Bicentennial Man is science fiction for people that don’t like science fiction, don’t understand what robots are, and don’t want to be challenged. It teases many thought-provoking topics and then barely scratches the surface on any of them. Why dig deep when it can instead rely on clichés and cheap tricks?

In 2005, the Martin family home is introduced to their new robot helper, "Andrew" (played by Robin Williams). Somehow, a defect in Andrew’s programming allows him to innovate, learn, and evolve. As the years pass, Andrew becomes much more than a household appliance and embarks on a journey to become human.

You'd assume the film would ask questions like “What makes a human human?”, that to spark deep questions, it would take something decidedly not human and give it the ability to feel. That sounds hard, so what if - instead of a robot - Andrew was a silver man, complete with eyebrows and facial expressions? You instantly know he's going to gain sentience and will develop a Pinocchio complex. Whew. Can you imagine if Andrew was wholly inhuman, like a grey box on wheels claiming it wanted to be considered our equal? That might've been hard.

The film fails from the beginning by introducing two stories, neither of which it commits to. The first is the love story between Andrew and the Martin family. The second is the robot's quest for humanity. Does that first element add anything to this 200-year-plus tale? No, but how else will the dummies in the audience understand that he's human if he can't have sex with a woman? The android can enjoy music, make friends, create art, and eventually becomes indistinguishable from a human due to extensive upgrades. It’s just a cheap trick.

This picture forces its conflicts. You listen to the arguments used by the World Congress for why Andrew can't attain "man" status and it holds no water. Bicentennial Man doesn't even try to expose the prejudices of human beings towards different classes or races. No one could leave the film upset or wondering how they'd react in this scenario because Bicentennial Man never actually explores the real difference between man and machine. The reason I don’t consider my computer to be a human being isn’t that it’s made of plastic and metal, or that it doesn’t need to eat or go to the bathroom. It’s not about it being built instead of born, it’s about the fact that my computer can’t think or create original ideas. It can’t relate to human emotions because it’s a machine. The people in this movie would disagree with me. It’s not an injustice, it’s just bad writing.

That's all sci-fi stuff. These sort of questions probably won't occur to most viewers. Even so, this movie isn't great. Bicentennial Man is a drama-comedy, but the drama is manufactured and crumbles under scrutiny. The comedy? it’s lame. Andrew is shocked when he hears about how humans reproduce - like that's never been done before. Predictably, we also get the usual jokes about him not understanding humor, turns of phrases, or human emotions. We've seen that a thousand times.

The love story is banal. Not only because there's no chemistry between the leads but also because you can see every development coming from a mile away. The social stigmas they must "overcome" are shallow, the physical differences non-existent. We never see what this case does to the world, or how other robots react to it there are hardly any robots in this movie.

The worst thing about Bicentennial Man is that it's not immediately bad. It sucks you in with obvious injustices, what appears to be a torn romance, and a man's quest to be declared human. There's even a poor lonely dog that wants to be adopted. It's so cheesy and earnest most will think it deep. Give Bicentennial Man a long hard look and you’ll recognize it for what it is: countless missed opportunities. (On DVD, March 25, 2016)

Titus (1999)

To celebrate 1999 and its contribution to film (I know that sounds weird but hear me out) I re-watched - or watched for the first time - a collection of films released in that year.  I don’t know how to present them other than alphabetically.  My brain works best when there is some order.

Happy New Year everybody!  This is my final installment in the 1999 series.  There were a lot (and I mean A LOT) of movies that I did not cover.  American Pie, Austin Powers, Fight Club, Payback, Ravenous, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, and Toy Story 2 just to name a few!

But Titus is a great way to end the year.  This may be my favourite film adaptation of a Shakespeare play.  The director, Julie Taymor, had directed the play for the stage but the only cross-over cast member she had for the film was the Moor.  All the rest of the cast had to learn the Shakespeare dialog and the dark nature of Titus.  Taymor had them meet for a number of months for rehearsals and they were all grateful for that.

Anthony Hopkins plays the lead role, as a powerful man coming home from war who gratefully cedes the rule of Rome to Alan Cumming.  You can tell by looking at him that is not going to go well.  The queen of the Goths, played by the captivating Jessica Lange, is up to no good, with her immediate goal being pleasure and her ultimate goal, the demise of all things Titus.

