2004 05 MAY RAG - RAG Magazine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

By: Crystal ClarkAROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYSJackie Chan, Steve CooganDirected by: Frank CoraciWalt Disney Pictures, PGJackie Chan and Steve Coogan take on the lead roles of this 2004remake of the 1956 movie, Around the World in 80 Days; a movie,itself, based on the popular 1873 novel by Jules Verne. The premisehas Passepartout (Chan) and Phileas Fogg (a somewhat annoyingCoogan) accepting a challenge to circle the globe in 80 days. Ofcourse, from the moment our bumbling tour guides attempt tocommence their journey, anything, and everything, goes awry andchaos ensues. The expedition itself takes about 40 minutes of screentime to get off the ground, a feat that would not have felt so taxinghad the film then not tormented us with the incessant ticking of thedays gone by (though I fully understand the need for this element).In case it wasn’t completely obvious, martial arts extraordinaire,Jackie Chan, is the superstar of this scaled-down action flick, andwhen he’s not jumping off buildings and/or warding-off enemies,he’s a hoot and holler of a good time. Yet the movie is far fromentertaining, unless you are under the age of twelve. In fact, the twoeight-year-olds sitting next to me were having an absolute ballmimicking all the cool karate maneuvers. These tots were so cutethat I found myself more interested in them, than the film’s scenariosunfolding before me (as did most of the adults in the theater). Thatbeing said, this is a true-blue family film (read: clean good fun) that isa genuine find amidst our current climate of war, violence, andpolitical permeations. As for the adults, if you find yourself becomingbored, just create your own fun by being on the lookout for theabundance of cameos by the likes of Owen and Luke Wilson, RobSchneider, Kathy Bates, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jim Broadbent,John Cleese, Mark Addy, Macy Gray, Richard Branson, and evendirector Frank Coraci.GARFIELDBill Murray, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Breckin MeyerDirected by: Peter Hewitt20th Century Fox, PGI will admit it; I am not a Bill Murray fan. Even the much ballyhooed “Lost inTranslation” could not even do it for me. Therefore, when I finally found myselfwandering into the theater to see yet another Bill Murray movie (albeit amongstfive and six-year-olds this time), I was psyched that I would finally like a moviestarring Bill Murray (especially since it was only his voice I had to endure). Imean, the movie was Garfield! What could possibly go wrong? Well, asexpected, Murray embodies our lazy, lovable Garfield with the perfect blend ofsweet, sour, and sass –that is- until he starts to sing –albeit very, very badly.And it only gets worse from there. Garfield comes to life entirely from CGI(which looks absolutely horrible), but I was determined to see where thefilmmakers were going with this. That is, until Garfield’s animal “costars”appeared on screen. Um, why were they real animals? It didn’t make anysense! Not only does this concept miss the point entirely, but I don’t care howcute or talented an animal is, you’re never going to get them to “interact” with agreen screen! Case in point: Odie, Nermal, and Arlene all appear to beresponding to a trainer, or an extra, or maybe a freaking soundman for thatmatter, anyone and everything, except for “Garfield.” And I don’t even wantto get started on the appearance of Garfield’s pals, most notably, Odie. Um,Odie does not even look like Odie! And Nermal’s big screen debut does not do him justice. As for Persnitkitty and Arlene,oh seriously, never mind. Unfortunately, there are real human actors lost amidst this CGI mess. The good news is, BrekinMeyer as Jon Arbuckle, Jennifer Love Hewitt as Dr. Liz Wilson, and Stephen Tobolowsky as Happy Chapman are allperfectly cast; the bad news is, they were cast in a really, really bad movie. How bad you ask? Well, take this factoidfor starters: Garfield’s cartoon creator and film executive producer, Jim Davis, cast himself in a cameo as a drunkenconventioneer. Now imagine what his thought bubble would have said, had it been in cartoon form. Oops, there wentthat PG Rating.48 • JULY 2004 • RAG MAGAZINE
HARRY POTTERand the Prisoner of AzkabanDaniel Radcliffe, Emma Thompson, Gary OldmanDirected by: Alfonso CuaronWarner Brothers, PGHarry Potter and his crew have returned to Hogwarts Academyto experience yet another year of spells, potions, andeventual doom. It isn’t long before everyone is made keenlyaware of the dangers that are lurking within the shadows ofHogwarts: Sirius Black (a Prisoner of Azkaban convicted ofkilling dozens of people, including Potter’s parents) has escaped.Rumor has it that Black is on the lookout for Harry Potter,and not in a good way. As the school’s security is heightened,the soul-sucking Dementors (Azkaban prison guards) hoverover every door and window, just lying-in-wait for Sirius Blackto turn up, so they can do with him what they will.Though I have long been a fan of the Chris Columbus-helmedPotter movies, the moment I discovered that the gloriousGary Oldman had been cast to embody the mysterious Black,and the controversial Alfonso Cuaron had been dared todirect, I felt that this was going to be the crème-de-la-crèmeof movie-making magic. Well, so much for Harry Potter’s“so-called” undefeatable wizardry. Even Potter, himself,could not save this film from a perplexing Hollywood spell. First andforemost, gone are the magnificent color palettes last seen jumping outand grabbing us in the first two films. Gone too is the apparent interest inany other character, except for Harry. Rupert Grint’s