 |
Commentary
by Julia Dudnik-Ptasznik:
“Van
Helsing” (2004)
Director: Stephen
Sommers
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale,
Richard Roxburgh, David Wenham
Rating:
(2/5) |
| Beckinsale. Hugh Jackman. Photos
by Frank Masi. Castle Dracula.
Photo by Illusion Arts. All images
courtesy of and copyright Universal
Studios. |
Gabriel Van Helsing (Jackman), the 19th
century most sought after monster hunter,
is sent to Transylvania to rid the world
of Count Dracula (Roxburgh). This is to
be accomplished with the help of almost-monk
Carl (Wenham) and Anna (Beckinsale), whose
family has spent centuries fighting evil.
While we seem to have infinite capacity
to watch Dracula die over and over and over
again, the “been there, done that”
feeling is overwhelming during this production,
mainly because films based on such a familiar
premise must work that much harder to be
entertaining. Here, the plot is too convoluted—combining
elements of at least a dozen classic stories
and elaborating each past the point of recognition—and
the ending so wildly contrived that the
story itself is of no interest whatsoever.
And then there is the acting—or lack
thereof. Beckinsale (“Brokedown Palace,”
1999; “Underworld,” 2003) and
Jackman (“Swordfish,” 2001;
“X-Men” trilogy, 2000, 2003,
2006) have impressed audiences in the past,
but “Van Helsing” doesn’t
provide either with an opportunity to do
anything but look pretty. This borders on
offensive in Beckinsale’s case, as
her attire is suitable for none of the impressive
acrobatics her character performs, reducing
her presence in the film to the basic Hollywood
need to show us as much tits and ass as
humanly possible. The script is so poorly
written that the only person who inspires
laughter (of the right kind, that is) is
Carl, a character that seems to have been
written in a homage to Bond’s Q.
The movie is certainly beautiful, in every
sense. In the best traditions of the horror
genre, it opens with an incredible sequence
shot in black and white. Impressive digital
effects, stunning shots of nature, and vintage
horror gore complete the package that, overall,
remains just a pretty picture created with
form over substance in mind. —J.D-P.
|
|
“Down
with Love” (2003)
Director:
Peyton Reed
Starring: Renée Zellweger, Ewan
McGregor, Sarah Paulson, David Hyde
Pierce
Rating:
(5/5) |
| McGregor with Zellweger. Pierce with
McGregor. Photos by Merrick Morton,
courtesy of and copyright Twentieth
Century Fox. |
McGregor’s same-year performance
in “Big Fish” met with such
critical acclaim that it was easy to overlook
the smaller production that was “Down
with Love,” but he and Zellweger absolutely
shine here. Equally adept at the most serious
of drama and the quirkiest of comedy, the
pair brings depth and enjoyment to the screen
in a way reminiscent of Rock Hudson and
Doris Day.
Set in the 60s, “Down with Love”
is a story of a womanizing journalist, Catcher
Block (McGregor), and the author of a soon-to-be-published
“how to” book, Barbara Novak
(Zellweger), who has devised a way for women
to have sex “a la carte,” without
emotional attachments. When Novak’s
book is published, Block is assigned to
write a cover story on the author—but
he is too busy bopping every flight attendant
he meets to actually make it to a meeting
with Novak. However, when Down with Love
becomes an astronomical success, Block can
no longer get near Novak and has to get
creative to get her story.
The plot is masterful; it manages to twist
and turn in a way most contemporary thrillers
should note, yet remains light and playful
throughout. The art direction and cinematography
are superb; “Down with Love”
captures the colorful, happy 1960s America
with a nostalgic sentimentality, gently
poking fun at the women’s movement
without judgment.
Superb performances complete this rare
treat. McGregor’s natural charm helps
create a character that is both obnoxious
and appealing. Zellweger fans may remember
her similarly comedic performance in the
unexpectedly charming “Nurse Betty”
(2000)—she is equally dizzy as Barbara
Novak… or is she? David Hyde Pierce
(television’s Frasier) is phenomenally
neurotic as Catcher’s boss and best
friend. All in all, this flick is among
the best recent installments in the “light
entertainment” category. —J.D-P.
|
|
“Gothika”
(2003)
Director:
Mathieu Kassovitz
Starring: Halle Berry, Charles Dutton,
Penélope Cruz, Charles Dutton,
Robert Downey Jr.
Rating:
(3/5) |
| Penélope Cruz with Halle
Berry. Charles Dutton with Halle Berry.
Robert Downey Jr. All photos by
Attila Dory, courtesy and copyright
Warner Bros. Ent. |
I buy Halle Berry as a prison shrink about
as much as I bought Denise Richards as a nuclear
physicist (“The World Is Not Enough,”
1999). Yet “Gothika” has a few
redeeming qualities: It is sleek, well-funded
and nicely shot, even if it does contain too
many instances of gratuitous scares that would
have Hitchcock turning in his grave. Berry
also deserves credit for nearly overcoming
the implausibility of her appearance with
a consistent performance as a doctor turned
amnesiac homicidal patient in the psychiatric
ward of a maximum-security prison.
Imprisoned for a murder she can’t
remember committing, Halle’s character
must solve the mystery from behind bars.
If only her part were better written…
The plot just doesn’t make it; about
two-thirds into the film, you realize that
whatever surprising, novel turn you had
been waiting for simply is not coming. The
“vengeful ghost” premise is
tired enough, and “Gothika,”
while taking a slightly different approach
to this general concept, fails to make it
any more entertaining than the run-of-the-mill
possession stories that grace the early
morning hours of cable television. Worse
yet, the movie poses some interesting psychological
and spiritual questions, but doesn’t
bother to actually address any of them in
its over two hours of time.
