USA, 2004
Director: Steven Spielberg
Score: ***

The best movies take the most unlikely situations and make them work.  Alfred Hitchcock’s NORTH BY NORTHWEST for example, (which incidentally also had its most important scene at an airport terminal) has the most ridiculous plot ever but hit most critics’ best 10 films of all time.  In his latest and perhaps lightest film since his World War II comedy 1942, Steven Spielberg plants one solitary refugee, Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks) stranded at JFK’s airport (unable to return to his country because of a coup) and by the end of the last reel has him turn into the terminal’s local hero while having a beautiful flight attendant, Amelia (Catherine –Zeta Jones) falling in love with him.

What attracted Spielberg to make this movie is puzzling.  The only other similar American feature of this sort was the taut 1950 thriller set in Chicago’s UNION STATION (the film also called just that) - which worked as a marvelous staged piece despite again, many implausibilities.  Perhaps, it is the interaction of different peoples in uncontrolled situations that caught Spielberg’s eye.  Here, he singles out an East European, a South America, a local black, a white bureaucrat, a displaced East Indian and a love-sick Latino as his principals.  Then with his cinematographer and often collaborator, Oscar winner Janusz Kaminski (SHINDLER’S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN), they create an airport terminal with all its organized mayhem as their stage.  Upon careful study, a lot of dramatic set-pieces can be created at an airport.  Almost everyone passing though the gates has a different story and if one is uninteresting enough, it can soon be passed on for a better one.  Yet, THE TERMINAL remains very American in its outlook, with all perspectives drawn back to the American way.

But the trouble with THE TERMINAL is its length and the Hollywood-style need to blow everything out of proportion.  Instead of being made simple, writers Jeff Nathanson and Sacha Gervasi insert too many distracting subplots into the picture – the plight of Indian janitor, Gupta (Kumar Pallana) and the love story between two airport staff (Zoe Saldana and Diego Luna).  The parallel between Navorksi and Amelia’s affair compared to Napoleon Bornaparte and Josephine’s is taken a bit too far.  But worse of all, the comedy staggers towards the end leading to mushy sentimentality, a frequent problem with many of Spielberg’ films (E.T. and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN).  The film hits its mark occasionally when poking fun at American bureaucracy.  Mr. Dixon, who runs the airport, offers Navorski, at one point, entry to the United States if he leaves through an unprotected door within a 5-minute period.  “For 5 minutes, America is not closed”, are his words. 

Tom Hanks (always good) makes a credible East European desperate to survive but it is Stanley Tucci as Mr. Dixon (the one who cannot decide to be the good or bad guy) who is the most interesting to watch.  Mr. Dixon manages the airport by the rules and regulations that only he knows, swinging between the viewer’s sympathy and at other times disgust.  One odd scene involves Stanley Tucci questioning Zeta-Jones on what she sees in Navorski, the man.  Navorski is one who sleeps in the terminal, with no background, history or money.  Her reply to Tucci: “It is something someone like you will never understand.” This perhaps is a line that comes from her heart as 35-year old Zeta-Jones has been in real life misunderstood and made so much fun of by the press for her marriage to the older Michael Douglas.  (You go, girl!)

THE TERMINAL is chaotic in places, organized and focused in others – much like a terminal itself.  It at least, provides sufficient laughs for a satisfying summer comedy.

Review by Gilbert Seah.

Brazil/Argentina, 2003
Director: Hector Babenco
Score: ***

CARANDIRU is the name of a cell inside Sao Paulo’s house of detention.  The film begins with two inmates Lula and Dagger settling a score.  The scene serves as a worthy introduction to welcome the doctor (Luiz Carlos Vasconcelos), who forms the centre around which the story revolves.  The film is based on an adaptation of the book this doctor, Drauzio Varella wrote while working 12 years in Sao Paulo’s infamous Casa de Detencao prison.

As in all prison movies, CARANDIRU shows overcrowded cells, harsh conditions and violent inmates.  Fact or fiction, nothing has not been seen before, especially after the popular TV show OZ has been aired.  But Carandiru also depicts the beginning of the era of aids and its effects on both the prisoners and the doctor. 

