Agent Cody Banks

Posted on March 9, 2003 at 6:35 am

I took four young teenagers to this movie and they loved it. But I was not as impressed.

The idea is a cute one — but it was cuter when they did the same thing in two editions of “Spy Kids.” This version is mildly enjoyable, but suffers by comparison to those wildly imaginative and funny movies.

Frankie Muniz (“Malcolm in the Middle”) plays Cody Banks, a 15-year-old who has been attending a CIA-sponsored summer camp that has given him all the training he needs to be a junior secret agent. But when he gets his first assignment, to get close to Natalie (Hillary Duff, TV’s “Lizzie McGuire”), the daughter of a scientist, it turns out that $10 million of training that covered every detail of combat and espionage left out one detail — how to talk to girls.

So, Cody gets some quick and confusing lessons and then finds himself in a new school, trying to make friends with Natalie. He finally gets the hang of it just in time to save the day when she is kidnapped and taken to that most popular of spy movie destinations, the bad guy’s arctic secret lair.

Muniz and Duff are always fun to watch and there are some nice stunts, especially a skateboard rescue of a toddler in a runaway car and a snowboard entry into the aforementioned lair. Saturday Night Live’s Darryl Hammond is a lot of fun as the equivalent of James Bond’s “Q” character, the guy with all the gadgets. Angie Harmon does not have much to do except show up in a series of outfits more appropriate for Spy Barbie. And the movie wastes the time and talents of two of Hollywood’s best actors, Martin Donovan and Cynthia Stevenson, as parents of the teens in the lead roles. The story is lifted from a combination of “Dr. No” and the recent (and better) “Clockstoppers.” The movie won’t have much appeal to anyone outside the 10-16 demographic it is aimed at, but there are so few movies for that group that it does not seem fair to complain.

Parents should know that the movie has violence, including one grisly death by disintegration. Characters use some strong schoolyard language (“screwed up,” “play doctor,” “Are you in special ed?”) and there is a locker room scene in which a woman snatches the towel from a boy’s middle and snaps it at another boy’s crotch. (The flesh-colored underpants the boy was wearing under the towel are reassuringly evident.) The adult woman spy dresses like a comic book character, but she is strong and capable. The head of the CIA ia a black man. There is a joke about using the special x-ray glasses to peek at women’s underwear and an adult makes a joke about breasts. It is highly insensitive to have characters use “special ed” as an insult. Most troubling is that one of the young people in the movie is directly responsible for the death of a bad guy — usually, in movies for this age group, they are careful to have the bad guy killed as the result of his own actions, like falling off a building when he lunges for someone. Some audience members may be upset about this.

Families who see this movie should talk about whether they would like to be spies. They might want to check out the CIA’s website. I like the description of what they are looking for in spy candidates: “an adventurous spirit, a forceful personality, superior intellectual ability, toughness of mind, and a high degree of personal integrity, courage, and love of country. You will need to deal with fast-moving, ambiguous, and unstructured situations that will test your resourcefulness to the utmost.”

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Spy Kids 1 and 2, Clockstoppers, and Big Fat Liar.

Related Tags:

 

Not specified

Adaptation

Posted on December 19, 2002 at 2:31 pm

There are people who care so passionately about something that it fills them up completely. And then there are the rest of us, who can never lose themselves that way, people who divide their interest and attention and always hold a little bit of themselves back to observe and judge.

“Adaptation,” like the book that inspired it, is about both kinds of people and the way that each sometimes longs to be in the other category. The book is The Orchid Thief by New Yorker author Susan Orlean. By nature, by culture — by definition — a writer is at the furthest end of the scale in the observer/judge category. Orlean begins to write about Lohn Laroche, a man who even by the fevered standards of those utterly captured by “orchidelerium” is utterly obsessed. She realizes that she is not just writing about Laroche or about orchids but about the nature of obsession itself. In a way, she becomes obsessed with obsession.

The main character in the movie becomes obsessed with Susan Orlean’s obsession with John Laroche’s obsession with orchids. He is Charlie Kaufman (played by Nicolas Cage), the Hollywood screenwriter hired to adapt Orlean’s book for the screen.

The real-life Kaufman wrote the beguilingly twisted “Being John Malcovich” and the all-but-unseen “Human Nature.” The movie opens with Kaufman’s attack of insecurity as he meets with a producer to discuss The Orchid Thief. As he struggles to adapt it, his self-doubt, underscored by the contrast with his confident identical twin brother Donald (also played by Cage) becomes an almost insurmountable obstacle. But the real obstacle is not his weakness, but his strength. While his brother casually dashes off a ludicrous screenplay about a serial killer with multiple personalities, utterly unconcerned about issues like consistency, Charlie agonizes about the imperviousness of Orlean’s book to adaptation. Finally, he decides that he movie should be about that problem, and he proceeds with such girl-on-a-ketchup-bottle-with-a-picture-of-a-girl-on-a-ketchup-bottle thoroughness that in the opening moments, the screenplay is credited to both (the real-life) Charlie and (the fictional) Donald.

