The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
I walked into The Emperor's New Groove expecting another formulaic Disney movie. I came out giddy with joy.
For all of the craftsmanship of this year's smash family movie Chicken Run, The Emperor's New Groove is ten times funnier and more creative. It's one of the year's... uh... the year's best... NO! I can't make myself say it! It's a Disney movie! Aren't Disney movies just predictable, made-for-marketing, and drenched in sentiment?
Sentimentality has slowly swallowed storytelling in Disney animated features since The Little Mermaid. It hasn't been all bad. Aladdin had some inspired sequences. Tarzan had some dizzying animation. The Lion King had strong mythic backbone, but stumbled into touchy-feely sermons on "the circle of life". And Pocahontas had... uh... nothing at all.
Disney's remarkable tradition has been dying a slow death. Think back to the glory days. 101 Dalmatians. Pinocchio. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. The focus there was on classic storytelling told with imagination and skill. But in the 90s, Disney movies were more about an Elton John theme song or a Robin Williams vocal performance than about a good story.
Well, surprise surprise surprise. Miracles can still happen at Disney studios.
Disney's least-promoted, least-marketable movie in years has arrived... The Emperor's New Groove. Early buzz was bad, as word got out that it was a barely-salvaged movie that had originally been intended as a major epic along the lines of The Lion King. Lo and behold, it's the most entertaining, perhaps the best, Disney movie in more than a decade. And there's barely a shred of sentimentality in the whole thing.
Director Mark Dindal keeps this movie moving at an exhilarating pace. Groove introduces us to Emperor Kuzco (David Spade), a sarcastic, prideful emperor who likes to flaunt his power and outrage his peasant workers. Soon after he decides to build a swimming pool on the site of a loyal peasant family's home, he finds himself the victim of a revenge plot enacted by a former employee, the nasty villain Yzma (Eartha Kitt). Yzma, with the help of her boneheaded bodyguard Kronk (the booming voice of Patrick Warburton), plants a potion in the king's drink in hopes of killing him. The potion goes wrong, and the Emperor is now a llama.
Kronk tries to dispose of the Emperor Llama, but loses track of him, and soon the llama's life is in the hands of the peasant family that he was about to displace. Pacha (John Goodman) is a lumbering good-hearted shepherd who wants to teach the Emperor some humbling lessons before helping him find the cure to his curse. When evil Yzma finds out the Emperor is still alive, the chase is on.
Plot is almost secondary in this movie. Comic timing is its masterstroke. Lickety-split banter between brilliantly conceived characters, chase scenes that leave you breathless with laughter and surprise, and how-will-they-get-out-of-this-one predicaments that pay off in the end... this is a whole new ballgame for Disney.
The characters are all unforgettable, thanks to their designers and voice talents. Kuzco is the most worthwhile thing David Spade's ever done. He's mean-spirited and cynical, but you can sense a likable guy under all that guff (and all that hair.) Eartha Kitt's superhuman vocal performance as the villain is a hoot. Yzma may resemble Cruella DeVille and Madame Medusa, but she's more fun to watch than either of them, and where she ends up in the end...well I won't tell, but it's NOT where the villain usually goes in a Disney movie. Kronk is the movie's unintentional center, a man of baffling moral dilemmas that are fought by his "shoulder angel" and "shoulder devil". His astounding stupidity is equaled only by his self-confidence and charm. Kronk is my favorite Disney character since...uh...Evinrude of The Rescuers.
The animators seem determined to keep the audience guessing. You never know what you'll find around any particular corner. Lost in the jungle, the llama-king must obviously avoid jaguars and quicksand, but who knew that the greatest threat of all is a temperamental squirrel? Occasionally the movie freeze-frames so the llama can make some remarks about the progress of the story. And conventions, like tracking the progress of characters' travel across a map, are cleverly altered for good laughs.
Best of all, there is not a single sappy Oscar-begging pop song. There's only a Tom Jones show tune that firmly establishes Kuzco's character. Disney studios finally had mercy on us. Apparently this was a last-minute decision. Poor poor Sting, who wrote five or six songs for the film, saw them cut from the final product. That was unfortunate for him, and he has every right to go after Disney for unfair play, but it's good news for us that the movie is so mercifully uninterrupted. I like Sting's music, but I'm glad it didn't trip up the pace of this film. Besides, he does get to sing the end-credits anthem, and it's a pleasant soundtrack for those who stay to read the names of the people who made this film such a shockingly fun time at the movies.