Ron is lost in the mix;no seriously, he simply vanishes for two-thirds of the movie (and that’s nota plot point). Emma Watson’s Hermonie makes her way on screen, thoughit’s largely in a sidekick role, merely providing someone for Harry to con-THE STEPFORD WIVESNicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Christopher WalkenDirected by: Frank OzParamount Pictures, PG-13As the film’s tagline boldly asserts: the wives of Stepford have a secret. But don’t let Nicole Kidman“shushing you” on film’s poster fool you: Glenn Close is the star of this wildly, twisted comedy-drama.Close portrays Claire Wellington, a modern-day Suzy Homemaker who single-handedly runs theshow within the picketed fences, manicured lawns, and colossal mansions of Stepford, Connecticut.Wellington organizes “the wives” daily activities –from quasi-exercising, to competitive baking, tohow a Stepford wife is “supposed” to look, act, and obey, all while catering to their husband’s everyneed. 2004’s The Stepford Wives is more of an updated mockery of its 1975 evil-driven predecessor,whose central theme was for the men of Stepford to replace their independent, intelligent, normallookingwives with robotic interpretations of the idealistic spouse. That is, one who is skinny andbeautiful and cooks, cleans, and services her husband without any complaints or regard for her ownwell-being or aspirations. This new and improved version of The Stepford Wives comes to life as alargely comical vehicle, aimed mostly to scoff at the absurdity of the original book (by Ira Levin) andinitial theatrical release, though some portions of the film do celebrate its contemptible treatment ofwomen (as made evident by many men heard laughing in the theater, while no doubt secretly wishingthis were a possible reality). Kidman and Broderick are an exhausted New York couple looking for abreather in the soft and gentle world of Connecticut. Kidman’s Joanna was a once high-powered,egotistical female executive who constantly succeeded in the male-dominated world of televisionproduction. That is, until a reality TV wacko that she cast, nearly guns her down, as well as theauditorium full of executives she’s addressing. Joanna’s quick and sassy and it doesn’t take long forher to realize that something is terribly wrong with the women of Stepword, but is it too late to saveherself from the same cruel, imminent fate? Antics aside, you should definitely make it a point to visitStepford; creepiness not withstanding, it is a community chock-full of acting talent – including anenchanting Christopher Walken, a spot-on Bette Midler, a scene-stealing Roger Bart, a film debut byFaith Hill, and an understated (is that possible?) Matthew Broderick. It that doesn’t get you, considerthis: it’s directed by Frank Oz (a.k.a Miss Piggy). Now that has got to be as far from a Stepford wifeas you can get! Hi-yah!verse. Potter’s nemesis, Draco Malfoy, shows up long enough to piss offour lovable trio of Harry, Hermoine, and Ron, and then he’s relegated to thebackground along with Maggie Smith’s Professor McGonagall (who’s givenseconds of screen time at best) and Michael Gambon’s Dumbledore (whodoes what he can when asked to fill the worldly shoes of the late RichardHarris).As for the much-anticipated appearance of GaryOldman, well, his screen time is limited to his CGIladenmug on the cover of the local newspaper.Other than that, his highly publicized addition isminimal at best (he doesn’t materialize until the thirdact). Oldman is one of the best actors in the businessand it’s a shame that he’s wasted in such anonexistent role. Even more depressing is theperformance of David Thewlis as Professor Lupin.Thewlis’ acting is downright repulsive, whichreally would not have bothered me, had he notbeen a major character. Rumors have circulatedthat the charismatic Jude Law had been eyed forthis role; I can only imagine how magnificently hewould have chewed the scenery had the “powers-that-be”been able to work that out. Therefore,the only standout performance here is that ofEmma Thompson’s crazy “tea-leaf reading” ProfessorTrelawney. That being said, Robbie Crane’sRubeus Hagrid does provide ample plot stewingantics and Alan Rickman’s Professor Snape is as prickly as ever, yet histalents demand a juicier role. Nevertheless, the agonizing question thatkept circulating through my mind was: where-oh-where was that adorablesorting hat and the myriad of the once-epitomized and innovative specialeffects that Harry Potter fans have come to expect? Perhaps Mike Newell, thedirector of the next installment “Goblet of Fire,” should have Harry Potter wavehis magic wand over its script before they begin shooting.JULY 2004 • RAG MAGAZINE • 49
Page 4 and 5: PUBLISHERSean McCloskey - sean.mccl
Page 6 and 7: Dallas, Texas band Drowning Pool ar
Page 8: WEDNESDAYFRIDAYSUNDAYMONDAYTUESDAYW
Page 11 and 12: TIM MCGRAWSOUND ADVICE AMPHITHEATER
Page 14: BIG & RICHSOUND ADVICE AMPHITHEATER
Page 19 and 20: crowd hoorah anthems as well as thr
Page 22: PJ HarveyUh Huh HerIslandPJ Harvey
Page 25 and 26: GET AFREE T-SHIRT12 ISSUES $25
Page 28 and 29: Tim: Absolutely. [After] the first
Page 33 and 34: Story: Monica CadySome things incre
Page 35 and 36: Parks Bonifay. Snyder says these gu
Page 37 and 38: distribution to see exactly what ty
Page 39 and 40: “There are plentyof laughs whenev
Page 41 and 42: RAG: How would you describe MEG’s
Page 44 and 45: Story: Monica Cady - Photos: Trey C
Page 46: elements, with fans having to withs
Page 52 and 53: NEW TO DVDFiled under “ironic,”
Page 55 and 56: MUSICIANSWANTEDGuitar Player, Singe
Page 57: PERSONALSSWM - Blond, Blue eyes sle

2004 05 MAY RAG - RAG Magazine

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?