jack_skellington_

"Blood Sisters", Danish filmmaker Louise Friedberg's sophomore short film, is the kind of flick that you simply can't take your eyes off of. It's a relatively simple story that has been played out time and time again: a young girl feels threatened by her best friend's new friend/neighbour, jealousy brews, and tempers flare.

A slow but steady pace brings to mind late 20th century minimalist music, creeping along with perseverance and contemplative awe. The aura is distinctly Scandinavian: simultaneously chilly and warm, dominated by icy whites, whimsical laces and the splash of blood red. But what makes Friedberg's film resonate so loudly is how straight she plays archetype. There is no homage, no winking at the audience. Just bravura filmmaking that pulses with beauty, tension and breathtaking performances.

I just don't get it.

This has become the biggest Canadian film ever? This won numerous Genie Awards? This got green-lit in the first place???

"Bon Cop Bad Cop" may have sounded like a good idea on paper, with a somewhat witty premise: a murder on the Quebec-Ontario border results in cross-cultural hilarity and non-stop action. Could be a good time, and potentially have some stinging social commentary. Instead we get a brainless American style action movie with ridiculous 'Canadian content' tacked on. Every mention to hockey, Quebecois swears, uptight Torontonians and whatever Canadian stereotype you can think of feels like it was purposely added in to make it relevant. It just doesn't work. Most of the jokes are beyond groan-worthy, and the action scenes feel as genuine as an episode of Miami Vice.

Writer 1: "How do we make this scene more exciting?"

Writer 2: "I know! The Quebecois cop drives through a crowd of pedestrians rather than slow down behind a tractor trailer!!!"

Writer 1: "OMG! Brilliant!"

Writer 2: "And it's mocking stereotypes, because Quebecois drivers are CRAAAAAZY!!! LOL!!!"

Writer 1: "We are SO gonna win a Genie for this."

And this is supposed to be thrilling action humour? Both cops are two-dimensional characters that embody every lame stereotype of their respective provinces. It's not witty, and it's not smart. The film itself looks like a gritter version of CSI, with incessant cocked camera angles (to make it look more artsy, duh!), constantly changing focus and a strange digital grading of colours. It's a noble attempt at being creative, but it smells just like American television. The story is half-assed and nowhere near as exciting as it could have been, and the villain is a complete joke. For some reason, the actor decided to force a menacing tone onto his speech, and it comes off as hokey. Son of Ontarian cop comes off as what some producer thinks modern teenagers act like, sister is pathetically hipster, and the wife and daughter of the Quebec cop are just boring.

I understand that subtlety is not what action films usually go for, but come on... this? It's such a pathetic production that I couldn't even check my brain out at the door. Why? Because it tries to come off as a satire. But when the creators seem so genuine with their motivations in making an American-style action movie, the satire fails. And horribly so.

When word came that a film version of 'The Phantom of the Opera', one of the most successful and entertaining Broadway musicals ever, was about to be made, many people were excited. Very excited.

But then word came that Joel Schumacher was to direct.

Known for his technicolour explosions and elaborate set designs, Mr. Schumacher may seem to be a perfect candidate to head this production; but we also get some of the worst editing ever committed to film, gaudy effects, horrid acting and an all-around disaster. Things start off well for 'Phantom', with an excellent introduction complete with Moulin Rouge-style "postcard" digital grading effect- an excellent tool for the subject material. Then we get a rousing sequence with the chandelier, and the excellent "Rehearsal for Hannibal". Then things quickly fall apart with the introduction of the film's female lead, Emmy Rossum. The character Christine is clearly meant to be a prodigy- someone that we are to gaze in awe over, someone that we are to get out of our seats and yell with an enthusiastic "Bravo!" Rossum, unfortunately, does not suit the bill. While an excellent vocalist, she is unable to capture the mysterious X quality that draws us to a character. She stands there with a vacant stare, one that is supposed to represent nervousness, or wonderment, or whatever. She is unable to show any real emotion, and it's more or less like watching a singing wooden plank. Think a young, female Keanu Reeves. Patrick Wilson as Raoul is similarly bland- although in the film's defense, it has always been that way. Such a shame, because this guy has the vocal chops.