Some may find that Groove is so in-your-face outrageous, so over-the-top, that it falls short of oldies like Lady and the Tramp. They're right. The Emperor's New Groove feels more like a movie-length Ren and Stimpy episode than it does Lady and the Tramp. But I'd rather see Kuzco the half-crazed llama than another uninteresting lovesick hero whose parents have died and who must find his place in the circle of life and then throw the villain from a high place to his death. We've suffered that tired old story enough. No more independent young heroines yearning for love, no more baby animals lost in the woods. This time, for the first time in ages, Disney has sung a new song. Rejoice.
I am astonished to find myself calling this... okay, I'm going to say it... one of my favorite films of the year.
A Mighty Wind (2003)
Christopher Guest’s commitment to “mockumentaries” about community events is a curious thing.
All three of his semi-improvisational films — Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show, and now A Mighty Wind — have explored and celebrated the strange behaviors of human beings as they prepare for a public spectacle. He choreographs comical collisions of ego and inanity, and the results usually cause us to wince, laugh, and groan. And somehow, in the midst of inspired improvisation, he strikes resonant notes of insight regarding ambition, dreams, and the ugliness behind the deceiving facade of show business.
In Guffman, it was a small community theatre fumbling their way through a mediocre pageant, convinced of their excellence and admirable in their dedication.
Best in Show drew dog enthusiasts to display their pride and joy on the runway of a dog show, only to reveal that the owners were stranger by far than their dogs, rather blind to their own ugly egos and curious affectations.
Both of these revealed a glow of heroism in the most humble of characters, a stench of wickedness in the most narrow-mindedly driven. Show business is on everybody's mind, but what about their hearts? Their hearts can be found where their treasure is.
A Mighty Wind “documents” the revivals of a few folk music acts from the late '60s for a nostalgia-fest prepared for public television. They gather to honor the memory of a pioneering folk musician, Irving Steinbloom, who has recently passed away. His children, three contentious adults with a feeble appreciation for their father’s work, see an opportunity to honor him, and so they strike up a deal with public television and New York’s Town Hall to put on a “Down from the Mountain”-like program.
Of course, this is Christopher Guest-land, a world as quirky as the Coen Brothers’, where blind spots, handicaps, and weaknesses are exaggerated to make us see ourselves in them, so we can laugh... not in a mean-spirited, superior way but in a way that highlights our common flaws.
Unfortunately, Guest’s impressive improvisational cast go for the easy punchline too often this time. There’s nothing wrong with a good bawdy joke… but that’s just the problem. Much of Mighty Wind's humor is not particularly clever; it descends too quickly and too frequently into revelations of promiscuity, pornographic dalliances, and other crass misbehavior. Where Guffman and Best found hilarious comedy in chaotic collisions of fractured personalities, in accidents, capers, and outrageous stories, Mighty Wind boasts only a few moments of inspired chaos.
Nevertheless, when Mighty Wind gusts, it leaves the viewer unexpectedly shaken. The songs are all wonderful, tongue-in-cheek and yet performed with passion and skill. (Look for the soundtrack, produced by the great T-Bone Burnett, on DMZ records.)
Eugene Levy and Catherine O’Hara stand apart from a cast of goofy personalities, creating a folk music duo who actually win our hearts. We care about them and want them to succeed and rediscover some of the "magic" they reminisce about. Levy has never been so wacky and O'Hara turns in what may be the best performance of her career, showing off far more range and depth than the rest of the cast have opportunity to demonstrate.
Levy and O'Hara play Mitch and Mickey, a pair who supposedly struck a chord with audiences in the late 60s by personifying romance in their lovey-dovey harmonized duets. After their breakup, Mitch spiraled downward into a mental catastrophe. He now stares out blankly from his mop of tousled hair, looking as if he is subjected to hourly blows to the head. He stammers as if it requires severe effort to complete a coherent thought, as if speaking gives him abdominal cramps. Likewise, Mickey is a shadow of her former self, prone to waxing nostalgic as she stares into the past and that long-lost, brief-but-passionate relationship she and Mitch once shared. She has deteriorated into the bored, sad, fidgety wife of a man who sells bladder-control equipment to elderly people by day and fiddles with his model trains by night. Their marriage is the antithesis of the romantic ideal manifested in the Mitch and Mickey tunes now available only on dusty old vinyl.
Levy and O’Hara steal the show as suspense builds for their onstage reunion, and the question rises of whether their moments in the spotlight will spark any of their old fire. What I anticipated would become some sort of culminating catastrophe becomes instead a moment of surprising grace and sadness.
The rest of the cast is fun but frivolous. Ed Begley, Jr. earns some laughs as Lars Olfen, a folk-music-loving Norwegian with a fondness for Yiddish who uses his clout as a public television executive to get the festival on the air. Bob Balaban is hilariously annoying as Steinbloom’s anal-retentive son, the “idea man” behind the event. Jennifer Coolidge and Fred Willard deliver the movie's sharpest zingers during brief but inspired performances. Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, and Christopher Guest who made such a memorable noise in This is Spinal Tap! earn some grins as “The Folksmen.” Parker Posey positively glows as the overly enthusiastic new life in an anachronistic supergroup. And in what amounts to a cameo, Michael Hitchcock makes the Town Hall manager a memorable loony.
Unfortunately, several characters that show great promise remain undeveloped. Guest, who is usually the highlight of his own films, holds himself back. Other familiar faces like Larry Miller (Best in Show) and Bill Cobbs (Sunshine State, The Hudsucker Proxy) are introduced and then promptly disappear for the remainder of the film. Were their scenes just so flat that they ended up cut from the final film?
I have great admiration for Guest’s insistence on improvisation. He works with such inspired comics that their on-the-spot interactions are often funnier and more convincing than the best scripted comedy. But even the most talented artists have an off day, and you can feel that for all of the effort put forth in A Mighty Wind, they just never struck the comic gold that dominated the earlier films. The comedy engine is humming, but it stays at a low idle and never fully kicks into gear.
I come away wondering what it is that draws Guest to this theme again and again, from This is Spinal Tap to this, its folky cousin. They explore such a familiar theme — the glory of youthful days, when talent flourished, dreams were big, when hard work led to something memorable, when romance and passion ran hot.
But he is also preoccupied with characters past their prime, doomed to dream of days gone by. I do not sense the films leading us to any insights about how such a sorry fate can be avoided. But I think we can discern hints of wisdom about how we can avoid trudging into regrets and empty nostalgia.
Sure, we all experience memorable and wonderful things in our youth that fade with time and experience. But to spend one's latter days looking backward is to admit that one's passions were misplaced. These characters seem lost in nostalgia, unable to cope with aging, with the demands of committed marriages and relationships. They seem to have lost their devotion to singing a new song and now dwell on what has become stale. One character boasts about her superficial singing group, and you can see why she found it so fulfilling when you learn her previous experience was in the making of pornographic films. That is bitterly amusing, but it is rather frustrating to see that Guest includes no characters who have found anything truly fulfilling.
Perhaps the angst and sadness at the heart of these characters lies in the folly of their self-centeredness. They celebrate only the outer fringes of beauty and meaning. They like the spotlight. They like the attention. They like the rush of amorous love. But none of them are drawn to a compelling vision that draws them into selflessness, into sacrifice or service. The loves remain focused on rushes of hormones and emotions, not dedication and devotion. Marriages are dead, both spouses looking elsewhere with longing. The musicians hit bottom, focusing on crowdpleasing instead of art. Only "The Folksmen" seem somewhat balanced and focused in their work, spending some energy on craftsmanship and integrity and the joy of performance. Guest’s film, for all of its frenzy and frivolity, can serve as an inadvertent caution against ego, mediocrity, and redundancy.
“Nostalgia,” says Bob Dylan, “is death.” And he should know -- he's the most admirable champion of the folk music scene, and he remains a relevant artist by always breaking new ground, intent upon vision, beauty, truth, poetry, excellence, and authenticity. I think he's probably laughed his way through this movie several times.
