As summer winds down, we now enter a relatively unexciting movie release period that will probably last until Thanksgiving. As usual, sequels were the big breadwinners this summer (\Shrek 2,"" Spider-Man 2""), although there were a few little guys making big noise at the box office (""Dodgeball,"" ""Fahrenheit 9/11""). If there's anything to be learned from this summer, it's that felines desperately need a better agent (""Garfield,"" ""Catwoman""). Here's a rundown of some of this summer's releases:
Along with the ""Superman"" and ""X-Men"" franchises, ""Spider-Man"" hits its high mark in the second installment. This is probably the best comic-book movie ever made, and one of the most enjoyable films of the summer. Its success lies in its attention to the trials of Peter Parker's daily life, shifting the emotional focus to Parker rather than his alter ego. I cannot remember another comic-book movie where the protagonist's secret identity was more interesting than the hero, nor can I recall one where the heroine was as well developed as Mary Jane Watson.
Logic has never been a concern in Roland Emmerich's movies (""Independence Day,"" ""The Patriot""), so it isn't worth debating the probability of cataclysmic storms destroying the Earth. Emmerich does deserve kudos for the special effects, which are some of the best computer generated images in recent memory. But, to no one's surprise, the plot sags once the storms settle. It's hard to breathe new life into the story of a clich??-ridden scientist who warns of impending doom, is ignored, and then saves the day when disaster strikes. The only thing remotely original is that it was played by Dennis Quaid and not Jeff Goldblum. ""The Day After Tomorrow"" is mildly entertaining, but I doubt anyone will remember it fondly.
I was pleased to see this film become a modest hit, further advancing the popularity of documentary films. The story of Morgan Spurlock's month-long diet of nothing but McDonald's has surprising depth, shattering my notion that the concept was nothing more than a fraternity dare gone too far. There are humorous touches in Spurlock's film that make it accessible to any audience, yet he doesn't dumb it down when it comes to important medical issues. Still, at times he tackles a little more subject matter than he's able to handle, and some of his techniques are obviously influenced by Michael Moore. Moore is an admirable filmmaker, but Spurlock should find his own style rather than emulate him. Fortunately the good points far outweigh the bad. Spurlock has made a fine, enjoyable film, and a highly relevant one at that.
Directed by relative newcomer Jared Hess, ""Napoleon Dynamite"" didn't initially blow me away. I found it funny, but not uproarious. Yet as time passes I can't help but snicker when I think of Napoleon's (John Heder's) exasperated manner of speech, the other bizarre characters, or plot points like an Uncle obsessed with traveling back in time to the early '80s. Even if some of the verbal jokes do fall flat, ""Napoleon"" has some of the greatest sight-gags I've ever seen. Napoleon's exploits may need time to sink in for some people. I'm not sure if it can attain ""Big Lebowski"" cult status, but ""Napoleon Dynamite"" is definitely a film that will become funnier with repeat viewings.
Neither Tom Hanks nor Steven Spielberg has anything left to prove, and that's probably why ""The Terminal"" has such a relaxed feeling to it. Spielberg's technical prowess is always fun to watch, but the story never quite hits the mark despite solid performances from Hanks and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Some plot points are underdeveloped, while others are just plain silly. Still, it's an enjoyable film, even if it's far from being as quality as the last Hanks/Spielberg outing ""Catch Me If You Can."" ""The Terminal"" is probably destined for cable TV airings, filling the void between ""Law and Order"" reruns and the millionth showing of ""Sleepless in Seattle.""
It will be interesting to see how history remembers ""Fahrenheit 9/11."" It will surely be remembered for being the first documentary to gross $100 million. Time Magazine suggested it may be remembered in the same vein as the first televised presidential debates between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, serving as a new landmark in how media influences politics. But how will it be remembered as a film? I hope it will be remembered for the emotional power it conveys as a distraught mother speaks about her son killed in Iraq. I also hope it will be remembered for telling the American public things not always seen on television and in the newspapers.
With that said, there are some moments where it becomes a little embarrassing, as if Moore's trying to hit a home run when he doesn't need to. When he says that George W. Bush spent some 40 percent of the first months of his presidency on vacation, the Go-Go's ""Vacation"" plays in the background. Hilarious! Even if it isn't perfect, ""Fahrenheit 9/11"" is a very good film and the most important of this year.
Written, directed and starring Zach Braff, this is one of the best directorial debuts in a while. ""Garden State"" is the story of a young man who returns home for his mother's funeral and reconnects with his past, and it stands as a great coming of age film for people in their 20s. I've already heard some people comparing it to ""Lost in Translation"" because of how it focuses more on moods and feelings rather than plot. Although I think ""Garden State"" is not quite up to par with ""Translation,"" it definitely establishes Braff as a talented director who is adept at capturing the awkwardness and realism of conversation and emotions.
Tom Cruise has always had apenchant for picking diverse roles, and this one really pays off. ""Collateral"" is his first billing as a villain since ""Interview With the Vampire,"" and he's more than fitting as a brooding hit man. Just as solid is Jamie Foxx, who is well deserving of being an A-list star after his work here. Some of the story is only marginally original, but director Michael Mann turns it into a taut thriller, showing his control and direction are second to none. ""Collateral"" is one of the better thrillers in recent memory, showcasing stellar performances from Cruise and Foxx.
I have to be honest here: I didn't see ""Garfield."" I've had enough of my childhood memories bastardized by Hollywood (""How the Grinch Stole Christmas""), and I'd rather have the Garfield comic strip remain a pleasant memory rather than one of an awful movie directed by the guy who made ""Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey.""
Now that this piece of junk is out of the way, Hollywood can get around to making duel movies that I'd really like to see, such as ""Gremlins vs. Ewoks"" or ""Vin Diesel vs. The Russian from 'Rocky IV.'""
I'm curious as to why either of these projects appealed to Halle Berry or Hugh Jackman, and if I had to guess I would say blackmail was involved. Both of them cracked their way into my personal ""Most Hated Films"" list, as watching them was about as pleasant as dropping a hammer on my toe or eating undercooked meat. Everything about them stinks: writing, editing, direction, etc. There are plenty of mediocre summer blockbusters, but ""Catwoman"" and ""Van Helsing"" will long serve as testaments to idiocy.