Ridiculously gaudy art direction suits the time and subject matter, and Schumacher pulls it off, much like Luhrmann did with the now-classic "Moulin Rouge!". But unlike Luhrmann's masterpiece, 'Phantom' tries too hard to take itself seriously- a big mistake. This is a pop opera, and the film completely misses out on this subtlety. Minnie Driver is perfect as the pompous Carlotta, but other actors, like the aforementioned Rossum, just don't get it. And when the production is supposed to take a break from all the overblown effects, like during "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again", Schumacher decides to fill the set with fake fog. Ugh.

Now, my biggest problem here is the decision to change some of the vocals into plain spoken dialogue. What the hell were they thinking? "Notes" was brilliance in every production, yet here they decide to change half of it into spoken word. Once again, Schumacher misses the point of pop opera. By having everything to music, the play demanded your attention and allowed you to suspend belief- something that is required in this, considering some of the plot.

And the editing. Oh dear lord, some of the sloppiest transitions ever. And this guy is an Oscar nominee in '81? He clearly did not age very well. And anyone else notice some very sour notes? And why, oh why, does the Phantom go from a full head of dark hair to a few strands of blonde as soon as his mask is taken away? Agggghhhhh! Keep the sets and costumes and re-do this. With a new cast, except for Minnie Driver, and for god's sake, never let Mr. Joel 'Batman & Robin' direct anything again.

"Jesus Christ Superstar" features excellent cinematography, fantastic juxtaposition of anachronistic elements and some very memorable songs, but I can't help but be disappointed with the performances by Jesus and Mary Magdalene... but I'll get to that later. From the beginning we are swept into the brave vision of the film; taking a well-known and revered tale and switch the focus on a character that is seldom discussed, and mix in modern elements. Of course, the character I mean is Judas Iscariot, who is oftentimes simply labeled as a 'very bad man and a traitor'. Here, we get to see why he did what he did, and in a very entertaining manner with an excellent performance. Catchy songs and fantastic lyrics, characteristic of Webber and Rice, carry the story along in the glamorous rock-opera style. The somewhat disorienting juxtaposition of ancient with modern is very well done, and the cinematography is uniformly excellent. My only real complaints with the film, however, was Jesus & Mary Magdalene's performances, the song "I Don't Know How to Love Him", and some of the sets. For a person that is supposed to be so important, filmmakers like to make Jesus as one-note as possible. 'Ooo, he's serious! Ooo, he's the son of god!' Please. Where is the joy that is so obvious everywhere else in the film? Can he not crack a smile at least once? Mary was forgettable, when she should be memorable and heart-wrenching. Her feature song, previously named, drags the film and almost invites the audience to talk amongst themselves while she goes on. We get it, she loves Jesus. Move on. I felt that some of the sets almost seemed too barren, especially Herod's Palace. It seemed too open, when it should have been as glamorous as humanly possible. There are also some things to note when viewing the film: 1) Nazi & queer references for the Romans 2) use of modern objects and how well they blend in 3) 'groupie' theme 4)questioning the timing of Christ's arrival All in all, "Jesus Christ Superstar" is one psychedelic experience, and is definitely worth a rental if you're in need of a rock opera fix. But I must suggest instead "Godspell", which I feel captures Jesus' message much better and is much more receptive to the rock-opera genre.

The Frighteners is a fun ride, but not one for the ages.

The film is notable for it's imaginative and groundbreaking visual effects, interesting camera-work and some excellent performances, but suffers from a murky script and only average dialogue. The ghosts are very well done, and unlike other early CGI creations, look like they are part of the film and actually take up visual 'space'; they look 3-D, not flat and cartoonish. The cinematography is impressive and hints at Jackson's later works; look for one excellent shot near the end of the film when a main character falls through a number of floors. Sweeping camera movements also dominate, and work to a great effect. Dee Wallace-Stone is excellent as a deranged psychopath, as is Trini Alvarado and Michael J. Fox. The sets are well done, and Jackson gets the drab looks of a small town down pat. Unfortunately, the plot is confusing and a bit of a bore, and most of the lines are quite vapid (including lots of unnecessary swearing). But this is the only major problem with the film; perhaps I was looking for more twists, or the complete silliness of his earlier works. Recommended for fantasy or science fiction fans, or for those looking for a fun time.