Alien: Resurrection (1997)
2012 Update: It's been fifteen years since I posted these first-impressions on Jean-Pierre Jeunet's chapter in the Alien saga. At the time, it was a disappointment. But now that the preposterous Alien v. Predator series had trivialized these creatures and reduced the imaginings of Ridley Scott, H.R. Giger, and James Cameron to juvenile video-game fare, Alien: Resurrection looks like a movie from the good old days. I might even find myself talked into watching it again. I mean, surely a movie that features Sigourney Weaver, Dominique Pinon, Ron Perlman, Dan Hedaya, Brad Dourif, and Winona Ryder is worth some Saturday night attention now and again, right?
It's time they quit killing the aliens, and just killed the Alien series altogether. Perhaps a director will come along with enough originality to inject new life into the idea, but will anybody care anymore?
Jean-Pierre Jeunet — he who brought us Delicatessen and The City of Lost Children — is one of the world's most inventive directors, but even he, with his acrobatic cinematography, can't find anything new to show us about these monsters, or the bone-headed human beings who stumble into their clutches, in Alien: Resurrection.
Alien was scary because director Ridley Scott subscribed to the Jaws school of scare-making: We didn't see what was stalking us until the very end of the movie. Scott also understood that horror stories can be substantial, and his movie became a fascinating exploration of what makes humans different from mere beasts.
James Cameron's sequel, Aliens, was a more conventional scare-fest, as we watched the characters get knocked off one by one. But it took us into new territory, and introduced us to characters who made us care deeply about the outcome.
Alien 3 was one of the most frustrating sequels ever made, filled with pretentious and empty religiosity, as well as killing off characters we'd come to know and love in the previous film. And now we were so well acquainted with the aliens' ugliness that director David Fincher was challenged to try and scare us with something new. But the script he had in front of him worked too hard to disturb us, and focused far more on "gross-out" than "think about it."
Now, there's Alien: Resurrection, which brings back our heroine Ripley from the dead through, of course, cloning technology, and gives her a bizarre cast of sidekicks, including a brutish Ron Perlman, the stout and strange Dominique Pinon of Delicatessen, and Winona Ryder as a wide-eyed android having a faith crisis.
Even these extreme measures fail to rejuvenate the franchise. And when an experimental genetic experiment births a new alien/Ripley mutant, the result is the most ridiculous creature I've seen in several years of monster movies. The creature's role in the story should kindle the same sympathies that made us care about the classic Frankenstein monster: The poor, pathetic monster, produced by the evils of humankind, wreaking havoc because it can't help itself! But alas, this monster fails utterly to make us care. What began as the most menacing movie monster of all has evolved into a whining oaf that looks its been dipped in a vat of Cream of Wheat.
How the mighty have fallen.
The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)
[This review was first published at the original Looking Closer website in 2002.]
-
Director Kevin Reynolds, responsible for the bloated Waterworld and the misguided Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, has chosen a strong cast and a solid script for his adaptation of Alexander Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo. The result is not a great film, by any means, but it reveals that Jim Caviezel (The Thin Red Line, Frequency) can be a compelling big screen hero and Guy Pearce (Memento, L.A. Confidential) can be an effective villain.
And as action movies go, it's surprisingly thought-provoking.Read more
Snatch (2000)
Snatch reminds me of arrogant basketball superstar Dennis Rodman. It's all attitude, flashy tattoos, muscling about, amoral, foul-mouthed, and it has a rather disturbing connection to Madonna.
Director Guy Ritchie, Madonna's new husband, delivered us the best of the Pulp Fiction wanna-be's, a little crime caper called Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels just a couple of years ago. That stylish, hyperviolent film was like a big cartoon. In it, small, dumb, young men made a bad gamble and got stuck in power plays between big, dumb, malevolent villains. We cared about these poor souls because they were just naive and stupid, and really needed a chance to learn their lesson and go on with their lives, but the major nasties chasing them were like wild dogs. Lots of blood was shed, and somehow the heroes slipped through it all right, in a catastrophic collision of accidents, coincidences, and close-calls that kept us gasping, wincing, and laughing. While the movie was too indulgently violent for me to give it much of a recommendation, I appreciated how its storytelling worked like a well-wound watch, and that it had a conscience (however feeble.)
Snatch is like a remake of Lock, Stock with the moral backbone ripped out of it and the style turned up several notches.
To paraphrase its impossibly tangled multiple plotlines: two brothers get involved in illegal unlicensed boxing where the fights are rigged. When they find out that their fighter is unable to fight, they know that their boss, a tough-talking old godfather of the underworld, is going to have their heads. More accurately, he might feed them to his wild dogs.