And there is more. Robert Downey Jr. is
billed alongside Berry on all “Gothika”-related
promotions, yet his character’s on-screen
time is nearly as short as Jack Nicholson’s
famed five minutes in “A Few Good
Men” (1992)—and nowhere near
as remarkable. If anything, it makes one
wonder as to the point of casting a veteran
in a role that doesn’t require any
skill. Much the same can be said of Penelope
Cruz’s character in terms of impact;
while we get to see more of Cruz’s
pretty face, the script doesn’t really
require her to do much acting—all
of which leaves Berry holding the bag alone,
and as hard as she tries, “Monster’s
Ball” convincing she is not. —J.D-P. |
|
“The
Haunted Mansion” (2003)
Director:
Rob Minkoff
Starring: Eddie Murphy, Terence Stamp,
Nathaniel Parker, Marsha Thomason, Jennifer
Tilly
Rating:
(1/5) |
| The gang meets the butler. Eddie
Murphy with Jennifer Tilly. Terence
Stamp as the shady butler. Images
courtesy of and copyright Disney Enterprises,
Inc. |
When did the once king of profanity and biting
urban humor become the king of family entertainment?
Eddie Murphy’s early roles in “48
Hours” (1982; sequel in 1990), “Trading
Places” (1983) and “The Golden
Child” (1986) were a neat follow-up
to his work on television’s Saturday
Night Live and his own stand-up routines.
The paradigm shift to the lighter fare of
“The Nutty Professor” (1996),
“Doctor Doolittle” (1998) and
the likes was unexpected, although deservedly
well received. Murphy proved to be no less
funny despite the rigid PG-13 rules, with
one box office hit after another.
Yet “The Haunted Mansion” is
a complete and total miss. The movie is
based on an amusement park ride, similar
to the same year’s “Pirates
of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black
Pearl,” which pulled off this concept
much more successfully. “The Haunted
Mansion” sports beautiful sets and
equally impressive visual effects but gets
stuck in the general vicinity of eye candy
due to a poorly crafted plot and sub-par
acting.
Instead of taking the family on a promised
outing, realtor Jim Evers (Murphy) drags
his neglected wife Sarah (Thomason) and
two children to an historic manor in the
hopes of a huge real estate commission.
There, the gang discovers evidence of a
long-ago tragedy and must find the answers
while contending with the host’s unhealthy
affection for the mother, the butler’s
(Stamp) obviously shady motives, and a sizeable
quantity of otherworldly beings like ghosts,
talking crystal ball heads and singing statues.
As the movie progresses toward the formulaic
ending, all relationship problems are resolved
with speed and efficiency that would make
the family therapist profession obsolete.
The attempt at fairy tale romance is quite
sad, mainly because Marsha Thomason fails
to take a step in a believable fashion—much
less carry the lead, as this script would
have her do by focusing mainly on the character
of the wife. Murphy’s antics are unobjectionable
but diminished by the annoying children
characters and plot twists that couldn’t
surprise a five-year-old. Regrettably, the
considerable abilities of Terence Stamp
and Jennifer Tilly are plain wasted on characters
written without depth. Move along, ladies
and gentlemen—there is nothing to
see here, unless you are interested in the
sets. —J.D-P.
|
|
“The
Medallion” (2003)
Director:
Gordon Chan
Starring: Jackie Chan, Lee Evans, Claire
Forlani, Julian Sands
Rating:
(2/5) |
| Claire Forlani with Jackie Chan.
Julian Sands as the evil Snakehead.
Images courtesy of and copyright
Screen Gems. |
Stunningly beautiful and successful British
women in their early thirties routinely
fall for aging Chinese men who are barely
conversant in English. If that sentiment
rings true, you might actually like “The
Medallion,” which pairs the usually
more appropriately cast Jackie Chan with
Claire Forlani (“Meet Joe Black,”
1998)—and that’s not even the
bad news.
If it were better written, the plot could
have been plausible in a mystical, childhood
fairy tail kind of way. Eddie (Chan) is
a Hong Kong cop who has a fatal accident
but is resurrected and endowed with superhuman
powers with the help of a mysterious medallion.
Together with Interpol agent and former
fling Nicole (Forlani), Eddie must protect
the medallion from those who’d misuse
its powers. Unfortunately, the “good
vs. evil” formula is supported by
painfully dull dialogue and predictable
yet illogical plot twists, losing all of
its potential appeal in the process.
Chan fans will be disappointed to see their
hero showing signs of aging by moving away
from his trademark—fighting scenes
made unique by Chan doing all of his own
stunt work—towards ubiquitous use
of digital effects. While competently executed,
“The Medallion” feels like a
video game, instantly becoming passé—after
“The Matrix,” its sequels, and
the herd of wannabes that followed, it’s
rather hard to wow today’s audiences
with spiffy graphics alone. Further, Chan
doesn’t possess the appeal of a macho
action hero; he’s more of a good-natured
family entertainer who comes across as out
of place in both digital and romantic environments.
His comedic partnerships with the likes
of Owen Wilson (“Shanghai Noon,”
“Shanghai Knights,” 2000 and
2003) and Jennifer Love Hewitt (“The
Tuxedo,” 2002) have been much more
successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|