You’ve got Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Matthew Rhys playing the Goth princes.  And Harry Lennix gracefully playing the despicable Moor.

Taymor combines old and new elements in the film.  With cars in the colosseum and pinball machines in the palace.  It suits the feeling of the Titus, which is wild and untamed.

The story is dark - and that’s just the way of it.  Taymor makes no effort to soften the blows this story strikes.  When I watched this back in 1999 I was left with an indelible memory of the film as a whole, which doesn’t happen very often.  Watching this again in 2019 and then watching the special features about the making of the film, I like it even more than I did 20 years ago.

What makes a movie good isn’t merely convincing performances, a story that generates an emotional response, meeting the audience’s expectations, and proper filmmaking techniques. A good movie does those things, and more. If you're happy with "adequate", watch She’s All That. It’s a no-bells, no-whistles version of My Fair Lady minus all the personality.

Zackary “Zack” Siler (Freddie Prinze Jr.) is a shoo-in for prom king in six weeks. When his equally popular and attractive girlfriend Taylor Vaughan (Jodi Lyn O’Keefe), dumps him, Zack says he can find another future prom queen no problem. His friend Dean Sampson, Jr. (Paul Walker) challenges him to turn dorky, unpopular art student Laney Boggs (Rachael Leigh Cook) into a hottie.

Haven’t we seen this movie already? It feels like it. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Most romantic comedies, fairy tales, etc. follow a general formula. What makes you prefer one over the other are the details, the little quirks that make the characters unique, memorable lines you quote to your friends, favorite moments, instances where the formula is turned on its head, or even the imperfections everyone acknowledges then moves past. She’s All That has none of those and isn’t self-aware enough to make this work in its favor.

It's the cinematic equivalent of a hotdog with ketchup… and nothing else on it. You can’t help compare this 1999 film to My Fair Lady. Its equivalent of Zack had personality. This guy? He’s amiable and bland. You won’t have any reservations about him and Laney getting together. Actually, there’s no reason for them not to. On their first date, he clearly shows genuine interest in her, so much that when the inevitable shocking reveal about the bet comes around, you expect her to listen to his apology and accept it no problem. Particularly after he befriends her brother, Simon (Kieran Culkin), and then defends him from school bullies. He turns against him too eventually, which is even less convincing.

As expected, Laney Boggs isn’t really a dork, and she isn’t unpopular for any convincing reason. She’s merely a pair of contacts and a new hairdo away from being a showstopper. If anything more drastic were required, there’s no way the film’s timeline of six weeks would work. I realize that’s the premise but once Laney’s glasses come off, they never come back on and it doesn’t feel like Zack’s done anything to get her to open up and make new friends either. Once done-over, she fits in perfectly with the upper-class high-school clique, which makes you question some of the "earth-shattering" truths she encounters on the road from ugly duckling to swan. So what if Zack’s ex is mean to her? Why does she take it out on him?

The picture is consistently short of what it could be. The leads are appealing enough, there are some occasionally funny moments, the premise has a certain timeless appeal. It’s just missing that something something. My favorite scene - a long dance sequence set at the prom - serves no purpose. Matthew Lillard’s character - as entertaining as he is - could've been removed entirely. You won’t be sorry if you sit down and watch She’s All That but you won’t remember it down the line either. (August 6, 2021)

There are only two good things about Candyman: Day of the Dead. First, it follows my long-running adage that if you can’t be good, at least be sleazy. Do you like blood? Do you like boobs? Do you like blood on boobs? This movie’s got you covered. The second is the horrible decision to cast Donna D’Errico in the lead role. Why is that good? Read on…

Set 25 years after the previous movie (so it was set in the then-future of 2020), on the eve of the Day of the Dead in Los Angeles, artist Caroline McKeever (Donna D’Errico) is trying to clear the name of her great-great-grandfather Daniel Robitaille (Tony Todd) by asking the public to focus on the artist rather than the urban legend. When the Candyman manifests once more and begins slaughtering those around her, the police think she or her friend David de la Paz (Nick Corri) is responsible.