Just in time they discover another fighter, a gypsy boy (Brad Pitt) whose accent is so garbled no one can understand him. Meanwhile, a jewel heist has taken place and the chief thief (Benicio Del Toro) decides to go gambling, only to lose track of the enormous diamond he stole. The men who hired him to steal the whopping diamond are displeased, and the obnoxious American (Dennis Farina) who wants the lost rock decides to come to London and get things sorted out. Sure enough, everybody gets involved in one giant confusing dance of violence, misunderstandings, and revenge vendettas.
This time, Ritchie can't strike a good balance between madcap comedy and hard-hitting suspense. There are still cartoon qualities to it. Most characters speak in quick memorable quips and go by a nickname. They're all attitude, bravado, and varying levels of trigger-happy. Watching them is like watching a scavenger hunt in which criminals are given free-reign of the town and a license to kill.
Unfortunately, this time there's no one to root for. There's nobody learning anything, or trying to do the right thing. They all qualify as arrogant selfish men, arrogant violent men, stupid arrogant men, violent stupid men, or selfish violent arrogant stupid men, etc.... The only prominent woman character is the protective mother of the gypsy boxer, and we are led to care for her... which seems almost unfair. Everything around her is so outrageous that, when misfortune comes her way, we can't take it very seriously, even though the movie suddenly turns serious and asks us to become emotionally involved.
I walked away from Snatch feeling battered by violence and disappointed in its lack of redeeming qualities. I enjoyed the hilarious but brief appearances of Brad Pitt and Benicio Del Toro. And nobody makes tough talk sound better than Dennis Farina, who set the standard in Midnight Run long ago. But I hoped to see Ritchie become a more skilled director, and hoped he would find something more interesting and profound to say. Instead, he has created something rather like the favorite pastime of this movie's most malevolent villain... throwing wild dogs into a pit and watching them fight until there's only one left standing.
Wonder Boys (2000)
Mel Gibson, take note. Harrison Ford, look at this very very closely. You needn't stay in the narrow confines of your past roles. You can step out. You can break new ground. You can re-invent yourself and remain interesting. Paul Newman did it, in The Hudsucker Proxy and Nobody's Fool after all. And now Michael Douglas had done it.
For years, Douglas has been our most dependable sleaze-ball, a suit-and-tie mephistopheles with a flair for dangerous women and big money. Hopefully, those days are gone for good. Douglas has found a new character, a challenging role, and he's made it the most interesting and engaging character he's ever played. And Wonder Boys may be the best film to bear his name in the credits. It took some humility and good humor to play Professor Grady Tripp. The performance shows Douglas aging gracefully... and willingly, an accomplishment that only a couple of famous leading men — namely, Newman and Gene Hackman — have achieved in recent years.
On Silence: Reinsma Reviews the Best Novel I've Read This Year
I finished reading Shusaku Endo's Silence a few months ago, and there hasn't been a day that's passed since then that the book hasn't haunted me.
I highly recommend that you add it to your must-read list.Read more
Who Will Stand Up for The Incredibles?
No mainstream American film this year has earned a higher combination of critical acclaim and audience enthusiasm than The Incredibles.
So, why isn't the film in the National Board of Review's Top Ten of 2004?
Do they consider a film that can impress all ages to be unsophisticated?
What could possibly be the reason?Read more
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
This review was originally published at Christianity Today in December 2004.
-
You won't find the word father on the résumé of Steve Zissou.
That's because Zissou, an inventive seafaring documentarian, has been too caught up in his own self-perpetuating mythology to settle down and raise a family. But every dream has its price, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, director Wes Anderson's latest melancho-medy, is the story of a visionary who must reckon with the temporality, and the cost, of his dreams. The ambitious captain of the Belafonte is clearly past his prime. Cracks are spreading through his reputation as a trustworthy scientist. He's burdened by tragedy. And he's struggling to maintain his few important relationships. Life is proving more difficult to "direct" than the movies he makes with his crew. He'll either sink under the weight of life's disappointments, or be lifted up by an unexpected blessing.Read more
Off-topic: Who is John Stott? (Hint: He's bigger than Falwell.)
David Brooks shows once again why he's one of the most level-headed and important political writers in the country.Read more