Like “Malcovich,” this movie has moments of bizarre humor in the context of profound and genuine questions about identity, inversion, inspiration, obsession, and meaning and meta-meaning and meta-meta-meaning. Kaufman loves writing for the same reason Laroche loves the orchids — for their difficulty and fragility. It has some sharp Hollywood satire and some wildy funny plot twists. This is the kind of movie that makes fun of emotional turning points inspired by platitudes but then, when it throws one in (in the middle of a jungle environment that is real and symbolic), it’s a very nice one: “You are what you love, not what loves you.”

The performances are marvelous, particularly Meryl Streep as Orlean and Chris Cooper as Laroche. Ron Livingston’s performance as Charlie’s agent is a small comic gem, Brian Cox is masterful as a screenwriting expert, and Judy Greer is radiant as an orchid-loving, pie-serving waitress.

Parents should know that the movie has very mature material, including very strong language, brief nudity, sexual references and situations (including masturbation and a porn website), drinking, smoking, and drug use. There is a brief but very explicit scene of a baby being born. The movie has quasi-comic violence, but characters are injured and killed. Characters break the law, including stealing from nature preserves and making psychotropic drugs.

Families who see this movie should talk about how we chose our passions – or whether they choose us. Do Laroche and Orlean envy each other? Does Charlie envy Donald? Why did Charlie the real-life screenwriter divide himself in two in the movie portrayal? Why did he take real-life characters like Susan Orlean and John Laroche and have their movie characters do things that they never did? What do you learn from Laroche’s reason for not fixing his teeth? If you were going to re-create yourself as a movie character, what would you write? This movie both uses and makes fun of many movie conventions – which ones did you spot?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy seeing “Being John Malcovich” (very mature material) and other dark movies about Hollywood like “Day of the Locust” and “The Player.” They might also enjoy Cage in the face-switching movie “Face Off” and some other twin movies like “A Stolen Life” and “The Parent Trap.”

Related Tags:

 

Not specified

Equilibrium

Posted on December 16, 2002 at 10:06 am

Equilibrium is set in the joyless state of Libria. It is a society built on peace at all costs. In a bid to make the outbreak of war impossible in this post-nuclear apocalypse, early Twenty First Century, all human emotions are outlawed. Any material, such as books or artworks, that might cause people to feel sensations is destroyed, as are those who engage in their production, dissemination or appreciation. Human instincts are kept in check through the regular taking of the drug Prozium. Prozium enables people to give up their own spouses and parents for execution by the state for engaging in “sense crimes”, without guilt or sorrow.

The protectors of this violent peace are the “clerics”. They are highly trained to detect anyone failing to take their Prozium doses and destroy members of the underground who allow themselves to partake in feeling. John Preston (Christian Bale) is a leading cleric, ruthless in tracking down and eradicating sense criminals. He feels nothing about destroying those closest to him. However, after a potent meeting with underground member, Mary (Emily Watson), and a missed dose of Prozium, Preston too begins to allow himself to have feelings.

So, the once emotionless, calculating cleric sets about his task of bringing down the system from the inside. In a world based upon suspicion and a near psychic perception of those who illegally retain their sensations and sensitivities this is fraught with danger. On a number of occasions Preston is almost caught out by his own newly found, emotion-driven folly and the sharpness of his new partner, Brandt (Taye Diggs). Fortunately, Preston is saved by writer/director Kurt Wimmer’s unwillingness to let logic or consistency get in the way of his story.

Equilibrium draws heavily from George Orwell’s classic, 1984. Wimmer substitutes “Big Brother” for “Father” whose voice and features are projected across Libria on enormous television screens, constantly reminding people of the dangers of the natural human state and the devastation it had led to in earlier, less sophisticated societies. Where Orwell has “thought police”, Wimmer has “sense police”. States in Orwell’s world subdue their populations by the need to maintain their war efforts, while Libria’s justifies the abuse of its people through the notion of sustaining peace.

There are a number of interesting issues that Equilibrium sets up to address. In discussions with children these could easily be drawn out, but the film itself descends into a predictable and formulaic shoot-em-up sci-fi action movie. The ninja-based gun fighting style used by the clerics verges on the balletic, but for any admirer of this film genre, they will have witnessed almost identical scenes in The Matrix.

Ultimately, Preston, emotion and beauty win over the dour, controlling Librian state. Rather than straightforward tales of good over evil, the subject of this film means that one is led to question these opposing concepts. Peace is surely good, but then in this case evil derives from an all-consuming quest for peace, which itself breeds violence. Notions of the importance of love, loyalty and joy abound, but glory is also associated with violence and destruction. Equilibrium raises all these issues, and more, for those willing to look into them. Unfortunately, and somewhat ironically, the style of the film encourages one to switch off sense awareness and subtle thinking.

Parents should know that the film is violent. The opening scenes show a sense police raid, involving much shooting and death. The closing scenes are of greater violence, big explosions and more death. In between there is intermittent violence and death. Despite this, Equilibrium is not unusually violent movie for this kind of movie and the deaths are not gory. Some younger children might be upset by the sense police’s arrest and abduction of Preston’s wife in front of her young family.