Brazilian films like AMORES PERROS and CITY OF GOD have recently hit the big screen like an explosive.  Hector Babenco’s (PIXOTE and KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN) film, however, though also based on controversial subject matter feels quite tame.  One reason is his resignation to telling the story of the prisoners through a series of vignettes, most of which are shown through flashbacks, giving the viewer the feeling that what has transpired is a thing of the past.  Also, certain scenes like the drag queen performing a sex act with a condom over a bottle fail to shock, probably because the viewer expects such incidents to happen in prison cells.  In films like CITY OF GOD, the death and killing acts performed by adolescents were disturbing deeds on their own.  On the positive side, Babenco directs the relationships of the prisoners with depth and intelligence.  The prisoners unite to give Zico (Wagner Moura), the drug dealer his come-uppance for innocently killing his teen mate (Ciao Blat).  When the doctor sees Highness’ two women quarreling over him during visitation day, a remark is made on the reason things of this nature never happens to him - the failure of himself to show affection.  Babenco’s prisoners do not evoke our sympathy.  Babenco, instead allows the viewer to see them as human beings with failures, hopes and dreams.  But he effectively brings down the dreams of a few prisoners through aids which will eventually take its deathly toll.

The film’s climax is the massacre of October 2nd 1992 when the guards slaughter over 100 prisoners.  The mayhem is handled expertly enough with quick edits and appropriately placed camera shots.  Babenco opts not to give any one reason (the winning of the soccer time, the fight over drying of clothes etc.) for the riot which prompted the shoot-out.  But the fact that the doctor is at the time on his weekend furlough seems to suggest that he is the heart and soul of what keeps order in the place. 

Carandiru makes an intriguing enough venture into the real world of living on the edge.  Too bad the climax is loosely linked to the other parts of the story.  Together with the lack of a strong narrative or character driven plot, the film fails to achieve the punch that director Babenco obviously wanted his film to have.  Or what his purpose of the film is to be besides showcasing the Detention Centre’s conditions.

Review by Gilbert Seah.

(USA, 2004)
Director: Frank Oz
Score: **

THE STEPFORD WIVES are robots.  This was the ending and final revelation of the original Hitchcockian suspenseful 1975 original directed by Bryan Forbes and written by William Goldman.  Times have changed.  For one, the 70’s women liberating times are over and all film cineastes are now well aware of the secret of the Connecticut town of Stepford.  So wisely or not, the filmmakers have turned to writer Paul Rudnick (IN & OUT) and director Frank Oz (IN & OUT and DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS) for more humor and insight in the remake and to provide the film with a new typical happy Hollywood ending.  With these limitations at hand, it is not surprising that the new STEPFORD WIVES could only turn out to be at best a mediocre movie.

Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman) and family are newcomers to the idyllic haven of manicured lawns and meticulously laid-out households.  She has just suffered a nervous breakdown, her marriage to Walter (Matthew Broderick) is in shambles and she opts for a new lifestyle to make the family work.  She discovers that all the wives are domesticated dummies and the husbands (to be) clubbish male chauvinist pigs.  Anyone can guess the rest of the plot from here.

Rudnick’s script improves over the original by taking attacking certain subtleties about corporate lifestyle (a character quips: ‘when someone dies in Manhattan you call to find if the apartment is available’) and taking liberties with the addition of a gay couple (Roger Bart and David Marshall Grant) and a loud-mouth Jewish newcomer, Bobbi (Bette Midler) to the party.  Bobbi’s spill about dildos and Christmas pine cone decorations during a Stepford wives’ session provide the biggest laughs.

It is worthy to note that films like this set in idyllic towns contain the most product placements, from the Apple computer to the Hagen Daz ice-cream downed by Midler.

The film varies in tone from its comedic first half to a much darker one.  Nicole Kidman, Christopher Walken, Glenn Close and Broderick, all typecast for their own good, try their damnest best but can barely succeed at what they are offered.  But what finally transpires is a semi-satisfactory thriller catered towards the female folk and the newly targeted gay audience (gay icon Bette Midler and the gay couple) added in.  THE STEPFORD WIVES eventually turns out to be so-so entertainment even with all the sexual content added.  The best part of the film, though, is the updated supermarket scene at the end.

Review by Gilbert Seah.

USA, 2004
Starring: Jennifer Love Hewitt, Bill Murray
Director: Peter Hewitt

Plot: Garfield is the cynical, lazy and, fat cat. When a cute and sweet dog named Odie is brought home, beloved Garfield is forced to compete with him for the attention of their single owner, Jon Arbuckle. When Odie disappears and is kidnapped by shady TV persona Happy Chapman, Garfield feels responsible, and he gets off his fat ***censored*** and springs into action to rescue his fellow pet in crisis.

America’s favorite fat cat has finally become a major motion picture star. As you all know this live action/CGI film is adapted from the syndicated cartoon strip read by millions around the world.
It ain’t THE CAT IN THE HAT. It ain’t SCOOBY DOO,either. But does this really needed to be a live action feature film? Or even be put on film? Clearly the purpose of this manufactured film is to put a little change in 20th Century Fox’s pocket. It simply follows the recipe of what they believe kids want.

Bill Murray voices Garfield and he does (or tries) his best at it. But mostly, he sounds very disinterested or lost. It’s a shame that this is his first major film since LOST IN TRANSLATION fame. It could have been anyone off the street of Beijing and still get the same effect. And of course they must throw romantic aspect in the film by throwing Jennifer Love Hewitt seducing Breckin Meyer. Romance here is ever so disgustingly played.  Just like the one in VAN HELSING. I always thought her tits did all the acting. Well, since this is a family affair, the pair doesn’t do any work. That being said, why is she in it? The truth must be out there.

GARFIELD is lost in every single aspect. I can’t blame someone out there for thinking what if this could have been done 15 years ago in the style of ROGER RABBIT. It could have worked. Then again perhaps not. This obviously should-be-straight-to-DVD film will never get the attention it wants and maybe that is a good thing for filmmakers and all of us audiences.

Review by Shogo.

USA, 2003
Director: C. Jay Cox
Score: **

The tag line goes – Christian plays while Aaron prays.  Opposites attract!  From the firm bodies of these two hot boys, it would be near impossible to tell that one of them is Mormon, a member of the Latter Day Saints.  The film’s title comes from a play of words with the group name.

The premise is simple enough. Friends bet a wager that party boy, Christian (Wes Ramsey) cannot bed Aaron (Steve Sandvoss). Of course, it does not take anybody with any slight intelligence to predict that the two will fall in love. The typical life lessons to be learnt here is that Christian’s flamboyant enjoyable life is empty (no surprise here) whereas Aaron’s has more to it than the religious beliefs. And as in any Harlequin romance paperback, there are the typical obstacles to be overcome – in this case Aaron’s church and mother (Mary Kay Place). After that, there is again the tedious part when Aaron learns about Christian’s bet.

One would think that scriptwriters would at least try to come up with some new twist in love stories. Written by C. Jay Cox who wrote last year’s lackluster SWEET HOME ALABAMA, the film is supposed to reveal some substance after embracing every gay love story cliché.  But by the time the film has annoyed the hell out of the viewer with predictable rubbish, Cox attempts a more serious tone with lame metaphors like colored and whites that do not mix (in the wash) or with pseudo moving speeches like Christian’s on what it is like being gay.  Though the sprite dialogue is occasionally hilarious and embodies the saying that all sentences uttered by gays end with a punch-line and Ramsey and Sandvoss hold their roles well as do the supporting cast, the film fails to sustain any interest.

Also annoying is the film’s soundtrack. The lyrics of the songs serve as voiceover explaining the situation of a scene. What is notable is that LATTER DAYS could very well be a straight romantic comedy drama about a Mormon falling for a party girl. Sentimentality abounds towards the end.  The trailer for LATTER DAYS looks more interesting than the film holds. And cameos from Jacqueline Bisset as the restaurant owner and Mary Kay Place as Aaron’s mother do not help either.

LATTER DAYS ends up a mixed bag of tricks.  It is too bad most of the tricks are nothing that had not been tried before.

Review by Gilbert Seah.