Sometimes it’s easy to see when someone got a role they shouldn’t have. Other times, things might not be so black-and-white and you might wonder if people are just getting too sensitive. Finally, there are cases where you just don’t know and you feel timid expressing any kind of opinion. If you ever need proof that there's a bias towards certain ethnicities in Hollywood, watch Candyman 3. Look at D’Errico. Look at Tony Todd. These two are supposed to be related? Give me a break. Yes, her parents were paper-white in the previous movie but there, I could "give it a pass" because the family ties were a twist. She doesn't look the part and she can't act it either. Everyone comes off as amateurish, including Tony Todd, who is clearly thinking “why did I sign up for this”? Let me take that back. Alexia Robinson as Tamara, Caroline’s roommate deserves an Academy Award for listening to her speech about how she’s related to Robitaille and keeping a straight face.

The rest of the movie is poorly written and forgettable. Nothing we learn about Candyman gives us a deeper appreciation for the character, every character is disposable, and aside from many scenes of interracial love - if you see a female actor in this film, there’s an 80% chance you’ll see her take her clothes - it’s lightyears away from any progressive/provocative ideas. The special effects are… ok for a skinny $3 million budget. There’s plenty of gore and hooks getting plunged into people’s backs and out through their chest, and some neat insect performances.

Candyman’s motivations are vague when they’re not inconsistent. She’s his descendant but maybe also the reincarnation of his daughter? Doesn’t explain why they kiss towards the end (Eww). Mostly, you’re waiting for Caroline to find Robitaille's missing paintings so they can destroy them while dodging the two racist cops on her tail. Even for a movie featuring Robitaille's gruesome lynching, these racist cops are over-the-top. Worse, they're not even fun to hate.

Candyman 3: Day of the Dead is a generic sequel that feels like some repurposed Nightmare on Elm Street knockoff. It’s uninspired and dull. The bad performances, lack of energy, confusing mythology, and other problems can’t counterbalance the gore, nudity, and few unintentional laughs it has to offer. (August 29, 2021)

Whenever a play is successfully adapted to film, it's hard to tell who is responsible. It isn't like much content has been removed or altered for 1999's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Is it just the subject matter working its magic? Partially for sure but consider whether this retelling captures the original prose and structure. How does the movie look? Does it have re-watch value? Are the actors good in their roles?

Hermia (Anna Friel) is in love with Lysander (Dominic West). They want to marry but her father Egeus (Bernard Bill) wants to pair her with Demetrius (Christian Bale). Meanwhile, Helena (Calista Flockhart) is desperately in love with Demetrius but they broke up and he has no interest in trying again; he's after Hermia. She and Lysander decide to make a run for it, pursued by Demetrius, and Helena (who hopes to win him back in the process). Meanwhile, the king of the fairies, Lord Oberon (Rupert Everett), and his queen Titania (Michelle Pfeiffer) are in the middle of a lover’s quarrel. It's up to trickster Puck (Stanley Tucci) to mend their relationship. Finally, we also follow a group of would-be playwrights putting together a comedic/dramatic presentation of Pyramus and Thisbe. The stories are interwoven as the fairies’ magic interferes with the lovers and the actors.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is an excellent play, even if you don’t understand Olde English completely. There are plenty of clever rhymes, and the comedic scenarios are timeless. The three stories are fairly simple, making them easy to follow. On DVD, you've got the option to turn on the subtitles, which makes it even easier. The camera's ability for closeups gives us a better look at the actors than you could ever get in an auditorium, which facilitates your understanding as well.

Rather than setting the story in ancient Greece, director Michael Hoffman has selected 19th Century Italy. While bicycles may be present and the only togas we see belong to the fairy-folk, it works. Any period with candlelight, lavish castles, old-timey attitudes, and green woods lovers could stroll through fits this material.

Performance-wise, everyone does well. The standouts are easily Kevin Kline as Bottom, one of the actors putting on the play-within-a-play, and Stanley Tucci as Puck. The performers have good chemistry, making this comedic romance unexpectedly sexy. The movie's got an infamous mud-wrestling scene and for me, it was one of the highlights. Throughout the film, everyone is fighting over who is going to get together with who and it gets even messier/funnier when Puck's enchantments get crossed. The ladies chase after the men and depending on what stage they're in, they run away from, run towards, or are completely bewildered by their affections. What better way to represent this messy sort of fun than by having them all get dirty for real? If that doesn't get you, some very selectively placed rose petals and bushes will.

If you’re looking at A Midsummer Night’s Dream and analyzing the feminist ideals within, or discussing how marriage and love relationships can make an individual's identity disappear, you’re looking too hard. It’s a movie that features a play within a play, some big laughs and magical enchantments being dropped left and right so that the audience can have a good time. It’s a light romantic comedy. It makes you laugh. It makes you happy to share it with someone. I’m not sure if I can pinpoint anything in it that “improves” the material, or would necessarily make it better than any other adaptations or live performances but that’s alright. The 1999 film version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream is exactly what it wants to be: fun. (On DVD, August 1, 2015)

Bicentennial Man, Bowfinger, But I’m A Cheerleader (1999)

To celebrate 1999 and its contribution to film (I know that sounds weird but hear me out) I re-watched - or watched for the first time - a collection of films released in that year.  I don’t know how to present them other than alphabetically.  My brain works best when there is some order.

I had only seen But I’m A Cheerleader back in the day.  i am an O.G. Natasha Lyonne fan and I thought the premise was hilarious.  And while the Dr. Seussian sets still please me, in 2019, the story is dated and the movie is slow.

I watched Bicentennial Man because I read Robin (the biography of Robin Williams) earlier this year and wanted to try to see all of his movies, even the bad ones.  This is not a good movie and I hardly enjoyed it at all.  I found the story kind of stupid and if not for Robin and Oliver Platt would have chucked it.  But - it’s so interesting to see Robin work.  He had two movies released in 1999 - the other was Jakob the Liar which I am afraid I will not get to this round.  Just not enough time. Stupid work getting in the way of my free time.  Robin Williams is so good, I’ll even watch his bad movies.

Bowfinger was my favourite of the three.  How could it not be funny with Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy as the leads?  And yes - Eddie is hilarious.  I thought he played outside his box while Steve Martin sort of stayed inside his box.  I felt the movie wasn’t as good as it might have been if Martin had played it a little grander.  That’s just my opinion being a huge Steve Martin fan and if I ever meet him I hope he hasn’t read this.  But if he does read this, big smooch and the banjo is cool.

Which of these three have you seen?  Which is your favourite?  Your least faourite?  Would you rewatch any?

Mystery Men (1999)

To celebrate 1999 and its contribution to film (I know that sounds weird but hear me out) I re-watched - or watched for the first time - a collection of films released in that year.  I don’t know how to present them other than alphabetically.  My brain works best when there is some order.

A delightful surprise in the year 2000 when my sons and I rented a cabin in Sugar Loaf and found this movie in the entertainment center.  It’s the story of second-rate super heroes in a world where one particular super hero gets all of the credit.

Ben Stiller stars as the ineffective, Furious.  William H. Macy is the Shoveler and Hank Azaria is the Blue Raja, who uses silverware as a weapon.

They go on a quest to find a bigger team of super heroes when a villain, Cassanova Frankenstein, played by Geoffrey Rush, gets paroled.

They find Janeane Garofalo, the Bowler.  Her father’s skull is in a bowling ball and she argues with it and fights the bad guys with it.

And don’t forget Paul Reubens as the Spleen.  Who has super farts.

It’s ridiculous but totally funny.  A must see!

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

To celebrate 1999 and its contribution to film (I know that sounds weird but hear me out) I re-watched - or watched for the first time - a collection of films released in that year.  I don’t know how to present them other than alphabetically.  My brain works best when there is some order.

Made it to the S’s!  South Park was not a show I watched on TV.  Much like Jackass, I considered it a show for boys.  And I still haven’t watched very many episodes of either series but I have seen the movies.

The South Park movie is hilarious.  The kids go to see a movie they’re not supposed to see and start cussing everyone out.  Cartman says, ‘How would you like to suck my balls?’ to his teacher.  They get in trouble and one of their mothers starts an organization to protest what’s happened to the children and they decide to ‘blame Canada’.  The song, ‘Blame Canada’ was nominated for an Oscar.

The song that wasn’t nominated, ‘Shut Your Fucking Face Uncle Fucker’.  Shoulda been nominated.  It’s a way better song.