Families who enjoyed this movie may also like: “Minority Report,” “Matrix,” and “Clockwork Orange.” They might also want to read some classic dystopian literature, like Huxley’s Brave New World or 1984.

Related Tags:

 

Not specified

Eight Legged Freaks

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:18 am

“Eight Legged Freaks” is essentially a cheesy 1950’s sci-fi drive-in movie with un-cheesy special effects. There’s no sense of irony and not much of a sense of humor. Instead, it has a rather sweet sense of pleasure in its own conventions, a sure sense of pacing, and some very impressive huge spiders. And I guess we found out where that surprising hyphen came from in “Spider-Man.” It’s missing from the title of this movie, which makes it appear to be about eight creatures with legs.

These are not Peter Parker’s spiders. They don’t give you super powers – they eat you. Remember in “Annie Hall” when Woody Allen told Diane Keaton that the spider in her bathtub was the size of a Buick? These are even bigger, more like the size of an SUV.

It’s all the fault of that old movie standby, “chemicals.” A small Arizona town is on the verge of going under, about to vote to sell the entire place for what the mayor says is a highway. But he has bad teeth and icky hair and is mean to his stepson, so don’t believe him. Chris (David Arquette), the son of the man who owned the now-abandoned mine, has come back after 10 years, hoping to realize his father’s dream of tapping into a gold vein and his own dream of finally telling the girl he loves (Kari Wuhrer as Sam), now the town sheriff, how he feels.

The plot is very simple, more computer game than story, but really a classic re-creation of movies like “The Blob” and “World Without End.” A chemical spill and some undisclosed toxic waste transform an entire zoo of 200 exotic spiders into huge, hungry monsters. Then the spiders chase the people, catching many of them. At first, no one believes it, then they run away, try to hide, and then fight back.

Parents should know that, despite the smart-alecky title, this movie is not a comedy like “Evolution” (okay, that was more of an attempted comedy) and does not temper the scariness with attitude, like “Men in Black.” It is a straight-out scarefest, and right up to the farthest edges of the PG-13 rating, with very explicit and gross violence and a lot of jump-out-at-you surprises. Characters are killed and eaten. In addition, a character chain-smokes, there is some alcohol, and some strong language. There is a reference to a teen pregnancy and to adultery. A teen-age girl is extremely clear about not being ready to have sex, despite pressure from a boy she likes very much, but parents may be concerned about her use of a stun gun to make her point. The female characters are tough and brave. One of the main characters is black, and although he is portrayed as a little paranoid and crazy, he is also brave and loyal.

Families who watch this movie should talk about the different kinds of spiders, which are actually fascinating creatures who benefit humans by eating mosquitoes. They might want to do some research here.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy Arachnophobia and Tremors.

Related Tags:

 

Not specified

The Country Bears

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:18 am

Less story than product placement, “The Country Bears” may go down in history as the first movie ever based on a theme park attraction. I hope it goes down as the last. Much as I enjoy the ride, I don’t want to see “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Movie”* or “The Tiki Room Birds on Broadway.”

Disney World’s robot bear performances may just have a better plot than this movie, which is basically “The Blues Brothers” with fur. Yes, it’s the old story about getting the band back together.

The movie begins with some wit and style – a wood-burning credit sequence and “Behind the Music”-style clips about the beloved band’s rise and fall. Their last series of concerts was called the “Hiber-Nation” tour.

But then it disintegrates into a dumb story about a bear adopted by humans (voice of Haley Joel Osment as “Beary”) who runs away from home because he feels different. The Country Bears Hall is about to be torn down by wicked Reed Thimple (Christopher Walken). Beary decides that the only way to raise the money to keep it standing is to get the band back together. That sets up the rest of the movie as we meet up with a series of indistinguishable bears and watch Beary remind them of what they used to mean to each other.

Some surprising guest appearances by Elton John, Willie Nelson, Bonnie Raitt, Don Henley, and Queen Latifah (Raitt and Henley contribute singing voices) and some lively musical numbers by Disney label artists provide bright spots. But the in-between doses of silliness and syrup just dragged. The kids in the audience loved the scene with the policemen caught in the car wash, though.

Parents should know that although the movie is rated G and has none of the usual parental concerns, they should be sensitive to some of the issues in the movie that may trouble children. Beary runs away, and his parents are frantic about his safety, but he does not let them know where he is and does not seem to miss them for most of the movie. Beary’s human parents don’t tell him the truth about his adoption. He is told about his origins very cruelly by his jealous brother. Some parents will regret having their children see a character “play” music on his armpit if it sparks some attempts at imitation.

Families who see this movie should talk about how everyone feels different from the rest of the world at times, and how we make connections with those who are and who are not like us.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy The Muppet Movie and The Muppets Take Manhattan.

*I was kidding when I wrote this, but it turns out that a Pirates of the Caribbean movie did happen and, as you may know, it was terrific..

Related Tags:

 

Not specified
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2025, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik