The K. Courier is a local paper composed to 90% ads and 10% real journalism. Most of its stories are about events that happen within a three-block radius of each other. It ranks beneath the Post as far as being considered a real newspaper. Their arts section is non-existent, and yet, they won't published my movie reviews. As a proud member of the Mill Basin community, I can't help but feel underrepresented.
“Underworld,” review by Phil X
Being a vampire or werewolf shouldn’t be fun. Sure, if you’re a vampire, you get the gift of immortality. But if can’t go outside on a sunny day, and you have to drink the blood of others in order to survive, where is the fun in living forever?
Similarly, if you’re a werewolf, you also can’t die of old age, but every night of a full moon you transform into an uncontrollable monster. Close relationships end up very difficult to maintain. As anyone who has seen such classics such as “An American Werewolf in London” can attest, the first victims of werewolves are usually those closest to them.
Which brings me to my biggest complaint regarding the new vampire/werewolf movie “Underworld.” Aside from the convoluted screenplay, and the way the movie feels ripped off from other, better movies, there is never any real depth given to the vampire or werewolf worlds. No one, including either the writer or director, ponders whether being a vampire or werewolf is a blessing or curse. The makers of “Underworld” would rather focus on their amazing physical abilities in the service of an action film. Unfortunately, the action film is totally one-dimentional.
The plot: Vampires and werewolves (called “Lycans”) have been fighting a war for centuries. The vampires, to date, have been winning. The Lycans have been driven to the brink of extinction, and all that remains is for patrols of vampire soldiers, called “death-dealers,” to hunt down the remaining werewolves and exterminate them. One such patrol, led by the beautiful Selene (“Pearl Harbor” love interest Kate Beckinsale, doing her best Jennifer Garner impression), tracks a pair of Lycans into the subway one night, leading to a pitched battle. Amidst a hail of bullets and spinning razor blades—the norm for vampire flicks since “Blade”—Selene notices a human bystander named Michael (Scott Speedman.) She later realizes that the Lycans were tracking him. But why would Lycans have any interest in a normal human being?
This premise alone probably couldn’t sustain an entire feature film. So screenwriter Danny McBride, working off a story by Kevin Grevioux and director Len Wiseman, throws in sub-plots, and then more sub-plots. There’s political maneuvering going on within Seline’s coven, leading to friction between her and Craven (Shane Brolly), the current vampire leader. There’s a ritual scheduled to take place within a few weeks, to awaken an ancient vampire warrior named Marcus, who has spent centuries sleeping beneath what looks like a really ornate manhole cover. Another ancient vampire warrior, Viktor, is awakened by Selene, though he was not scheduled to rise for another thousand years. This leads to a lot of close-ups of Viktor’s deteriorated face (Ancient vampire warriors need time to regenerate after being awakened.) as he yells at Selene repeatedly that she’s “broken the ancient tradition,” and that her psychic powers aren’t strong enough to awaken someone properly. The bit about psychic powers is especially odd since neither she nor any other vampires display psychic powers throughout the rest of the movie.
Finally, there’s some business involving an ancient Lycan warrior named Lucian, who was supposed to have been killed. Not only might Lucian still be alive, and not only might he be the person pursuing Michael—he also might NOT be the real villain of the movie! There’s a twist I hadn’t expected!
Perhaps I’d be more forgiving of “Underworld’s” convoluted screenplay if the action scenes were memorable. But they’re not; they’re blatant “Matrix” rip-offs. Everyone wears black leather, shoots a gun in each hand, and the action is edited from fast-motion to slow-motion. As for the werewolves, they’re much bigger and savage-looking than other werewolves I’ve seen. However, their method of mindlessly scampering across walls sideways, as vampire soldiers fire machine guns at them, reminded me of better scenes from “Aliens.”
And then there’s the actors. Kate Beckinsale can be a charming actress, and if you don’t believe me, go rent “Much Ado About Nothing” or “Cold Comfort Farm.” “Underworld” is her first action movie as a headliner, and she displays surprising screen presence. But I have problems with the credibility of her character. She’s supposed to be an ace “death-dealer,” yet her technique seems to consist of shooting at the giant Lycans as they charge at her, then running away. I kept thinking, she’s made a career out of this? Viktor, who can dispatch a Lycan with a single punch, seems much more believable (Though why is it that Viktor is so much stronger than the others?) Next to him, poor Selene seems like a rookie.
In supporting roles, Scott Speedman gets to look haggard as Michael, the ordinary joe who finds himself in extraordinary circumstances. Shane Brolly gets to chomp on scenery, and kind of reminds me of Robert Blake, which might be a compliment. Sophia Myles is a cute vampire vixen jealous of Selene. Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen play famed vampire warrior Viktor and equally-famed Lycan warrior Lucian, respectively. The former maintains some dignity while the latter looks like he escaped from the set of “Almost Famous.”
Given how little depth is provided for the vampire and werewolf cultures in “Underworld,” I can’t see lycanthropy buffs or Ann Rice fans going for it. So for whom is this movie intended? My guess would be dumbed-down action movie fans, who don’t mind that their movie is derivative, so long as it looks cool. They might be satisfied with “Underworld,” but if that’s all they’re looking for, they’d be better off waiting for the third “Matrix” movie, which will be out in two months.
MOVIE REVIEW: “Once Upon a Time in Mexico,” by Phil X
“MARIACHI TRILOGY” ENDS ON STRONG NOTE
In 1992, Robert Rodriguez burst onto the movie-making scene with his low-budget action film “El Mariachi.” It was about a Mexican guitar player who wandered into the wrong town, and was mistaken for a hitman by local thugs. Made on a budget of less than three-thousand dollars (and with a borrowed camera, as the legend goes), “El Mariachi” became a cult hit. Rodriguez next movie, made on a larger studio budget, was 1995’s “Desperado,” a sequel to “El Mariachi.” Antonio Banderas played the title character for the sequel, which went on to become a hit.
“Once Upon a Time in Mexico” represents the third and final entry of Rodriguez’ “Mariachi Trilogy.” It re-teams Rodriguez with Banderas, and brings back other actors from the “Mariachi Trilogy:” Salma Hayek, Cheech Marin, Danny Trejo, etc., many of whom reprise their roles. The movie features the over-the-top gunplay and explosions that are synonomous with the series. But “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” is probably the most mature and impressive of the “Mariachi Trilogy,” and the best film Rodriguez has made to date. It also introduces a new character to the mythos: a C.I.A. agent who wants to turn the Mexican political hierarchy on its head. Played by Johnny Depp in a brave, reckless performance, Agent Sands is a strange combination of philosopher, cowboy, and ugly American tourist. He is also quite possibly the most interesting character of all three movies.
The plot of “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” is labyrinthean. Agent Sands wants to help a druglord/general overthrow the current Mexican president. He has help on the inside from a police officer (Eva Mendes) assigned to the president’s security detail. Sands has no real interest in the outcome of the overthrow; he plans to use it as a distraction while he steals 20 million pesos from the president’s palace. The United States government, however, would prefer that the drug-dealing general not become the new leader of Mexico. So Sands tracks down and hires the legendary El Mariachi (Banderas) to assassinate the general right after he takes power.
Sands also recruits a retired F.B.I. agent (Ruben Blades), now living in Mexico, to keep tabs on the general. One of the general’s henchmen viciously tortured and killed the agent’s partner. Also, the general himself murdered two people very dear to El Mariachi.
Confused yet? Don’t worry. Rodriguez only spends the first half of the movie introducing all the characters, and occasionally bogging things down with plot. Once the second half begins, however, just about everyone is motivated by revenge. Much easier to follow. The movie culminates in a spooky set piece which takes place during the Mexican “Day of the Dead” festival. Lots of extras parade around dressed in elaborate costumes. Then the general’s soldiers arrive and begin attacking the peasants. What follows is a shootout of scale and proportion larger than anything in the “Mariachi Trilogy” that preceded it.
The acting from the three leads (Banderas, Depp, and Blades) ranges from good to amazing. It’s great to see Banderas reprising his role as El Mariachi. It is probably his best role, and the one he is most likely to be associated with throughout his career (Even more so than Zorro.) In this third installment, the character is more weary, haunted by the violence and death that have shadowed him. Not only does Banderas play him as a quieter, more strung-out version of the legendary hero, but Rodriguez frames him playing guitar in front of desolate buildings and dusty ruins. The effect makes El Mariachi seem like a ghost, a spirit, which is how Mexico seems to think of him.
If Banderas’ hero is sedate, Depp’s Agent Sands is a livewire of cockiness and bravado. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why I ended up liking this character so much. At the start of the movie, Sands is clearly a smug jerk. He condescends to those he deals with, and has no reservations about killing anybody. One of his victims is a cook in a restaurant whose only offense is really good pork. So you expect Agent Sands to become the main villain of the film.
However, things don’t work out that way. Instead of emerging as the big heavy, whom El Mariachi must have the inevitable final shootout with, Depp ends up as a kind of anti-hero. By the time he shows up at the president’s palace at the end, his partners will have betrayed him, and he will be out for blood. Personally, I think I rooted for him to get his revenge because, while Agent Sands is a slimeball, his betrayers are also slimeballs, but they lack his sense of style and panache. Or maybe it is because Depp is having such a great year. After limiting himself over the past decade to art films (“The Ninth Gate,” “Chocolat”) and the occasional Tim Burton movie, he starred in “Pirates of the Caribbean,” one of the summer’s biggest hits. If “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” also becomes a hit, Depp will probably end the year as that Hollywood rarity: a respected actor and a bankable movie headliner.
Not that “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” is a perfect movie. While there can be no doubt Robert Rodriguez had fun making this movie—the action scenes are all imaginative, and include guitar cases that double as a flame thrower and a remote control bomb, and a car chase choreographed like a Road Runner cartoon—he probably could have trimmed it down another fifteen minutes. Some of the material, though it looks great, seems unnecessary. For example, there is a sequence involving Banderas and Hayek maneuvering down the side of a building, as bad guys shoot at them from adjacent rooftops. Banderas and Hayek are chained together by the wrist, and the manner in which they inch their way down, like a two-headed human slinky, is sweet, comical, and exhilarating. But the sequence has nothing to do with the story. It does not advance the plot. Nor does it develop the characters in any significant way. It does, however, look really cool, and I can’t help wondering if Rodriguez shot the scene, realized it was excessive, but kept it in anyway.
While on the subject of excess, Rodriguez’s editing style threatened to get on my nerves. As is the case with his “Spy Kids” movies, “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” was shot entirely on digital video. Rodriguez also edited the movie digitally, which allowed him to make super-fast cuts. Most of the shootouts are edited in a blur of fast cuts, so fast that I had difficulty figuring out what was going on at times. Clearly, this movie was more heavily edited than either “El Mariachi” or “Desperado.” At the same time, the shootouts in those movies were much clearer than the ones here.
I should also point out that those expecting a lot of Salma Hayek or Eva Mendes, both of whom could outshine the Mexican sun, will be disappointed. Hayek gets to fight and leap out of windows like an action hero in one scene, and plays with a child in another. That is about it. She only has a handful of lines, and her part does not warrant second billing in the title credits, which is what she received. As for the adorable Mendes, the movie teases us at the beginning by making it seem that her character will be an important one. Like Hayek, however, she only gets limited screen time.
Finally, blink and you will miss Willem Dafoe’s cameo as a Mexican drug lord. Mickey Rourke has a larger part, and does an interesting Nick Nolte impression as a fugitive who hooks up with the kingpin. Comic relief is provided by a Chichlets-peddling street urchin. The movie has a wealth of minor characters, who pop up at unexpected times and have surprising impact on the story. And it’s these different characters, and the different plot strands interweaving, which make “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” the best of the “Mariachi Trilogy.” While the first two installments were entertaining romps, each was really just an extended chase sequence. However, this third, most ambitious mariachi flick is about these characters, the country they inhabit, and the revolution that breaks out among them. It is also about Robert Rodriguez’ ever-continuing development as a filmmaker to watch.
