Dogma (1999)

 "Bethany, bless the sink!"

I watched, and enjoyed this film, many years ago but, as often happens as the decades pass- and I am not, you understand, in any way confessing to being middle aged- I remembered very litttle. Last night was pretty much a second first viewing.

And it's superb. As a comedy, it's bloody good, with a constant stream of laughs. Linda Fiorentino is perfect as the star. Chris Rock and Alan Rickman are both brilliant. George Carlin is perfect casting as a down-with-the-kids cardinal. Some dodgy angel wing CGI aside- and we can be forgiving, because it's 1999- there's not much wrong with this.

It is, of course, a very different beast from the very '90s slacker romantic comedies for which Kevin Smith had previously been known, although there's a fair bit of that sort of thing here. But the religious stuff is obviously going to come across as provocative, not least with Bethany working at an abortion clinic and (spoilers!) the plot requiring God's life support machine to be switched off. Casting Alanis Morissette as God is, of course, entirely uncontroversial.

And yet... I don't get this film to be mocking faith, or religion itself, in any way, but rather the reactionary and socially conservative structure that eventually inserts itself around every religion. I've never had any religious faith myself, I wasn't brought up with it and am simply unable to believe in something without empirical proof, but even I was moved by Bethany's drunken nostalgia for a time when she had a childlike, simple faith. But perhaps this film also hints at a deeper truth. Divine or not, this Jesus person seems to have been anything but conservative.

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

 "You know, what's remarkable is how much England looks in  no way like Southern California."

I'm not in the mood for anything serious, so this it is then. It is, of course, just more of the same sort of stuff from the first film with pop culture jokes combined with lots of metatextual fun, but I for one am not complaining. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

This time we're introduced to Mini-Me as well as Fat Bastard, a third character to be played with aplomb by Mike Myers. We get rid of Vanessa with hilarious simplicity and then get introduced to the wonderful Felicity Shagwel and... well, it's an Austin Powers film. You know the drill. It's very, very silly indeed.

What's interesting, though, about a film from 1999 being all nostalgic about thirty years earlier is how very '90s it all is from a quarter century later. Even this version of the '60s is very much a version of the decade curated to '90s sensibilities, more Oasis' "All Around the World" than "Yellow Submarine" in aesthetic. But we get the late Jerry Springer, absolutely in his pomp and a reminder of how even trash telly back then had a layer of basic decency to it that would eventually be got rid of. Even Starbucks was sort of newish back then.

The film works so well because it knows full well how daft it is and leans into that, with the time travelling shenanigans and the best knob, fart and poo jokes in cinematic history. The script is magnificent. So is the cast. But praise has to go especially to Mike Myers, absolutely at the peak of his career here. Brilliant stuff.

Office Space (1999)

 "The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy. It's that I just don't care."

It's a shame I waited so damn long to see this film. So long, in fact, that the office life it depicts is not really that of the present generation with its working from home, no office dress code and less use of printers.

This is, simply put, brilliant. It's interesting that this is the year before The Office and ploughs similar ground- albeit through the delightfully twisted mind of Mike "underappreciated because a lot of his stuff is animation" Judge. Yet it's extraordinary how low budget this film is, and how- Jennifer Aniston aside, for 'tis the 90s- there is so little star wattage. This film stands or falls by whether or not it's funny. And it is, by God.

We've all been Peter. I certainly was, circa 2003 to '05, only without the embezzlement, or the cubicles, which seem to be very much an American thing. But the petty office jealousies over things like staplers ring very true. And I love the concept of Peter ceasing to give a crap about work and suddenly finding his career in the ascendant; alas, the world isn't quite like that. 

The period details have dated. But the underlying points haven't. The gentle digs at the "I can't be bothered to pronounce your name" racism directed at Samir rings true. So do all those annoying microaggressions of management. Fortunately I'm now promoted just far enough for that not to be a part of my life, but I've certainly been there.

