casualty of overexposure, joining the ranks of gross-out comedies and teen slashers as a once-elusive idea that rapidly settles in as a cliché. What's most unsettling about this conclusion is the fact that unlike other genres suffering from overkill, the war movie is timely and valuable to our society as a whole, representing the immediate wounds inflicted by gut-wrenching battle that, in ways, can be more damaging than rewarding to the nations who engage in it. Countless major movie studios, alas, now only see the financial potential of ideas like this, and are undermining the essence of it all with endeavors watered down to a routine level.

Oscars 2002: From The Director's Chair...

March 15, 2002

Hollywood's biggest night of the year is slowly but surely creeping up on us movie fans, fueling lengthy discussions about not just the year's most recognized motion picture achievements, but movies, awards and celebrities in general. It is a time of widespread anxiety for the film industry, clouded by uncertain outcomes and saturated with speculation. And those who have the potential of being called into the spotlight to accept an Oscar no doubt quiver with fear and excitement.

Oscars 2002: Winner Predictions

March 15, 2002

Any avid moviegoer will tell you how the attempt to make predictions of Oscar victors has become a coveted American pastime, but few of them will be able to express in words how addictive, frustrating and time consuming it actually is. That concept has never been more apparent than this year, as a careful look over the 74th Academy Awards voting ballot is an instant invitation to hours of piercing headaches.

The elaborate guessing game that tends to befuddle even the most successful predictors is even more of an obstacle this time around than it has been in years past. In recent memory, viewers, critics and analysts could at least depend on "weak spots" (or nominees who seemed susceptible to being forgotten) in major categories to help narrow their predictions down. Now, in a year when five seemingly invulnerable pictures have been grouped in the ceremony's most coveted category, the opportunity to close the gap has become much more difficult.

Collateral Damage / *1/2 (2002)

The subject of terrorism has been an immensely demanding subject on our minds ever since two commercial flights crashed into the World Trade Center last September, tearing an open wound into the foundation of the American dream and pulling the nation in to a widespread fire that has plagued this Earth for hundreds of years. In the time since that tragedy, many of us have tried hard to understand the warped logic behind those associated with such heinous attacks: what motivates them, what are their long-term goals, and most importantly, what do they gain from acting out so violently. Of course, the answers are nowhere near simple, and though the government has set itself the goal of crumbling the intricate terrorist networks in the Middle East, chances are these kinds of catastrophic attacks on humanity will go on long after most of us are gone.

Resident Evil / *1/2 (2002)

The adaptations of popular video games to major motion pictures is one of the biggest transitional curses of the modern cinema, and effort that is incessantly crushed by the fact that that screenwriters are too afraid to expand on ideas that the games themselves barely scratch the surface of. Consider last summer's ambitious retelling of the "Tomb Raider" computer game craze; it was flashy, ambitious and sometimes amusing, but the small plot, as with the source material itself, was simply an excuse to throw us in to countless sequences in which creatures are shot up and the hero of the story moves on to the next level, waiting for new dangers. At least with video games, we at least have control of the action. When it comes to the cinematic equivalent, it feels like we're simply observers of players who visit the same levels over and over again without making any progress.

Snow Dogs / 1/2* (2002)

When the lights go down in the theater that is showing "Snow Dogs," the mind is immediately flooded with prospects of "Cats and Dogs"-style animal effects, in which normal four-legged pets are effortlessly warped into english-speaking intellects with an edge on cunning behavior and witty reasoning. Such a perspective has been used as the primary advertising tool behind this live action Disney vehicle, but like so many campaigns of the recent past from the infamous Mouse House, the delivery is more deceitful than valid. In fact, the movie contains only one major scene featuring animals engaging in human discussion, and it's strictly a dream sequence, lifted from a story centered on not charm or amusement, but cringe-worthy standards and feel-good tones that could pass off as leftover treats from Disney's recent past live action endeavors. No, this isn't even a movie we can enjoy as mild escapism; it is one in which fear and frustration are provoked to intolerable levels.

Slackers / Zero Stars (2002)

The success of comedy ultimately depends on a movie's ability to find a core audience, but if most moviegoers have any kind of stable brain function, they'll make sure they don't become part of the warped, dimwitted circle of viewers who have been targeted for "Slackers," the latest in a never-ending series of teen gross-out comedies executed with the emphasis on perverted sexual antics. Lowering the bar of bad taste to a level achieved previously only by Tom Green with "Freddy Got Fingered," the movie is nasty, reprehensible, shallow and lazy, pulling off its material in a manner that results not in laughs, but in groans of agony. And the movie's not even bright enough to at least see the potential of a sense of humor amidst all its meandering. Its only interest is in grossing us out, simply for the sake of being gross.

Oscars 2002: Nominee Predictions

February 8, 2002

Imagine what goes through the mind of an Academy member during the first few weeks of the new year.

He or she is required to process the last 12 months of movie releases in order to coherently fill out their ballots for the upcoming Academy Award nominations, a feat that can be rather difficult if the prior year was a cinematically potent one. Just what do they think of the material released in 2001, though? Are the best movie choices clear? Is there a lack of decent material to nominate? And what will they remember (or forget) when it comes time to turn in their final ballots?

Impostor / * (2002)

"Impostor" plays like the latest defunct exertion from a failing film student, who knows so little about how to craft a respectable product out of interesting material that the recipient doesn't even anticipate a result with anything higher than a C grade. The movie looks, walks, and thinks like a not-too-distant cousin of "Supernova," opening with a stab of promise that quickly dissipates once you realize where things are beginning to head. It's not saying much to begin with that the picture was released at the most thankless time of the year--the first week of January, a dumping ground for studio mistakes—but even with this factor in mind, director Gary Fleder still manages to unleash an endeavor that teeters far below his own ability as a filmmaker (even though it wasn't that high to begin with). His picture is unworthy of a release beyond the direct-to-video market; it doesn't even deserve to carry a title with more than one syllable.

Mulholland Drive / **** (2001)

The psyche of director David Lynch is one that has puzzled many a moviegoer ever since his first big feature, "Blue Velvet," writhed its way onto movie screens more than 15 years ago. Exercising an unorthodox demeanor in his approach to the cinema, Lynch is a rambling sensationalist behind the camera, suspending logic and reason for ambiguity and indecisiveness as sanctioned plot devices. The outcomes of his efforts aren't always plausible (more often than not, this perplexing angle appears to be rather self-absorbed on his part), but to a degree they fascinate and absorb us, sometimes so immensely that we feel like we've unfairly been coaxed into a position that we would ordinarily not want to be part of.

Orange County / 1/2* (2002)

Despite the fact that we are only three weeks into the 2002 movie season, it already appears that we are heading into the midst of a long, dreadful string of second-rate film releases over the next few months.

The recent sudden catastrophe at the movie theater, a common occurrence every year as studios wrap up the releases of their Oscar contenders, began two weeks ago with "Impostor," a sci-fi film conceived in the vein of "Battlefield Earth." Now comes "Orange County," a situational comedy in which the only funny thing is the fact that decent human beings allowed themselves to be associated with it.

Rollerball / zero stars (2002)

As movie theaters slowly but surely toss aside the remnants of the 2001 award contenders, we as a defensive moviegoeing public continue to be subjected to a relentless batch of massive cinematic mistakes, a deed that normally occurs in the first four months of every new year as movie studios attempt to wipe their slate clear of any major errors of the past. Audiences already know the painful experience of witnessing this year's notable travesties—including "Orange County," "Impostor" and the recent "Slackers"—and will undoubtedly keep their defenses up as we sleepwalk our way towards a (hopefully) brighter future at the multiplex.