The Devil's Advocate (1997)

Film: The Devil's Advocate
Release: 1997, Theatrical
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Al Pacino, Charlize Theron
Directed by: Taylor Hackford
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Kevin Lomax is the most successful lawyer in his hometown in Florida, when he gets a job offer in a prestigious New York based law firm everything seems to be going his way, except for a boss that might have a very different agenda from what he first let on.

Hans' thoughts:

At first glance, this movie seems like it will be pretty predictable. Keanu Reeves plays a young ambitious up and comer lawyer that puts aside his morals to do whatever it takes to win his cases. He's then hired by a major law firm and given the opportunity of a lifetime in the city of New York. Very simple crime thriller-like storyline with a star-studded cast. However, the movie is actually pretty well executed as the young Mr. Lombax loses his ability to keep up with both personal and work related matters as the high pressure makes the world crash around him slowly. Around the half-way point, the movie suddenly changes. Strange things are starting to happen and our main characters mentor and boss seems to be very different than he first let on. That could have been a good enough movie on itself, and I certainly would've enjoyed the movie much more had it not been for the climax of the movie. A film that has till now seemed like a very by-the-book crime thriller suddenly turns into something VERY different. Had this been more clear earlier in the movie, I probably would've accepted it but this turn of events just feels so over the top and out of nowhere that I just couldn't suspend my disbelief any longer when it was time for the big reveal.

On the acting side, it is very hit and miss. While Al Pacino phones it in as Mr. Milton, Keanu Reeves tries his best to be taken seriously with a fake southern accents. Overall, the acting from the minor characters is a lot better but unfortunately not present for for most of the film as the main focus of the movie is conversations between Reeves and Pacino. Charlize Theron tries her best in the movie, but it is obvious she was cast for her looks and not her acting ability. The Devil's Advocate turned out to be a movie with a pretty decent setup that unfortunately just fell flat, what could have been a very good crime thriller about big business and career pressure went down a road where a combination of so-so effects (even by the standards of the era it was made) and poorly argued soapbox ranting that goes nowhere.

There is some very well-shot things in the movie, the look of the sets are pretty well thought out and the references to the city of Babylon fit the themes of the movie. But these are unfortunately not enough to make up for some frankly poorly written dialogue and lack of proper consequence for the characters of the movie. The message of the movie is also vague at best, mostly because of the aforementioned soapbox ranting.

Bean (1997)

Film: Bean
Alternate title: Bean - The Ultimate Disaster Movie
Release: 1997, theatrical
Starring: Rowan Atkinson, Peter MacNicol, Pamela Reed
Directed by:  Mel Smith
Next in the series: Mr. Bean's Holiday
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: After the chairman of the Royal National Gallery is denied the power to simply fire Mr. Bean, he sends him to America for the unveiling of the famous Whistler's Mother painting instead. Under the guise of an intellectual art professor.

Hans' thoughts:

How do you turn an almost completely silent character into the turning point of a 90 minute movie? Is it even possible? Mr. Bean is the character in question - and they certainly did a very good job of trying!

I say 'trying', but that's not really fair to the movie itself. When it comes to the visual gags - the whole point of Mr. Bean - the movie certainly delivers. Rowan Atkinson is in tip-top shape as the ultimate walking disaster that is Mr. Bean. Peter MacNicol is also the perfect foil to Bean, as he just embodies frustration so well in this movie. The poor character is tortured to absolutely extreme extents and Peter MacNicol really does the job well. I guess I just like his look, he really looks the part.

However, when it comes to the actual meat of the movie - the plot - the movie just kind of fails. So you have this amazing setup; the chairman of the Royal National Gallery cannot fire Mr. Bean. At the same time the American gallery, 'The Grierson' has gotten back the painting Whistler's Mother from the French thanks to an anonymous donor. The Grierson asks the Royal National Gallery to send a big name art professor to give a speech about the painting at the day of the reveal. The chairman sees an opportunity and sends Bean instead. The setup is very good, and there is definitely a lot you can do with the concept of having Bean come to America. Anyone who's seen the original series can tell you that everything that can go wrong WILL go wrong. 

Where the movie fails isn't really Bean himself - granted, he's never been a very detailed character, but you certainly get what you came to see. In the series he is very much the cause of his own grief and the grief of those around him. You might as well let a bull into a china shop. He's that bad. No, the problem of the story lies with the rest of the characters - especially that of the co-star's wife, played by Pamela Reed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Reed for this. She did what she could, and I'm sure she's a very talented actress.

However, the character of Alison Langley played by Reed is one of the most unintentionally shallow, hot-headed characters I have ever encountered on screen. So here's the setup: Peter MacNicol plays the facilitator at the unveiling of Whistler's Mother. To set a good example for his kids - and in turn meet with someone he assumes is very intelligent (remember that at this point all the American characters think Bean is a brilliant professor). He decides to let Bean stay under his roof for the duration of the museum planning and unveiling.

Bean shows up in the Langley residence, and before he even sets one foot inside, Alison Langley decides to take the kids and go live with her mother. Bean hasn't even given her a reason for her hatred yet. The character is unusually cruel and unnecessarily so. Unfortunately, this is not the only case, as most of the other characters in the movie (besides the son and the co-star) are very single-minded one-note characters. They just don't fit into a complete movie.

Bean is a very funny character, with some big possibilities for disaster. However, the shtick of the character just doesn't lend itself very well to the big screen. What's funny about Bean is just how disastrous consequences he can get mixed up in, and they really should have gone the extra mile for how cartoonish the problems could have been. Unfortunately the movie becomes a string of very short funny scenes, with almost every scene with the talking characters being kind of forgettable.

Will you get what you paid for with this movie? Sure. You'll get your fill of a collection of very funny Mr. Bean-type slapstick humor, unfortunately it just isn't held together with very good glue, and as a substantial movie it just fails.

George of the Jungle (1997)

Film: George of the Jungle
Release: 1997, theatrical

Starring: Brendan Fraser, Thomas Haden Church, John Cleese
Directed by: Sam Weisman
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window

Description: The adventurous Ursula Stanhope has her safari interrupted by her snooty upper-class fiancé. When the couple is attacked by a lion, Ursula is saved by the legendary "white ape", a man who grew up in the jungle. Hijinks unfolds.

Hans' thoughts:

This is one of those movies that were popular amongst kids when it came out but really doesn't hold up from the perspective of an adult. I was 7 at the time and I remember thinking this was one of the funniest movies I've seen. Constantly quoting it and talking about it with my friends for weeks afterwards. Then we kinda forgot about it. Rewatching it in adulthood, I can see why. Starting from the top, this movie relies heavily on the likability of Brendan Fraser. Sure, Brendan Fraser is a charismatic guy but in this one he's just laying the stupid on way too thick. This movie is filled with sub-par dialogue, badly timed slapstick and a quickly tiring running gag of the main character not looking where he's going and swinging straight into an obstacle head first. One of the points of the movie that could be funny is John Cleese as the talking ape, unfortunately he's either not taking the role seriously or the writers just didn't give him anything to work with. This movie also has a lot of really bad live-animal puppeteering. Going as far as dubbing monkey sounds over an actual monkey for the sake of a joke that ultimately falls flat. While the plot is certainly original, as in an interesting parody of Tarzan - king of the jungle it just doesn't work from a comedic perspective. I realize that comedy is subjective yes, but the timing of the jokes in this one is just too far off to work. I know I'm not being very nice but please let this movie stay buried, I know I will.