This film is exquisite. Watch it. And be glad it isn't 1999 any more.

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

 "There's no point in living of you can't feel alive."

This is the finest Brosnan Bond film so far. I was unimpressed with GoldenEye; Tomorrow Never Dies was better; this is a superb film that channels the best of Bond.

It's all very late '90s, of course. Q is about to retire, and his replacement, the fittingly amusing R, played by a sprighly John Cleese, a mrere sixty years old, describes the latest Bond supercar as having "six cupholders". Amongst the globetrotting to Bilbao, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Istanbul is a superb set piece boat chase through London, including the Millennium Dome. And, of course, Miss Moneyponey says of a cigar that "I know exactly where to put that."

There's only one decade where that line makes sense.Still, let us note tht Bill Clinton was an abusive wanker, and Kenneth Starr was the same by proxy. May they both suffer lifelong impotence.

There's an innocence to this world pf post Cold War, End of History hubris, where there are no significant hostile countries and where threats of tyranny or nuclear armageddon, that feels charmingly dated. Yet the whole dynamic of Bomd and Elektra offers a surprisingly thoughtful take on sex and to wthe extent it can involve deceiving and using people.  

All this, and we have some splendid set pieces, a supern Bond villain in Robert Carlyle, a nice bit of misdirection where we think Elektra is the Bond girl but she turns out to be the big baddie, and one of the best theme tunes ever. This is, quetly, one of the very best Bonds.

The Matrix (1999)

 "There is no spoon."

This film, by its very cinematography, may well sinply ooze the essence of the late '90s. But it is timeless.

Obviously, this is a truly great film. The fact that a film so drenched in philosophy and wonder can be such a blockbuster hit is a testament both to the genius of the Wachowskis and to the openness of humanity to ideas. And the fact that the "red pill" has in recent years been adopted by thenow thankfully dated alt-right is as meaningless as the alt-righ themselves,  along with everyone who doubts that Trump is a wannabe dictator or that Brexiteers are all Putin's bitches. These people are sad, hateful virgins, while this film is full of joy.

The point is not that this film posits a reality in which our lives are not only but a dream but are simulated realities while we are farmed horribly by AI's resulting from a singularity that looks worryingly as though it may happen within my lifetime, competing with global heating in the fear stakes. The point is, on the one hand, that this film has such a bloody good soundtrack (Rob Zombie, he whose "Dragula" was ubiquitous, and rightly so in late '90s rock clubs, and, er, Marilyn Manson, a genius who may possibly also be an abusive bastard). On the other, though... yes, this is an action sci-fi film with sci-fi protagonists. Yes, it uses its premise to mimic the martial arts visuals on the popular martial arts films of the time. Bjut it means something.

There may well be a religious subtext. If so, it's refreshingly subtle and not preaching uselessly to the converted. There may, as chronicled in recent years, be a trans subtext, endorsed by the Wachowskis who have both transitioned. But subtexts naturally abound with a subject matter so deep as the nature of reality and the ethics of living in a comfortable simulation vs. harsh reality. Should we pretend that there is a spoon?

And yes, I noticed: said bent spoon was in the real world, not the matrix. This film is awesome.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

 “Please don't despise me!"

This is not the film I was expecting to see.

Around the time of the film's release I recall the critics were mildly disparaging of what they saw as a film about titillation and in which Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman exhibited suspiciously little chemistry for a married couple.

...All of which is utter bollocks, and a quick glance shows me the ritcal consensus has thankdully shifted somewhat. This is perhaps the pinnacle of Stanley Kubrick's career, a film dense with subtext far beyond what is apparent to me on a first viewing, and a film which actually treats sex as a serious part of life as opposed to something to giggle at.

The first half of the film is a meditation on monogamy vs polygamy, as the naive Dr Bill is tempted by various opportunities for extra-marital action while Alice confesses to her own sexual fantasies. The pivotal scene, a stoned bedroom argument, sees them both being somewhat naive and unwittingly purotanical as they skirt around the old gendered ideas that sex is something men, being active, do to women, who are passive. This is, of course, nonsense: even if we look at heterosexual coupling only, desire is no different between the sexes, just society's expectations. 

And then Dr Bill, constantly awkward with women, moves into the world of the elite, into what looks like a cross between a ritualistic sacrifice, a BDSM club, a religious ceremony and a dodgy secret society. There is much coupling, but Dr Bill is excluded. He, a medical doctor, is successful and well-off- yet he exists on a different plane from the decadence of the elite. And the scene where he is found out by men in truly terrifying masks is truly terrifying, as is the sense of tension that follows. So is the implication that a girl whose life he saved dies so that he may live- although he is offered a comforting fiction to believe.

The cinematography and direction is sublime, with wonderful use of colours to contrast the world of the mundane with the dark ways of the elite, and much in the way of disorienting use of the camera at appropriate momnts. The score, and that repetitive piece in particular, is not only very good indeed but perfectly integrated with the visuals.

There's so much going on here- musings on monogamy; the objectification of women; the intersection of sex with money and power; so much more. This is cinema of the very first rank.

Being John Malkovich (1999)

“I’m sorry, I have no time for piddling suggestions from mumbling job applicants.”

This is the weirdest, and perhaps the best, film I've ever seen. David Lynch: that there thing on the floor looks like a gauntlet.

This is magnificently, yet confidently weird. It’s not only surreal: it’s philosophical, cultured, Pythonesque, a morality tale and more. The very concept is delightfully mad, and the way things play out is inspired in how staid narrative conventions are adroitly avoided, yet by the end of the film, miraculously, it all actually makes narrative sense on its own terms, even if one’s mind has been screwed with splendidly. This is a dense, layered film, full of clever literary allusions, yet never anything other than lightly playful.

The cast are, without exception, superb- Cusack especially, and of course Malkovich, but Catherine Keener is a revelation as the cooly amoral Maxine, while Orson Bean gives the perfect comic performance.

You can, of course, expect to see many more Charlie Kaufman films in this blog within a very short space of time. Why oh why did I not see this film until I was forty-three?

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (1999)

“I have a bad feeling about this...”

This is the first time I’ve seen this since I saw it at a now long-gone cinema in 1999, and went for a wee during the pod race scene. My twenty-two year old self was not impressed, but this time I was determined to watch with an open mind. So, is this film’s poor reputation deserved?

Well, on a second viewing two decades later the film is perhaps maligned a little more than it should be: it’s not that bad, and has its good points. But the fact remains that, aside from the effortlessly cool Liam Neeson as Qui-Hon Jinn, none of the main characters are particularly memorable, or at least not for the right reasons. Ewan McGregor is a charismatic actor in other stuff, but hopelessly miscast (or misdirected) here as Obi-Wan; in channelling Alec Guineas he fails to just be the character. Jake Lloyd was never going to win any Oscars for this, but he's a child actor. However... Jar Jar Binks? Just no.

The film starts in an uplifting manner with those opening titles, but then the blurb refers to “the taxation of trade routes”. The film has a decent plot- the Republic is declining so Palpatine uses a dispute with his pawns in the Trade Federation to start seizing power by manipulating all and sundry- but it’s just so damn slow. And George Lucas is as awful at dialogue as he ever was, although there are a few genuinely witty lines.

Still, it's not all bad- although this is clearly set in the Star Wars universe it's notable, having watched this straight after The Mandalorian that there are notable fewer Easter Eggs and fan-pleasing moments. Star Wars is still trying to do new stuff here. Also, the effects are awesome. Coruscant is cool as a kind of Trantor-like city planet. The CGI- especially with the sea monsters- is excellent and groundbreaking for 1999. I like Anakin's role at the end, paralleling Luke in Star Wars- although it's perhaps a little convenient for him to have designed C-3PO.

Oh, and the virgin birth is a terrible and pretentious idea. So is that of the Midichlorians, although on reflection this isn't quite as awful; the microbial nature of the Force doesn't make it any less magic. Still, the film isn't all that awful, and aside from the pod race and the ending it doesn't drag that much. But "not all that awful" is as far as I'm prepared to go.

Audition (1999)

“All words are lies. Pain doesn't lie."

This is a famously disturbing horror film that it’s taken me twenty years to see (1999 being twenty years ago is wrong on all sorts of levels) and it’s well worth it. A sweet if gently misogynistic drama for most of its length, the film suddenly piles on the torture towards the end as all the unthinking misogyny of the earlier scenes gets its extremely painful comeuppance. This is an interesting film to see in the wake of #MeToo.

The plot is simple; lonely widower Aoyama wants a new wife, the subtext being that he wants her to do all the traditional feminine jobs of looking after him and leaving him just to work, while needing to be accomplished herself. At a friend’s suggestion he takes part in a series of auditions for a part in a film which never happens, at which the women are asked a series of bizarre and impertinent questions by their male interlocutors.

Aside from the auditions themselves, though, the misogyny is constant but subtle as Aoyama settles on Asami, a mysterious woman whose true past and true proclivities and abused past are hidden behind an exterior that seems to be quite passive and traditionally feminine. And then she disappears, things are not quite right, the direction turns very unnerving and adopts the grammar of the horror film, and the torture begins. A haunting and highly effective film with a serious point, and the harsh revenge of the abused and objectified woman. Superb, and Eihi Shiina is magnificently disturbing.

The Sixth Sense (1999)

“I see dead people!”

I've spent twenty years trying, not very successfully,  to avoid spoilers for this notoriously twist-dependent film. If you've been more successful than I was, PLEASE BUGGER OFF NOW, because it's impossible to talk about this film without spoiling the twist.

Right?

Right.

So... he's dead, isn't he? It's hrd to gauge how unobvious it would have been to the unspoiled, but the anniversary restaurant scene is devilishly clever, and I’m sure the big reveal at the end comes as a shock to the unspoiled; Anna has been distant with Malcolm simply because he’s dead and she’s been mourning him. It is, of course, totally implausible that it would never occur to Malcolm during those eighteen months that he might be a ghost, but I think we can accept that as a sleight of hand.

Beyond that, though, the film is very well made, with some highly effective jump scares with the ghosts, who are largely held back. As ever, it’s suspense that makes a film scary, not gore, and this has it in spades when it so chooses, even if the lighting and picture look so very late ‘90s. It also works brilliantly as a drama, with an impressive performance (and accent) from Olivia Williams but a truly magnificent and career-defining turn from Bruce Willis.

This film is superbly made. Perhaps not one for repeat viewings, as it is dependent on one big twist, but I see why it made the impact that it did.

Incidentally, I thought Philadelphia looked somewhat run down when I visited back in 2001, but this film makes it look beautiful.

Alice in Wonderland (1999 TV Film)

“Chop, Chop! Blood everywhere! Proud to be Queen!”

It’s both odd and refreshing to watch such a straight adaptation after Tim Burton’s Whimsical and action packed version. It’s such a wonderfully straight adaptation, even though this means it’s rather long. The whole look of the production has an ineffable late ‘90’sness that recalls many television films from the period. It has a gloss and a picture quality which, though they have dated slightly, look gorgeous.

The cast are as glittering as can be, so much so, in fact, that it was an agonising task narrowing down those cast members who would appear in the tags. Nevertheless, the stand out performance is from the young Tina Majorino, who gives us a likable and realistic Alice while maintaining a flawless British RP accent throughout. The other stand-out performances are from Miranda Richardson as the Queen of Hearts and Martin Short as the Mad Hatter.  This Queen of Hearts is gloriously eccentric and wonderfully homicidal, and perfectly cast, given her performance as Queen Elizabeth I in Blackadder II fourteen years previously. This Mad Hatter is arguably the best version I have ever seen, at the same time utterly mad yet unthreatening and child friendly.

The special effects, courtesy of sparing use of CGI and the muppetry skills of the late Jim Henson’s Workshop, are superb and a huge contribution to the success of the film. Some of the choices made are intriguing. The caterpillar is made to look very SGT Pepper, while the Queen of Hearts, as my girlfriend noticed, is carrying what can only be described as “The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch”. It must be said, however, that the Griffin looks uncannily like a raggedy Big Bird.

Perhaps this could be said equally of the book, but, well, this is in no way druggie, is it? I know this is hardly the most original observation, but, well, a hookah smoking caterpillar (in no way a reference to opium); mushrooms that make you grow or shrink; and the general sense that the logic of stoned conversations applies here…Well!

The ending, with Alice having gained confidence from her experiences, is mainly fun because of the chance to see all the same actors out of character, per se. It has to be said, that the film is bloody long, but there is certainly value in a thorough version. The only moment where the film flags is the sequence with the Griffin and the Mock Turtle, where Gene Wilder somehow fails to capture his usual charisma. I admit, I’ve only seen two, but this is my favourite version of the story.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

“I see why you like this video camera so much. It’s not quite reality.”

No, this isn’t a film about Cherie Blair. Yes, I did make a calculated decision to start this review with a cheap quip. You gotta get the punters in somehow.

This is a difficult film to judge. I won’t pretend that it’s the most engaging movie out there. It’s very format and the way that it’s shot are not exactly viewer friendly or, to be fair, intended to be so. The “found footage” format means that form effectively becomes content, and much of the dialogue has metatextual fun about this. I mean, we even get the line “think of the joy of being in a really good film”. Cocky, much? This film is very clever, I admit, but I’m not sure I think it’s particularly great. The bad direction may be not only deliberate but fundamental to the story telling, but it’s still bad direction.

On the other hand, this was the first in a  line of “found footage” films, most of which sank without trace, and perhaps it would have felt much fresher at the time of release. Certainly, it seems to have impressed the critics in 1999 far more than its modern reputation would suggest.

The actual plot is nothing less than superb, and the scares are handled well. There is nothing wrong with the script, characterisation, or acting. But we have a paradox. The amateur style of direction is simultaneously essential to the narrative and a barrier to the viewer. It simply makes the film harder to watch, especially for a mainstream audience. Still, it seems to have attracted that same mainstream audience, so what do I know?

There are some nice touches. I like the switches between monochrome, sepia, and colour for effect. It is also a wise decision to leave the nature of the supernatural threat pleasingly vague. It’s much scarier that way. The ending is confused, but that’s the point.

As I said, this is a hard film to judge. Perhaps I should just simply say that it is a fascinating document of film history. I’m glad I’ve seen it.

Cruel Intentions (1999)

“You can put it anywhere!”

This is a first; a film which my girlfriend persuaded me to blog in the hope that I‘d slag it off. She hates it. Yes, it’s partly her intense dislike of Sarah Michelle Gellar, but it’s also the slowness, dullness and, yes, poshness of all the characters. This is a modern update of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, and all the rich New York protagonists are quite as obnoxious as any aristocrat from pre-revolutionary France.

There’s an awkward tension pervading the film, in fact; the plot is adapted from a play written in the 1780s, and the intricate structure of the storyline very much feels like it. This fits very awkwardness with the modernity of the setting, the characters and the social mores./It’s well-executed, but Les Liaisons Dangereuses doesn’t fit well with the modern high school movie. The film is not bad, but it’s hard to admire, and easy to mock. I’m reminded of Not Another High School Movie and its piss take of the lesbian kiss scene- a scene which, incidentally, makes both myself and my bisexual girlfriend go “Euuurgh!”.

Sarah Michelle Gellar is good, as always, although one note, as always. She’s a good actress, but not very likeable. Ryan Philippe is… meh. Reese Witherspoon is really rather good, admittedly. But perhaps it’s not the performances; none of the characters are remotely likeable. They’re all arseholes. Kathryn and Sebastian are cruel and arrogant, Cecile is self-centred, while Annette, for all her self-proclaimed “morals”, thinks relationships matter so little that we needn’t bother finding out whether we’re sexually compatible with each other before getting married.

Admittedly, the direction is good. The oddly British indie soundtrack (Placebo during the opening titles, the Verve’s overrated Bittersweet Symphony, and Blur’s Coffee and TV during the lesbian kiss- interesting choice) is ok too. But the whole thing is hard to take seriously, with so many sex scenes which need to be filmed at weird camera angles to avoid showing too much. And this is set in a world of privilege with which it’s hard to identify. Oh, and the late ‘90s were a fashion wasteland, but you knew that.

This isn’t an awful film, but it isn’t essential either. I’m not going to disappoint my girlfriend: Cruel Intentions is kind of meh.

Free Enterprise (1999)

"What would William Shatner do?"

I can't believe I'd never heard of this film until a few weeks ago. It's essentially a romantic comedy set in the world of geek culture. It very much like (and as good as) a Kevin Smith film (Chasing Amy in particular), but with William Shatner instead of Jay and Silent Bob. It's funny, witty, and well worth seeing.

There are a lot of Star Trek references in here, of course, but the net of geeky cultural references is cast wide enough to please everyone. Personally, I'm someone who watches and enjoys Star Trek (except Voyager and Enterprise, cos they're rubbish), but I'd stop short of calling myself a fan. Doctor Who fandom has become a huge part of my social life, and I've dipped a toe into Buffyverse fandom. Star Trek, much as I enjoy it, is lacking in a certain quirkiness, and I suppose I'm not too keen on the authoritarian Utopianism of the whole concept of the Federation. Also, I have this general impression (which may be very, very wrong!) is a different culture from the fandoms I'm used to, which tend to be vaguely left of centre and don't take themselves too seriously. The original series still rules, though, and I also like TNG, much as I always side with Q.

This film makes me wonder if I'm wrong about Star Trek fandom, though. The characters are likeable, funny and (sort of) cool. They're very, very South Californian, what with all the mutual psychoanalysing that goes on, they all seem to work in "the industry", and Bob and Mark, at least, seem to live in very nice-looking apartments, but ultimately they're people I can identify with.

It's interesting, though, that one thing that's dated since 1999 has been the concept that girls don't get geek culture, which is nowhere near as true as it once was. Geekery is not as marginalised as it was then. Then again, it wasn't really until the '90s that adult geek culture really began to get noticed by the media at all.

I also like the way that the film sharply differentiates between Bob's geekery and his immaturity. He's not immature because he's a geek; Claire's as much of a geek as he is. He's immature because he's useless with money and gets himself stupidly fired. It's refreshing how this film makes a clear distinction between being childish (bad thing) and being childlike (bad thing).

Mark, of course, is nearly 30, after which it is of course all downhill. I like the way the film Logan's Run (must see that someday!) gets used to symbolise this. It's one of many nice little touches in the film. My favourite is the scene with, er, some very, very dangerous driving, although Mark's stirring monologue towards the end comes a close second. It's nice how the plot ends, in true romantic comedy style, with Bob, Mark and the Shat all being paired off.

It's nice, for once, to have a film where all the actors are unknowns, and you don't get distracted by actor-spotting. This also means that the film's guest star, the Shat himself, really gets to stand out and shine, cheerfully taking the piss out of himself. Still, a six hour musical version of Julius Caesar, with William Shatner playing all the characters? I don't know about you, but I'd pay good money to see that.